Talk:Balance of Terror

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Television: Episode coverage

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Star Trek High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Star Trek, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to all Star Trek-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Star TrekWikipedia:WikiProject Star TrekTemplate:WikiProject Star TrekStar Trek articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Science Fiction Low‑importance

	Speculative fiction portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Wasn't "balance of terror" a phrase used to describe the nuclear standoff of the Cold War/the policy adopted by the US and USSR in maintaing huge nuclear arsenals to ensure no one had the upper hand (thereby ensuring peace)? If I am right (and I may well be wrong), should we disambiguate, or place a note at the top directing someone to Balance of terror (policy). Or should we wait until I or someone else writes such an article? Any thoughts? Jwrosenzweig 21:35, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

That would be balance of terror (which there is one link to). I odn't think disambiguating by case is so bad here. Morwen 21:37, Dec 17, 2003 (UTC)

So, if I search "balance of terror" on Google, could I end up at this site first? And end up deciding to go elsewhere? How could we steer someone who accidentally ended up at the wrong article? Jwrosenzweig 21:40, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Well, if you do search today; you get star trek as hit 2, 4, 5. :) Maybe a small disambig note at the top of this page. Morwen 21:44, Dec 17, 2003 (UTC)

I think the more common term for the RW state of affairs would have been mutually assured destruction. - knoodelhed 21:46, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I think I'm well read on this topic and I've never heard the phrase "balance of terror". Can we source the use of this phrase, please? We don't want to be the ones to create new phrases here. Thanks. Rossami 22:45, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

http://www.rand.org/publications/classics/wohlstetter/P1472/P1472.html, #1 hit on google. Morwen 22:46, Dec 17, 2003 (UTC)

I don't know how to edit the sidebar; The Romulan Commander doesn't "antagonize" over Captain Kirk's tactical ability, he agonizes. Can somebody correct this? Thanks. Clarityfiend 03:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

^^^You just hit "edit this page," and find the text that is under the sidebar and edit it. Sir Rhosis 00:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remastered version

Just want to document a bit more some edits I just made to the bullet point about this being the first episode of the remastered Trek. It was the first (in most markets) to air, but do we have any source that it was the first actually to be remastered, as the sentence implied before my edit? Also, it stated that it was airing in HDTV, but from what I've been reading, the episodes were produced in HD but are currently being broadcast in SD. [1] -- Hawaiian717 06:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rand

Should mention maybe that in original running order this was the last ep in which Yeoman Rand appeared.Captain Pedant (talk) 21:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia? Alastairward (talk) 21:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to tell; the article for the previous episode ("The Conscience of the King")indicates that her walk-on there was her final filmed scene, so her appearance here has to do with filming vs. broadcast order. It's a bit odd to watch the previous episode, read the article on it (with the aforementioned blurb), and then watch the next one and go, "why's Rand there?" MSJapan (talk) 04:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Episode brings to mind a WW II movie. Title?

This episode strongly reminds me of a WWII movie at sea in which an American destroyer captain plays a cat and mouse game with a German captain of a U-boat. Just as with this episode, the commanders engender a mutual respect. Does anyone recall the title of this movie? Also, did the Star Trek writer ever acknowledge being influenced by it? Thanks.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 00:18, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@HistoryBuff14: That would be The Enemy Below from 1957.

Scr★pIron^IV 21:35, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much!!HistoryBuff14 (talk) 15:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

marriage subplot

Should it be included in the plot section? 67.169.147.28 (talk) 08:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

The reception section was (and still is) essentially a long list and clearly needs work, but simply deleting it is not an improvement.[2] Especially not if it leaves a huge list of unexplained references.

There seems to be potential to reorganize and clean it up, to try and move away from the list and instead write out more prose. Actual reviews could be separated and from the top lists. I think it is more important to include details about why this episode was frequently rated by critics and fans as one of the best episodes rather than the numbered ranking themselves being important. -- 109.78.204.175 (talk) 22:25, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The best way to reorganize this is not immediately clear. Broadly speaking there is lots of praise for the episode as a whole, and also praise for the performance of Mark Lenard specifically. Presenting that nicely as prose is the hard part. It might also be worth reorganising some of the top lists. Several take the form of binge watch or viewing guides. Others rate the episode as a whole.

Deleting is easy, improving is hard. I've done a small bit to reorganize it, but there is certainly more that could be done to make it better. I hope others will try and improve it too and like Wikipedia in general it will gradually get better. -- 109.78.204.175 (talk) 23:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. Expanding the section with more prose will not improve it. It is already badly hypertrophied. I count more than two dozen references, nearly all of them quickly written clickbait listicles repeating the same received opinions. Every one of the articles cited was published recently, within a compressed span of about five years. This is out of line with typical "Reception" sections on WP, which emphasize contemporary opinion, followed by some more recent assessments in the case of works with enduring popularity. I think it is worth pointing out that this section attributes critical opinions to publications rather than to named critics; this is because the writers are ciphers, churning out "content" for an algorithm hungry for lists and rankings. Long before you get to twenty instances, the section has devolved into noise, and organizing the listicles into categories and adding verbiage will not help.

I realize that it took someone a lot of effort to build this list of links. Sadly, there are too many of them, and they are not noteworthy. Three or four would suffice, together with a brief summary of the critical consensus. I humbly propose "The episode is frequently praised by critics and cited as one of the best episodes of Star Trek."

I don't think much of your insinuation I am not seeking to improve the article. I sincerely think "The episode is frequently praised by critics and cited as one of the best episodes of Star Trek" is a great improvement over a screenful—many, on mobile—of repetitive links. I did not remove the citations in the hope someone might choose a few of the most notable and remove the rest. I am arguing that is what we ought to do now. I think you should immediately stop expanding the section. How will making it bigger improve the article? If a tree falls somewhere on the internet, does WP have to record the event? Just because it's a reliable source doesn't mean we have to leap to précis everything it prints. Take a step back and just look at the size of the section. Look how little variety of opinion it describes, and in what paucity of detail.

Regulov (talk) 00:46, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well said, Regulov. There are one or two editors who for a long time have been obsessively adding content such as you mention. I agree with your proposal. Eric ^talk 11:32, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. StarHOG (Talk) 14:11, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed? Regulov (talk) 17:29, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reception sections have been a standard part of Wikipedia articles since the beginning, and wholesale deletion would really be a major change. There is nothing wrong with reporting what sources are saying about this episode. Starspotter (talk) 12:44, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No one disputes that. The list of sources formerly found here was much longer than is typical on WP, the articles cited were in most cases pretty slapdash, and the praise was unanimous and one-dimensional. The section has not been removed; it has been pruned back to a reasonable length. The article does, in fact, report what sources say about the episode, just not every source that can be found under every couch cushion. Regulov (talk) 10:04, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]