This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of television 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.
This article is within the scope WikiProject Star Trek, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to all Star Trek-related topics. 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.
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.
The merger proposed are done so to save the articles from ultimate PROD and AFD nominations, that will be inevitable because most, if not all of these articles fail WP:Plot, WP:WAF, WP:FICT, WP:RS, WP:OR - how can one ignore or put aside these "guidelines" put forth in Wikipedia and used in writing fictional subject articles throughout Wikipedia. Ejfetters 00:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Oppose merge -- original series character brought back as major character in movie.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 19:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
The character needs real-world notability though. Ejfetters 19:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
"Character brought back" is real-world -- irrelevant within context of series.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 20:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
But the article is primarily in-universe, should be primarily real-world. Ejfetters (talk) 23:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
A bad article is a reason for editing not merger since the content needs to be reworked regardless of where it is located. I also tend to oppose this merger because of his main role in First Contact as well as appearing in two television series. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Oppose as per above, pivotal character in the evolution of the entire star trek storyline, the article can be improved in quality but should always stand alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SGGH (talk • contribs) 13:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, he is a major character in a movie and has an appearance as a main character in one episode of the show, would that not signify sufficient notability? Alastairward (talk) 08:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Major character in a major movie, plus he's appeared in two other Trek TV series and plays a significant role in the backstory of the franchise. 23skidoo (talk) 20:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to leaver her and José Tyler where they are, I am going to expand their pages to include a lot of Star Trek: Early Voyages and novel info on them (they were big players in these) but am having some difficulties since my comics/novels are in storage, I will be able to get them before the new year. They were main characters in the comic, which was one of the more popular Marvel trek comics, and i will be expanding the main Star Trek: Early Voyages page as well.
I'm working through disambiguation of caretaker, and there's a link on the episode page. Not being familiar with this, could someone suggest a way of linking this? Does the character require its own article or would adding to this list be sufficient? Thanks, Richsage (talk) 14:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Has been proposed at Reginald Barclay for ages, it does get irritating when people don't actually discuss it, they just slap on a merge tag and expect it to be done (grr!). Anyway, I personally think it is a bad idea, the character has spanned 2-3 series and films. SGGHspeak! 13:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Oppose as per above SGGHspeak! 13:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Someone has proposed this as well. I oppose it because, regardless of where he fits into canon, he's a significant character in Trek literature and in the background of the story. I don't like the idea of using a photo of Roddenberry to depict him, however. Another reason for keeping the article is because Robert April is the most visible - and arguably most controversial - aspect of the TAS canonciity issue. 23skidoo (talk) 20:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
At best I would merge it into the list of minor recurring characters of TAS, if we can come up with such an article, except that he appeared only the once Alastairward (talk) 15:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I've added the proposal to merge the article as I found it had been prodded for lack of notability, and while I do feel it should have some coverage here in wikipedia, he just doesn't have enough out of universe notability to survive an AFD. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Support merger. I don't see evidence of notability other than within the single episode in which he appeared. That would likely lead to deletion due to lack of specific WP:N. But he's relevant and (apparently) important within the framework of some larger article, so he could be mentioned there (with amount of information appropriate to his importance) and his own WP:N requirement is less as part of the "list of..." article. DMacks (talk) 03:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)