Talk:Dagger of the Mind (episode)

Neutral Point of View
What is MA's policy on this ? While Balok's comments on the episode are perfectly valid, I am not sure they have a place in a reference work such as Memory Alpha. Alex Peckover 12:41, Aug 25, 2004 (CEST)

Are you referring to the paragraph underneath? Ottens 12:48, 25 Aug 2004 (CEST)


 * This episode has two fairly glaring weaknesses that detract from it. First, the notion that patients in an insane asylum would be able to easily move even to restricted, dangerous areas via the air conditioning ductwork. Security at a facility for dangerous, violent people would be tighter than this. Second, the character of Tristan Adams spends twenty years humanizing and reforming penology, to the point where his reputation is well established even outside his field. And yet, one day, for no reason shared with the viewers, he elects to begin unethical experiments on patients and guests alike. This strains credulity.


 * Yes, I am. Alex Peckover 12:53, Aug 25, 2004 (CEST)

Well, it isn't the first time. I added a few notes with production mistakes myself to. -- Redge | Talk 12:55, 25 Aug 2004 (CEST)
 * Production mistakes added as notes in italics are fine The text for this episode, however, are presented as criticism of the episode. Alex Peckover 15:47, Aug 25, 2004 (CEST)


 * Yes, this definitely is an opinion piece, which isn't permitted. Noting logical flaws in episodes is a bit of a grey area, but the tone of the "All Good Things..." references seems more suitable, and does not smack of one person's view of the episode - since most people noted the flaws in question ;). I would request that Balok remove it himself, rather than anyone do it - at least in the immediacy. -- Michael Warren | Talk 16:28, Aug 25, 2004 (CEST)


 * I put those comments there mostly as an experiment to see if such content was acceptable/desired. Since it is not, I will remove them.  - Balok 02:13, 26 Aug 2004 (CEST)

Reference Linking
It seems a few people have different ideas regarding links under the references section. Some people think only topics not already linked in the article itself should be wikilinked, while others (like myself) find it better to simply wikilink all references. let me give my arguments for wikilinking them:

First of all, I find it frankly rediculous to not link them. By not linking them, you create a mixmash of normal text and links which looks, to put it mildly, rather odd. I would like to understand the reasoning behind this, because as far as I see you could be doing this either to:
 * Not confuse readers, which you are doing, since half linked-half text makes no sense
 * Avoid redundancy, which is IMO a bit squimish, since having a few double links doesn't hurt anyone

If people read articles and episode summaries the way I do (and I expect they do, because it is IMO the logical approach), they would first read the entire article before clicking any links. If you don't link the bottom references, and a person had just finished the summary, read the references, and wanted to find something on, let's say, Christmass, they'd have to scroll back up, while it's so little trouble to link them in references.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but please enlighten me. In the mean time, I'll just leave them as they are now. -- Redge | Talk 11:51, 26 Aug 2004 (CEST)


 * I too prefer to link all references, because sometimes the Text is very long and since it is custom to only link once I sometimes have troubles to find the link I'm looking for. In the German version all references are linked, no matter if they were already mentioned in either other section. -- Kobi 12:13, 26 Aug 2004 (CEST)


 * My view is that the references should be there, and wikilinked, or they shouldn't be there at all. I don't see the point of a mix of linked and unlinked entries.  Redundent links don't particularly bother me; when I edited the page, I took a bunch of them out because I thought that was the standard.  --Balok 23:22, 26 Aug 2004 (CEST)

Galloway
David L Ross is listed for this episode, I don't think that's correct. --Myko 08:52, 20 Mar 2005 (EST)

Spam filter?
I tried to add December to the date in the infobox (since the episode had a Christmas party) but I was blocked by a spam filter. Why did this happen? Is there any objection to adding this information?--StAkAr Karnak 16:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Background notes
Question regarding this note:
 * When Fields calls the bridge to report sighting Van Gelder in the corridor, the sign on the wall next to him says "Personnel Director." Another sign in the corridor can be seen to say "Science Library" while one with an arrow points to "Briefing Room."

Does this really need to be here on the notes for this episode? It would make more sense to me for the information here to be in an article about rooms on the Constitution class, or have articles of there own. Either way, they just need to cite this episode, rather than be mentioned here. --OuroborosCobra 07:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree the note was kind of pointless, so I removed it. Personnel Director and briefing room have pages after all. I also removed the following, since it's already noted on the parodies page linked to:


 * This episode was spoofed in the South Park second season episode "Roger Ebert Should Lay Off the Fatty Foods". It involved a neural neutralizer-like device in a planetarium (the "Tantalus V Planetarium") which controls the minds of unwilling victims (complete with Star Trek sound effects and music) and a mind meld was used to determine the plot. One of the characters was even named Van Gelder who wore a smock identical to the ones worn in this episode, complete with the same logo. The episode concludes with the villain, also named Adams, being left in the planetarium with the device turned on but no one making suggestions emptying his mind, identical to the events in the TOS episode.
 * – Cleanse ( talk 11:33, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

Toupee
I've watched this episode carefully and fail to see Shatner's toupee slip. Are there any further details on exactly when this occurs?--Redknight 14:49, December 9, 2009 (UTC)
 * That line should probably be removed as a nitpick, unless there is something citable which states it was an error.--31dot 15:03, December 9, 2009 (UTC)
 * That was somewhat my thought as well considering that even if it is there it is not evident, nor relevant. I feel that the display of Spock's strength in smashing the padlock on the shield control with his hand is a much more important inclusion.--Redknight 15:23, December 9, 2009 (UTC)

Deleted from Continuity
I removed the reference to Friday's Child from the following paragraph in the Continuity section. The remark contains uncorroborated speculation and doesn't belong in an article about Dagger of the Mind.


 * This episode is mentioned as taking place after a Christmas party in the science labs. This is one of the few times a religious holiday is mentioned in the Star Trek future. Christmas in particular was never mentioned again until Star Trek Generations, although Eleen having a child in a cave in "Friday's Child" in that Christmas-month broadcast may not have been a coincidence. It is also significant to note that the surname of the character who mentions this Christmas party to Kirk is (Helen) "Noel," which means "Christmas" in French.

Mrtrekkiedude 15:02, August 6, 2011 (UTC)

Goof

 * Both Dr Adams and Eli are knocked out by Kirk in the therapy room-yet only Adams is killed! Shouldn't Eli died on mind emptying as well?
 * I'm not sure, but this isn't really the forum for discussing "goofs", unless you are suggesting some sort of change to the article, which is the purpose of article talk pages.--31dot 00:44, November 17, 2011 (UTC)

Synopsis
The plot synopsis seems to skirt around the issue of the doctor's motivation for the experiments, overpowering Kirk etc. I haven't seen the episode recently, so maybe those issues weren't touched upon (which would be weird) - but as it stands the synopsis appears to have something missing. 94.197.177.65 07:55, October 3, 2012 (UTC)