0

What were all the occasions where the Star Trek Captains have met each other?

The question very clearly indicated that it was about main figures of each show (e.g. Picard/Kirk/etc...) meeting, NOT about any random series crossovers of any characters.

People complained that it's an unending list, yet the whole discussion failed to provide more than 3 valid examples -all contained in a single answer.

Everything else discussing 'endless list' examples was out of scope thanks to @Iszi in comments incorrectly telling everyone that Scotty/Riker were in scope, when the original question clearly spelled out they were not via a list of who is).

It was previously discussed that limited scope single-franchise list questions are bot "not constructive" nor "off topic".

Ditto with "questions about ongoing franchise" - merely because there may be a new ST series 5 years from now, doesn't make the question invalid.

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
3

As I indicated in comments, the scope was not as clear in the way you worded as you may think.

The fact that my comment (which I deleted after you edited your question) received several upvotes indicated that I was not the only one to share that confusion.

Star Trek typically features an ensemble cast, so assuming that "main characters" includes such mainstays as Spock, Data, Odo, etc. seems perfectly reasonable to me. A better phrasing would have probably been "the individual commanding officers", although that still leaves some wiggle room, as Data, Riker, Spock, etc. have variously served as the commanding officers for all or part of specific episodes.

I don't recall any discussion that specifically states "questions asking for lists of all instances of x" for ongoing franchises are explicitly okay.

That being said, the edits made help quite a bit, particularly after removing all "non-canon" written works.

4

The question very clearly indicated that it was about main figures of each show (e.g. Picard/Kirk/etc...)

Except that isn't clear at all. Star Trek has a pretty standard TV format where the main cast consists of the bridge crew, plus the heads of other areas of the ship (e.g. engineering). The term 'Captain' is what you meant. 'Main figure' is an incredibly vague term in this context, which led to people reading it as 'main cast'. Ergo, Scotty is discussed as a valid member of the 'main figure' group.

It was previously discussed that limited scope single-franchise list questions are bot "not constructive" nor "off topic".

Except you didn't open it to a limited single franchise. You opened it to a single franchise, plus all its licensed, non-canon works. That's hundreds of hours of TV/film (i.e. the franchise proper) + hundreds (thousands?) of books, comics, games, etc. (i.e. tons of licensed works). That's not a particularly limited scope.

Either way, the question was closed before these issues were addressed. Now that it's been edited, I'd expect it to be reopened.

12
  • by "very clearly" I meant that I provided a 5-element pattern, with NONE of the elements being a non-captain. Were I to see such a pattern, I would automatically assume we are talking about only such characters, and only change that assumption if explicitly indicated otherwise. I'd have hoped that people hanging out on SFF are more of pattern recognizers (e.g. nerds) than random population :(
    – DVK-on-Ahch-To
    Feb 14, 2013 at 19:44
  • 3
    And yet, the comments show that it wasn't 'very clear'.
    – user1027
    Feb 14, 2013 at 19:45
  • @DVK your use of "e.g." did not help, as it is very clearly a statement that "these are just some examples". If the list was intended to be comprehensive, you should have used i.e., which is a change that was appropriately made later.
    – Beofett
    Feb 14, 2013 at 19:53
  • @Beofett - jeez, closing questions because of ESL mistakes is a new low for SFF :( :) My main beef is that nobody bothered asking a clarifying question before closing.
    – DVK-on-Ahch-To
    Feb 14, 2013 at 19:56
  • @DVK You mean LSL (Latin as a Second Language) ;)
    – user1027
    Feb 14, 2013 at 19:59
  • 1
    @DVK E.T. and Gorchester requested clarification. Looks like Beofett did as well, but it's unclear if his now-deleted comment was before or after the question was closed. Not that this matters, because closed questions can be edited and reopened, which is how the system works.
    – user1027
    Feb 14, 2013 at 20:06
  • 2
    @DVK We didn't close it because of the ESL mistake (or LTL: Latin as a tertiary language!), but rather over honest confusion thinking you were saying something other than what you intended. And Gorchestopher and I both did ask clarifying questions before closing, although I subsequently decided that even if the clarification were provided, the explicit inclusion of non-canon material made it close worthy. Don't take the closure so seriously, though; there's nothing preventing it from being reopened now that it is fixed.
    – Beofett
    Feb 14, 2013 at 20:09
  • @Keen - sorry, when I talk about asking for clarification, that kind of (at least when i do so before casting VTC) implies waiting until clarification is given, unless it's likely that the user left the site.
    – DVK-on-Ahch-To
    Feb 14, 2013 at 20:12
  • @DVK Where are you getting that there is some expectation to 'request clarification, wait, and then VTC'? Because after reading meta's closed-questions, I'm not seeing it. Reading the relevant privilege pages similarly don't outline this 'request clarification, wait, and then VTC' policy. It's irrational to get angry at people because they aren't following your internally-made-up expectations.
    – user1027
    Feb 14, 2013 at 20:54
  • It's really weird that doing tag:closed-questions in that last comment didn't make it have the nifty tag backdrop over the text....
    – user1027
    Feb 14, 2013 at 20:55
  • @Keen - It wasn't a policy, it was etiquette. There's no RULE stating you have to... but it's a polite and good thing to do IMHO, and what I do if I am unsure of OP's meaning.
    – DVK-on-Ahch-To
    Feb 14, 2013 at 20:58
  • 2
    @Keen It only does that in Q/A posts, AFAIK, not comments.
    – Iszi
    Feb 14, 2013 at 21:06
1

I'll re-state what I'd said in comments, here.

The original question had three major problems.

  1. Definition of scope. Certainly, with the list given, it can be implied that the intent may have been to just find crossovers of Star Trek Captains. However, using the phrase "main figures" more prominently in the question title and body easily lends to the belief that your list of the Captains is not intended to be all-inclusive.

    • This has since been rectified in your comments and edits. Thanks.

  2. Size of scope. Regardless of who is included in the scope, putting together a list of cross-overs between 12 movies is relatively simple. One person could easily be expected to have all this knowledge. Expanding the scope to include the five TV series (six, if you include TAS) makes it a little bit of a stretch, but still not an unrealistic expectation for one person to know. However, to include the myriad of other licensed works - even if you limit it to just books, and exclude comics, video games, etc. - in this universe puts it beyond the reach of even the most die-hard fanatics. I personally do not expect that anyone alive possesses the complete collection of works you're asking to be assessed, let alone remembers all of them in enough detail to give a full and complete answer without reviewing it all over again.

    • This is still a big problem. Fix this, and I can guarantee you'll get at least one more reopen vote.

  3. Finality of scope. The Star Trek universe is still evolving. J.J. Abrams is doing some great work (IMHO) in his reboot of TOS in theaters. Michael Dorn has talked about doing another TV series centered on Worf. There are still many more licensed books, comics, video games, and other works to come. Any answer to the question of "When have any Star Trek main characters had crossover interactions with main characters from other Star Trek series." would only be complete until the next movie/TV series/book/comic/game comes out that establishes a new crossover - and there are still plenty of reasons for writers to do this.

    • This is largely mitigated by your scope limitation of "Captains only", but inevitably unavoidable unless you specifically define a list of existing works you're looking to have assessed.
10
  • Re: #2: I would expect there to be fairly decent and complete references as to which books the main captains appeared in. Those lists can be used for cross-referencing and finding out a fairly small # of books that mention >1 Captain; from there it's simpler to verify which of them actually had them meeting. So it is likely more feasible than you think, even with books included. I won't even go into "just because it's hard to answer is no basis for closing a question as not constructive". I'm sure someone at Paramount can answer it (Leland Chee equivalent)
    – DVK-on-Ahch-To
    Feb 14, 2013 at 20:52
  • 2
    If you're sure someone from Paramount can answer, then go ask Paramount - not SE. The reason list questions like this get closed is because no one person in this community is likely to be able (or willing to do the extensive research) to give you a complete answer. You'll instead end up with a lot of people posting partial answers, which does not fit the SE model. This is what @Keen is talking about when he says In practice these questions accumulate a steady flow of "me, too" answers where people add a few examples in a new answer.
    – Iszi
    Feb 14, 2013 at 20:58
  • so we are back to the idiotic (sorry for bluntness) approach of "Let's close a question that has ONLY had one answer so far, because we think that - based on totally unrelated questions that seem similar in concept - it will 'accumulate a steady flow of "me, too" answers where people add a few examples in a new answer.'), as opposed to having at least 1-2 of those "me too answers" actually produced as a reason to close the question. In all my years here, I have seen almost no cases of such endless "me too" answers to these small-scope list questions.
    – DVK-on-Ahch-To
    Feb 14, 2013 at 21:11
  • Also, there were plenty of Star Wars questions that were answered (by proxy) via Leland Chee. I don't see how "well, we need someone from Paramount to produce an excellent answer" as a reason to reject a question.
    – DVK-on-Ahch-To
    Feb 14, 2013 at 21:13
  • @DVK That a question can be answered by someone in Paramount is one thing, and is not a problem. Virtually any good Star Trek question here could have been authoritatively answered by an appropriate expert from Paramount. However, it becomes a problem when that expertise is required of a question - i.e.: it is a problem if nobody except certain knowledgeable parties at Paramount can be reasonably expected to give an accurate and complete answer. Since this is not a forum intended to communicate directly with Paramount Studios, it's not an appropriate place for such questions.
    – Iszi
    Feb 14, 2013 at 21:16
  • see my first sentence. there are plenty of SW questions here that could not have reasonably have been answered if Leland Chee didn't already provide the answers elsewhere (and the answers here merely quote him). Also, I just explained above how the question COULD be answered reasonably about the books without Paramount.
    – DVK-on-Ahch-To
    Feb 14, 2013 at 21:19
  • @DVK In those cases then, the answer was already public and easily researchable by the enthusiasts here - therefore, it no longer required knowledge that is effectively only held or accessible to individuals within a certain group that may not necessarily be present on Science Fiction & Fantasy.
    – Iszi
    Feb 14, 2013 at 21:21
  • do you have proof that on some obscure paramount forum this question wasn't already answered? I don't.
    – DVK-on-Ahch-To
    Feb 14, 2013 at 21:22
  • It seems to me this discussion has lost its productive value, and the question seems to have been re-opened even without my vote. So, I'm out.
    – Iszi
    Feb 14, 2013 at 21:24
  • 1
    @DVK In all my years here, I have seen almost no cases of such endless "me too" answers to these small-scope list questions. - I've seen several, and they're usually in the Star Trek questions. It's usually just too big an area for any one person, no matter how small the list first appears.
    – Izkata
    Feb 16, 2013 at 4:58

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .