Talk:The 37's (episode)

37's v 37s
Is there a reason that this (and ) was moved? The episode is called "The 37's", not "The 37s", isn't it? -- Cid Highwind 11:06, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Morse Code
About this edit, it's a nitpick, but also, when was Morse code used in ? --Bp 08:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Not only that, but it is anachronistic canon-wise. Captain Proton isn't introduced until the Episode "Night", which doesn't appear until Season 4. Maybe Tom Paris writes Captain Proton after having met the '37s, but in any case that part isn't conflicting at all.
 * Also, there is no Morse code in "Emanations" that I am aware of. --205.237.164.110 02:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Warp 9.9
Paris says to Earhart that in her terms warp 9.9 is about 4 billion miles per second. I know Voyager isn't constantly able to go that fast for any significant length of time. But that would only mean it would take 3 years to cross the whole galaxy. -- Suso 20:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The difference between 9.7ish and 9.9 is huge, both in terms of speed and in power requirements. Although I am unsure of the exact numbers, 9.9 cannot be sustained for more than a minute or two (which in most cases is more than enough to get to short distances.)71.241.204.89 06:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Voyager's top speed is Warp 9.975, but this can't be sustained for very long. I remember on a TOS episode, Enterprise sustained high warp for a long time, and this caused high stress on the warp engines, as well as massive power consumption.--Icarusmatrix 18:44, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Truck in Space
How did that get into space?
 * Watch the episode. --OuroborosCobra talk 21:45, September 14, 2009 (UTC)

What I would like to know is: how was Tom able to start it? If the truck was floating in space for 400 years, surely the fluids (water, oil, gasoline, battery acid) would have been either frozen solid and/or evaporated/sublimated by then. 152.131.9.132 16:14, July 27, 2011 (UTC)


 * Indeed! I live in Minnesota and can attest to the fact that water in the coolant system would not only freeze, but as it expanded it would crack the engine block making the truck completely un-startable. (It happened to a friend's VW Rabbit).

Class L?
How is this planet Class L, is was called, "paradise compared to Earth" when Earth is supposed to be in the paradise classifications of planets, at least for humans? felinoel ~  (Talk)  10:33, June 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Apparently because it was an oxygen/argon atmosphere instead of oxygen/nitrogen. --OuroborosCobra talk 15:45, June 9, 2010 (UTC)

But come on, the planet where (not in Voyager) they came across this centuries old remnant of a race and Riker and some Ferengi get judged by it or something was a Class M planet and it was ungodly inhospitable by comparison? felinoel ~  (Talk)  18:00, June 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe that planet was oxygen/nitrogen. I mean, Antarctica isn't exactly hospitable, but it's still on a "class M" planet. --OuroborosCobra talk 19:24, June 9, 2010 (UTC)

Antarctica was more hospitable than this planet though... felinoel ~  (Talk)  22:56, June 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Clearly you don't know much about Antarctica. That "other planet" had active plant life, for example. --OuroborosCobra talk 01:59, June 10, 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure it did? I don't remember that... all I remember is rock formations on a dead planet? felinoel ~  (Talk)  08:48, June 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * You can see several images with plants on this page http://tng.trekcore.com/gallery/thumbnails.php?album=6&page=8 I've even seen the real world plants they used for the set. --OuroborosCobra talk 17:11, June 10, 2010 (UTC)

Oh hey, I guess my memory wasn't good enough to remember the plants, but still the Class L planet must have some extremely harsh winters or something? felinoel ~  (Talk)  19:15, June 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Obviously not. --OuroborosCobra talk 19:17, June 10, 2010 (UTC)

Featured Article Nomination (August 12, 2010, failed)
The 37's (episode)
 * Self-nomination: An interesting, concise summary, coupled with an extensive and insightful bg info section. --Defiant 09:51, August 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * Concise indeed, the summary is the same size as one of the background sections! That said, I'm not about to vote against an article on size alone, and the background more than makes up for any lack of finger to nose detail, so support. - 10:14, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. --Delta2373 11:52, September 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment/Oppose: Everything about this article is perfect and the background is very thorough and detailed however, the summary section is not something I would call "the best example of MA work". First of all it is missing the "Teaser" and "Acts" etc and second it reads like someone rushed through it to get it over with. Like "they do this, and find that and then examine it and it doesnt work out so they wake everyone". A sentence like "They are told they were believed to be abducted by aliens from Earth in the 1930s, but they only seem to remember the day before" is awkward and grammatically questionable - entirely too many "theys" that could refer to anyone. The summary need a rewrite and polishing as it seems sloppy right now. Again, background and everything else are in "top form" so good job on that one, but I like the summary to be equally "top form" :) – Distantlycharmed 17:56, September 15, 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now: I'm afraid I agree with Distantly on this one. The summary should really follow the summaries of other episode articles to maintain a standard. It could also do with a re-write to address the points mentioned above. TrekFan Talk 14:41, September 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * Support - always good to see a long background section floating on a sea of citations.– Cleanse ( talk 00:28, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

Archived - inactive for a couple of weeks with two unresolved objections.– Cleanse ( talk 03:47, October 12, 2010 (UTC)

Apostrophe
Above there is a mention that the episode's proper title is "The 37's", versus "The 37s". I'm mildly disappointed the (one-person) discussion ended there. It is true that the episode title, as it appeared on the screen after the opening theme, is "The 37's", but does anyone else notice that this is a misused apostrophe? Apostrophes are to replace missing letters (from "you are" to "you're"), or to indicate a posessive ("don't sit in Sheldon's spot"). It is not, except in rare circumstances (and this isn't one of those), used to pluralize ("Who Let the Dog's Out" and "Send in the Clown's" are obviously wrong, how can the 37's be correct?). The classic example of this is people misusing the apostrophe for decades, as in "The 80's". This, I believe, is partially a mutation of the more proper (but overly formal and not very good-looking) "The '80s", where the apostrophe is holding the place of the missing 19.

In the case of this episode, it should be quite obvious that the apostrophe is superfluous. Need proof? Obviously, we're talking about a plural. If Earhart is one of the the 37s, then she is a 37. This much should be obvious, it's basic plural rules. Now, spell it out instead of using digits. She's a thirty-seven. Therefore, the group would be the thirty-sevens. There is no grammatical basis to express it as "the thirty-seven's", so how did the apostrophe sneak in when we decided to use digits instead of letters? (this method is even more illustrative when talking about eighties vs eighty's, and I've never seen the latter used.

Hell, I know that no matter how noteworthy I think this is, it probably won't make it into the article, but I feel better now that I've vented. 172.219.137.125 18:23, May 23, 2012 (UTC)
 * Arguably, the group is belonging to 37, so... the 37's. -- sulfur 19:11, May 23, 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a completely irrelevant discussion, as we use on-screen titles, regardless of what they be.--Defiant 19:25, May 23, 2012 (UTC)

sulfur: "The group is belongs to"? I'm not entirely sure what that means, although I think I get the gist of your misunderstanding. You're trying to argue that it's a possessive and not a plural. That would make sense if the group was called "37", then the people could be referred to as "37's people", and the apostrophe would be fine. This is not a possessive, this is a plural, and I can use a line of dialogue from the show to illustrate. "You've taken the 37s". Not "you've taken the 37's temperatures". If you stole a carton of eggs from your cousin's fridge, he'd say "you've taken the eggs". Not "you've taken the egg's". Yes, "The 37s" is a name group of people. That doesn't justify an apostrophe, if it did, then my record collection would include material by The Beatle's, Buddy Holly and the Cricket's, and The Ramone's. If you're still not convinced, think of it this way: everywhere that they are referred to as "The 37's", you could replaced it with "The 37s". It would mean the exact same thing, it would not be ambiguous or confusing, and it would be missing a needless punctuation mark.

Defiant: I'm not proposing we change the name of the article. The episode's name is The 37's and I have absolutely no problem with the sensible policy of using actual official titles everywhere it's appropriate to do so. However, several other episode articles have notes talking about the episode title in the "Background Information" section. ""E²" is shorter than "Q2" by only half a character, making it the shortest episode title in Star Trek." If that sort of thing is acceptable, why not a superfluous apostrophe? 172.219.137.125 20:28, May 23, 2012 (UTC)


 * Frankly I think this is being overanalyzed a little. 31dot 21:22, May 23, 2012 (UTC)


 * Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm serious, because I might be wrong here), but wouldn't the apostrophe be appropriate since digits are being used? I always thought that, even if it is plural, if its about numbers, then an apostrophe is used. -Angry Future Romulan 13:56, May 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * You are wrong. :) -- sulfur 14:08, May 25, 2012 (UTC)


 * And I had a typo in my prior comments... the group the people belong to is so named because they belong to the year. As in, the group is "1937's" group. -- sulfur 14:11, May 25, 2012 (UTC)


 * @Angry Future Romulan: You are wrong, but it's an understandable wrong — otherwise it wouldn't have slipped through the gaze of several different professional writers on Star Trek. See Rule 11 here. The exception — which people sometimes think is the rule — is essentially the number 0.  And not "any number ending in 0, just 0).  Because that can look like the letter O, you would use an apostrophe for clarity. However, that's a bit of an archaic rule, because new technology is making it increasingly easy to distinguish between a 0 and an O.  (I don't know what the hell you were supposed to do with the number 1, since adding an apostrophe would in no way distinguish that from the lower-case l on many typewriters.  Heck, in the old days, there wasn't a 1 key, you had to use the l key to type a 1.)


 * The reason this is important is because there are times where you do need to indicate numerical possession, such as in these statements:
 * 31's status as a happy prime number makes it a subject of interest for mathematicians.
 * 29's hold over my life is absolute, since my birthday, wedding day and son's birthday were all on the 29th day of various months.


 * But enough of the grammar lesson. I think we must to use the episode name as given to us, but I do think we have an obligation to point out in the Background section that it's simply a typo made in the opening credits. Given the narrative, in which single people are referred to as "a 37", the argument sulfur is trying to advance (i.e., the apostrophe is justified because they "belong" to the year 1937) is an assumption that doesn't make sense within the context of the script as a whole.  If an apostrophe belongs anywhere it's at the front, to indicate that the century is missing: '37s.  Therefore, I really don't think it's right to make the article about these people obey the title of this episode.  Hence I think we should rename the in-universe article 37 to get around this whole apostrophe issue and to come into better compliance with our naming conventions.  14:29: Fri 25 May 2012


 * You don't know that it's a typo, even if it is likely, unless you have statements from the writers of this episode or other Trek staff. Having a bg note to explain grammar would just be a nitpick. 31dot 13:12, June 7, 2012 (UTC)