Talk:List of Star Trek: The Next Generation characters

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Assessment[edit]

I have added a quality assessment rating and importance rating to this article. Feel free to change them as the article improves! Also, feel free to add more issues to the list below, and strike them out (strike) when they're completed. — OranL (talk) 21:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Notable issues[edit]

  • Add a bit more information to the lead section (such as sourced information about why the minor characters are reused, their purpose in driving the plot/stories, etc.).
  • Pictures are missing for some of the characters.
  • Many of the character descriptions are missing relevant real-world information (production info, etc.).

Proposed merger of Lwaxana Troi[edit]

I propose merging Lwaxana Troi into this article. Although the character was intricate in a few storylines in the show, she only appeared in a handful of episodes, and the article is little more than a stub. Better suited for merging here. Ejfetters (talk) 13:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a pretty poor article, support merging. Alastairward (talk) 22:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Deleted character information[edit]

In this diff, relevant character information is being removed from the article. A justification was given on my talk page here, to the effect that this information is a "spoiler" and so shouldn't be removed. I disagree and beleive it should be retained as obviously relevant. Alastairward (talk) 09:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion[edit]

Hi, I come from WP:3O. My opinion is truly simple: if you have sources for the information, it must stay, regardless of it being a spoiler or not.WP:SPOILER is extremly precise on this: It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot. --Cyclopia - talk 10:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I have read WP:SPOILER and I don't believe it applies. It says

A spoiler is a piece of information in an article about a narrative work (such as a book, feature film, television show or video game) that reveals plot events or twists, and thus may 'spoil' the experience for any reader who learns details of the plot in this way rather than in the work itself.

First the Lore article is not about "a book, feature film, television show or video game" but rather a character in a franchise which includes books, television shows and films. Second the spoiler is not about the subject the article itself covers but about "Descent". Anyone who wants to know what happens at the end of "Descent" can follow the link which appears in the "Lore" article. In contrast, if we accept that any Wikipedia article can contain spoilers for any other article (or perhaps even on topics which are not covered by an article) then it makes Wikipedia unusable for anyone wishing to avoid spoilers.

If plot details about the episodes in which Lore appears must be included in the Lore article then there should be a section "Plot details" and the details should go there. This is consistent with what WP:SPOILER states:

Therefore, Wikipedia no longer carries spoiler warnings, except for the content disclaimer and section headings (such as "Plot" or "Ending") which imply the presence of spoilers.

It is also consistent with current practice because in every Wikipedia article I've read on a work of fiction, the spoilers exist in a section whose title includes the word "Plot", they do not exist in the introduction or "Overview" section.

Personally I don't see the point of including plot details in the Lore article because anyone interested in the details can go to the articles on the relevant episodes and read the details there but if others feel details must be included then it should be under a separate section. I can't do the necessary modifications myself because I would have to read the whole Lore article and I want to avoid any other spoilers which may be present. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.196.8 (talk) 17:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

First: WP:SPOILER says "such as a book...", which means it is just a list of examples, not a strict list to be taken literally. Characters in a franchise are definitely pieces of a narrative/fiction work.
Second, as far as I know there is no policy or guideline at all that tell us explicitly not to include spoilering information in sections which are not the "Plot" ones, for example (if I am wrong, please correct me).
Third, it is very relevant for the character. This article documents fictional characters, and as such it is entitled to cover information about them. This information will of course be related with the plot, there's no way around it.
To put it simply: If you don't want to know, don't read. But allow people who want to know, to read. Easy. --Cyclopia - talk 18:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Concur with User:Cyclopia. This is a non-issue, spoilers long ago ceased to be a concern of Wikipedia. Abductive (reasoning) 18:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Cyclopia said:
First: WP:SPOILER says "such as a book...", which means it is just a list of examples, not a strict list to be taken literally. Characters in a franchise are definitely pieces of a narrative/fiction work.
It doesn't say pieces of a narative work, it says a narative work. A character is not a narative work.
Second, as far as I know there is no policy or guideline at all that tell us explicitly not to include spoilering information in sections which are not the "Plot" ones, for example (if I am wrong, please correct me).
I don't know of such a policy either but I don't think we need an explicit policy to tell us to be considerate to people who want to know some information but not spoilers. Instead of concentrating on the legal technicality of WP:SPOILER ask yourself which option makes Wikipedia more useful, having the spoiler in the introduction or in its own section which includes "Plot" in the title ?
To put it simply: If you don't want to know, don't read.
I wanted to know the first episode in which Lore appears. I was aware that WP:SPOILER exists (which I'm sure many Wikipedia users do not) so I was never going to read the whole article in order to avoid spoilers. But out of curiosity I read the sentence following the one which had the information I wanted and encountered the spoiler which I did not want to know. What did I do wrong? I couldn't magically predict that the spoiler would exist in the next sentence. How many articles can you give me which have a spoiler in the introduction ?

But allow people who want to know, to read. Easy.

As I have already pointed out people who want to know can read the "Descent" article or the information can go in a separate section of the Lore article. What's wrong with any of these solutions?
Abductive said:

This is a non-issue, spoilers long ago ceased to be a concern of Wikipedia.

Do you have a justification for such a strong statement? It seems to me that if spoilers are a concern for users of Wikipedia then it ought to be a concern for Wikipedia. Even the phrasing in WP:SPOILER suggests that spoilers are an issue. 81.106.196.8 (talk) 20:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot. Such concerns must not interfere with neutral point of view, encyclopedic tone, completeness, or any other element of article quality

Now, to know that a character ends its lifetime and how is required for completeness of information on such character, and there is nothing wrong in including such information.
And about usefulness, well, WP is useful in giving information on subjects. It does not aim at being useful in preserving the innocence of your brain from the plot details of your favourite TV show or movie. I am sorry but there is not a less blunt way to put it: If you want "some information but not spoilers" that is entirely your problem: WP problem is to have information, being it spoiling or not. If having a spoiler in an introduction is informative, the spoil stays in the introduction. Sorry.
[I] encountered the spoiler which I did not want to know. What did I do wrong?:You incorrectly assumed that we don't include spoilers. Unfortunately for you, we do, without warning, as explicitly declared by a guideline, because we're an encyclopedia. Next time you will be more careful.
people who want to know can read the "Descent" article or the information can go in a separate section of the Lore article. What's wrong with any of these solutions? - That the lifecycle (so to say) of this character is hugely relevant information to the character, and as such deserves to be included into the chapter on the character itself from start.
It seems to me that if spoilers are a concern for users of Wikipedia then it ought to be a concern for Wikipedia. A lot of things are a concern for many users of WP which are explicitly not a concern for WP. For example, we include openly sexually strong images, without warning or disclaimer, for WP:NOTCENSORED. For sure this bothers a lot of users. But if we want to ensure neutral and reliable coverage, we must go ahead regardless of that. For spoilers it's the same, and it's something easy to guard yourself from: Do not look for potentially spoiler-ridden info on WP, because chances are it will be. I am sorry you learned that the hard way. --Cyclopia - talk 22:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Recurring characters box[edit]

Lursa and B'Etor may have made their debut on TNG, but their one visit to the station Deep Space Nine would make them worthy of the "multiple series" section. The sisters of middle born Duras should move accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.37.159.90 (talk) 03:47, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

What about Q?[edit]

I may be missing something here, but shouldn't John de Lancie's Q be included here? Assuming that he (it?) should, I am going to begin work on a new section of this list for information about Q. Helmut von Moltke (talk) 07:14, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Q has an article at Q (Star Trek) - perhaps, since the title of this article is unqualified, there should be a section up front with links to other character articles (I noticed that Jean-Luc Picard, for example, happens to be linked in prose, but that's not adequate for a reader who found this article first and is specifically looking for that character). --Fru1tbat (talk) 13:16, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

@Fru1tbat:I think I see what you are arguing - this article is intended to document recurring characters who do not have significant impacts on the overarching plot of the series. Given this, I would propose the following: 1. Possible renaming of the article to "List of minor characters in "Star Trek: The Next Generation"", or something along those lines that establishes the nature of the characters to be found here. 2. Assuming we keep the current title, including (as you suggested) links to the individual pages of the major characters (bridge crew, Q, Gowron, etc.) to allow someone who searches for one of those characters to reach a link to their page. I would appreciate any reply. Helmut von Moltke (talk) 17:08, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Other series in the franchise use "List of minor recurring characters in ...", which seems a bit wordy to me, but at least it would be keeping with convention. I think keeping the name as-is and adding a section linking to the main character articles could be more useful, but as the other series aren't done that way, I'm not sure I'm up for the effort.
Now that I look at it, each series' list is handled a little differently, actually. I'm not sure how best to handle it.
--Fru1tbat (talk) 14:42, 21 December 2015 (UTC)