Talk:We'll Always Have Paris (Star Trek: The Next Generation)

We'll Always Have Paris (Star Trek: The Next Generation) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

We'll Always Have Paris (Star Trek: The Next Generation) is part of the Star Trek: The Next Generation (season 1) series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 26, 2013	Good article nominee	Listed
August 10, 2016	Good topic candidate	Promoted

Current status: Good article

Television: Episode coverage Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Star Trek Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-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[edit]

This article was proposed for deletion December 2004. The discussion is archived at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/We'll Always Have Paris.

Moves[edit]

The lieutenant scores ONE hit against Picard, one. Then Picard uses a clever and elegant tac-au-tac move against the lieutenant; they each score ONE hit against the over. This should be clearly expressed in the article.

Then express it, that's what the EDIT button in for. Cyberia23 20:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a second, STTNG trumps Casablana?[edit]

Yes, Star Trek is a fine show and it deserved every Emmy it received. However, Casablanca is considered one of the best films ever. "We'll always have Paris" is one of the best known lines of cinema ever. I would strongly suggest having "We'll always have Paris" direct to Casablanca. ---Ransom (--68.126.135.123 (talk) 03:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I'm in partial agreement. The vast majority of people searching this term are very likely thinking about the movie. I'd say this should go to a disambig page. Joshdboz (talk) 05:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:We'll Always Have Paris (Star Trek: The Next Generation)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Retrolord (talk · contribs) 03:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'll be taking this review. I will use the template below to assess the article against the criteria. Please mark your edits on the review page as Done when they are addressed. If there are any issues please let me know here or at my talk page. Thanks! ★★Retro Lord ★★ 03:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I have now mostly completed my revew. I'll put this on hold for a week and see what improvements we can make. Thanks! ★★Retro Lord ★★ 10:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Is it neccessary to repeat the [2] reference in the lead as it is mentioned elsewhere in the article? I had to look it up, but I knew I had read somewhere that quotes needed direct citations - even in the lead. It's in WP:WHYCITE. Miyagawa ([User talk:Miyagawa
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	I don't feel that the plot section explains what exactly is wrong with Dr Manheim. It seems to skip from "A woman requests help to save her husband" to "Dr Manheim recovers". Could you please add some extra detail here detailing the nature of Manheims injuries? ★★Retro Lord ★★ 10:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] Done Added some further material and split the middle paragraph in two. Miyagawa (talk) 15:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC) Done[reply] The article also doesn't really explain the time distortions, and the material in the lead picture isn't really explained in the article. Could you please fix this? ★★Retro Lord ★★ 10:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] Done I added a line to the plot giving the example of the distortion in the image. However it was just a split screen image which is fairly simple and I don't have anything technical on the formation of that particular scene, so I removed it from the infobox as I don't think it meets fair use requirements. Miyagawa (talk) 15:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC) Done[reply]
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	"Several reviewers re-watched the episode after the end of the series" Can we remove this? I don't think it is necessary to the article. ★★Retro Lord ★★ 10:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] I was asked to add that in during a previous GAN due to the length of time that has passed between the original airing of the episode and the actual reviews taking place, which also allows the reviewer to view the episode in the context of the episodes which followed it. Miyagawa (talk) 15:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] Ok then Done ★★Retro Lord ★★ 04:40, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] "comparing certain elements of the episode to Casablanca and the series finale "All Good Things...". These included the ending where a time distortion caused a trebled Data in "We'll Always Have Paris" compared to the trebled Picard in "All Good Things...". Overall she thought that the episode was better during the re-watch than she recalled previously." This section is quite confusing in my opinion, what exactly does "a trebled Data" refer to? Also, I think the bit about "better during the re-watch" should be removed, as it seems a bit superficial and unneccessary. ★★Retro Lord ★★ 10:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] Done I've removed the "better" bit and re-worded the trebled part to make it... well... make sense! :) Miyagawa (talk) 15:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC) Done[reply]
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Serious issue, the lead picture does not appear to have a fair use rationale, unless i'm missing something. ★★Retro Lord ★★ 10:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] There was one there, but in hindsight I just don't think a split screen shot warrented a fair use image. It's a pretty common technique, and so I've removed the image from the infobox as I don't think it meets a fair use requirement. Miyagawa (talk) 15:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] Done ★★Retro Lord ★★ 04:40, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass, well done ★★Retro Lord ★★ 05:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any other issues remaining that I need to look at? - having a little trouble making sure as for some reason the table isn't displaying the contents of the comments column correctly. Miyagawa (talk) 15:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think there is anything else to be done. But ill take one final look tonight. On my end, all the contents show up as pending and I have to go to the edit screen to read them. Are you getting that? ★★Retro Lord ★★ 20:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep same thing, but if I go into edit I can see the actual comments there. Miyagawa (talk) 22:05, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PASS! Well done. ★★Retro Lord ★★ 05:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Crusher[edit]

I was perplexed by Dr Crusher stroking the hair of her unconsious patient, Dr Manheim, wishing she could talk to him, and saying "I bet you were really something". Creepy and/or inappropriate behaviour. (In the story, Crusher has feelings about Picard and unhappy about his old flame appearing. But that never became an issue. This scene makes no sense.) 77.100.178.145 (talk) 11:27, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]