Jump to content

Talk:List of Star Trek characters (N–S)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merger of Sito Jaxa

[edit]

I disagree with this particular merger, as it's currently at AfD and should be decided there while the discussion is ongoing. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 08:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merged, having taken account of points raised by Disavian. - Fayenatic (talk) 14:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Khan is one of the few Trek supporting characters well known to the general public, mostly via The Wrath of Khan. While I think giving every other Trek villain his own article is a waste of bandwidth, in this case "Khaaaaaan" deserves his own page.Sir Rhosis 18:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merger of Noonien Soong

[edit]

Oppose Merge, As Data's creator he is clearly notable in the series. Although his page could use some improvement, the charater himself is notable and the page should remain. Johnred32 00:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Merge, I may be biased, but I agree with Johnred32. Within the world of Star Trek, Noonien Soong is one of the most notable characters because he is the basis of many characters and story lines. For example, Data (which in turn spawned Lal), Lore, and B4. In the storyline, Lore was in cohoots with the Crystaline Entity which killed millions of settlers on Omicron Theta. Dr Noonien Soong (talk) 03:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)Dr Noonien Soong[reply]

Support Merge, the character was notable and referenced reasonably often in the Star Trek universe, but has no real world notability such as Khan Noonien Singh Alastairward (talk) 13:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merger of Surak

[edit]
  • Oppose merge, significant across multiple TV series. At the very least, merge and redirect without prejudice to article re-creation. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NOT, WP:FICT - repeating on different articles because it applies to those articles. Several Trek articles are getting AFD'd and this would save these from an impending AFD, thus saving the article from possible deletion. Ejfetters 00:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge -- Character "appeared" in three two Trek series. --uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 18:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Real-world notability? Ejfetters 18:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Appearing in episodes of three different TV shows is a claim of real-world notability, though I am not sure it is sufficient in and of itself. If people were saying he should be kept because he was the founder of the belief system of a major Star Trek race they would be making a claim to in-universe notability, but nobody is saying that. The claim is that he is a notable part of a major media franchise (not just its back-story), that's a claim to real-world notability even if the article is poorly written. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge; agree with editing in-universe style. The character of Surak and his philosophy, more than most Star Trek characters, independently fulfills the real-world notability guidelines WP:NOTE and cultural impact guidelines WP:FICT, because the character and associated philosophy were historically a major component of both Roddenberry's societal vision and his TV tale's offspring "Trekker culture." This notability and cultural impact are adequately documented in the article's "Cultural impact" segment, which lists three documentaries on the social impact of this major character/philosophy, plus its other real-world cultural influences. Encyclopedia readers should be able to link directly to such a noteworthy element of this modern TV fable, particularly since this character is identified so closely with a philosophy shared by Star Trek's creator (also noted in the Cultural impact segment.) As to whether the Surak site adequately avoids the pitfall of an "in-universe" style, several referents to the fictional nature of the character and philosophy are noted, but can be strengthened, particularly in the plot "history." I'm willing to give it a go, but would first like to hear of any good examples of other articles on real-world-notable fictional characters that are free of all "in-universe"-stylistic elements.Fhburton (talk) 02:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge. The real world notability stems from the series as a whole, not from this science fiction philosophy, much can be left out of the article leaving a little bit to carry over to this one Alastairward (talk) 19:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General comment on mergers

[edit]

I oppose a few more of these mergers but right now I need to go and get a life. If you must merge, generally merge and redirect without prejudice to article re-creation. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur on having a real life outside of Wikipedia. This many Star Trek-related mergers and AfDs is rather exhausting and time-consuming. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 23:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Afratana111 (talkcontribs) 20:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposed to save articles

[edit]

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 00:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • You might as well skip the prod on these and go straight to AfD, because you know they'll be contested.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 18:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with this is that this is a deletion. No information from the page will survive this "merge." The list gives only a name and general definiton of the characters, nothing more. Even if the articles were all deleted it would make no difference. If I thought that any info at all would be added to this page by even one of these "mergers", I would have no problem, but this is essentially a deletion, plain and simple. Call it a "merge", say you are "saving" the articles, but you might as well put them all up for deletion for all the difference it would make.Johnred32 (talk) 23:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If so many of these character articles didn't just consist of material repeated from episode articles, we might have a problem. Otherwise, there are many that merit immediate dispatch to a merge Alastairward (talk) 14:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merger of Saavik

[edit]
  • Oppose merge - character prominent in two movies, appeared in third, was considered for guest shot in TNG.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 19:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge - Significant enough part in the movies to warrant her own section. She has also appeared in a number of comic series, novels, etc. She is (correct me if I am wrong) the only Movie Trek character to achieve this level of importance (except maybe Decker/Ilia in TMP), fandom and character growth in other mediums (again the comics and novels) Dr. Stantz (talk) 19:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merger of Alexander Rozhenko

[edit]

I thought perhaps he was a character that had appeared enough times to be notable. Perhaps we should have a TNG list of recurring characters? Alastairward (talk) 12:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's appeared enough times to warrant his own article. rdunn 15:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge; no real-world notability, i. e., unlike a character like Khan, the average Joe and Jill on the street have no clue who he is. Sir Rhosis (talk) 22:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Offenhouse proposed merger

[edit]

I would like to propose that Ralph Offenhouse be merged into this article and The Neutral Zone (Star Trek: The Next Generation). The character was only in one episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation, and he doesn't appear to have received significant coverage in reliable third party sources. Best, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 15:55, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Tarc (talk) 12:50, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]