Talk:Odo (Star Trek)

Odo & Troi

Was there an episode after "The Muse" that says whether Odo and Troi annulled their sham marriage? ShutterBugTrekker 23:58, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Odo as Curzon?

We need a new picture that shows Odo as he usually appears, and maybe one that shows him in his gelatinous state. I'm not good at all that copyright stuff, so could someone get a more appropriate picture for the article? Citizen Premier 03:52, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Casablanca, sweetheart

I added the "Casablanca" reference; the page needs all the help it can get. --trekphiler, 23/11/05

Rank

Even though Odo was one of the shapeshifters that was sent to explore the universe, was he still Considered a "founder" of the Dominion. In the DS9 episode "A Time to Stand", Wayoun treats him very much as he would a "real" leader of the Dominion, accepting his orders without question.

The Vorta are genetically engineered to accept all the Changelings as gods. ~ Anya Prynn 22:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted a change of his rank from Constable to Lieutenant. I have never seen Odo referred to as anything other than constable or by his positional rank of Chief of Security (see: http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Odo). The Star Trek wiki does not list him as anything other than constable and no evidence was given by the guest to support the change. aldibibable (talk) 20:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted this rank change again. Unregistered user, please cite your source for Odo's rank being lieutenant and/or join in this discussion rather than just editting constantly. aldibibable (talk) 23:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Move disambig page here?

Since there were several real live people who bore the name Odo, it seems a bit strange to let a fictional character have the article with the title "Odo". I don't see there's a clear case which meaning of Odo is the most common one, and then it is better to move this article to "Odo (Star Trek)" or similar to let the disambig page have this spot. // habj 17:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Your comment seems anecdotal at best. Are there any "real life" people named Odo who are noteworthy and noteable to have their own Wikipedia articles? It's not a matter of which meaning is "most common", but which one is most likely to be the one that someone's looking for when they do a search on the word. The various Star Trek series are insanely popular, and when someone types "Odo" into the Search field and hits "Go", it is indeed very likely that this is the Odo they're looking for. That is the criteria, since this is an online encyclopedia and not a directory. - Ugliness Man 13:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding people named Odo who are noteworthy and noteable to have their own Wikipedia article, see Odo (disambiguation). Medieval people are quite often referred to with just their first name. // habj 04:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The point still stands that if someone is looking for the article on "Odo", it is likely that they are looking for this fictional character. We can't go around turning every article that shares the base title with other articles into a disambig, having a link to the disambig on the top of this one is sufficient. - Ugliness Man 07:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence for that? I typed in Odo in order to find a list of historical figures called Odo (I knew of one or two in particular). So of all the people I know who have typed in "odo", 100% of them are not looking for the fictional star trek character. My guess is the (hypothetical) people who are looking for Odo (star trek) would not feel particularly inconvenienced by going via the Odo disambig page. I therefore think it makes sense for this page to be moved to Odo (Star Trek) and for Odo to redirect to the disambig page. I will carry this out in a week if there are no objections. Zargulon 16:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The issue isn't about 100% of the people searching on the term. If it was, far more articles would be disambig pages, and Wikipedia would be a mess. No, the issue is a majority, or even a strong trend. No, I don't have any hard evidence, because I haven't done the research, and I haven't done the research because I don't have to. You see, when an editor wants to rename an article and force the current article name to instead be the disambig page, the onus is on that editor to prove that such an action is justified. The onus is not on the other editors to do the research to maintain the status quo. For example, at one time Tom Wilson linked to an article about a legendary music producer, but I felt that perhaps it should be a disambig page instead because when I searched the name, I was looking for the Back to the Future actor. I didn't instantly assume that because I was looking for that person, the article should be changed. On the advice of a more experienced Wikipedian, I did the research, I stated my case, I presented the data, and I waited. There were no objections, so I went ahead and made the change. I suggest you do the same. But tread carefully, if you're adamant about this, it will likely be up to you to not only rename the relevant articles, but to find and edit all the articles which link here. It's not something to take lightly, as I learned from the Tom Wilson experience.

The bottom line is that personal opinions, experiences and anecdotes are not sufficient, you need more solid evidence to support your claim. This article has existed as the Star Trek character since August of 2001. In that entire time, it has been edited over 160 times by more than 80 unique users, not including over 30 anonymous IPs and a few bots. Compare that to the fact that in that same time, there have been two people to bring up this point, both of which have been in the last 5 months. This isn't an official Wikipedia term by any means, but I would call that "implied consensus". - Ugliness Man 06:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand.. do you, personally, object to my proposed move or not? Zargulon 13:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Someone who doesn't understand the bleeding obvious shouldn't be planning moves and renames. Yes, I object. - Ugliness Man 19:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok. All other things being equal, because of User:Uglinessman's objection, I will not conduct the move. Zargulon 23:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Odo's duplication skills

"Odo ... never had the skill to duplicate humanoid features with precision, making his humanoid appearance an approximation."

I remember having seen at least one episode where Odo was able to mimic different human(oid) persons quite perfectly. How is this explained?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move. This was a difficult one to close.

• The editors who support the move basically argue that most readers would expect to find something other than an article on a recent fictional character. This is generally good, because we optimise for readers. It wouldn't be good if it's merely due to bias against Star Trek but the debate itself concentrated on guidelines and optimal organisation.
• Those who oppose make the very fair point that this article is the only one named just "Odo" (or "Odo (some disambiguating word or phrase)") so by convention it should be the primary topic with a dab header if needed.
• On the other hand, there is a large list of historical figures named "Odo of..." which we may reasonably consider to be "Odo"s.
• Even if we discount the "Odo of ..." historical figures (and it's not at all clear that we should), there are actually several other uses of "Odo" listed on the dab page, including 3 other fictional characters and a genus of spider.
• The Star Trek character has several hundred incoming links, but some of these are due to a template.
• Numerically, the "support"s have it (just) but I don't give much weight to that fact at all.

I'm not inclined to relist, as I feel all pertinent points have likely been made by now.

I have consulted with other admins and the consensus was that the arguments in favour of moving the dab page to the primary topic override the technical consideration that this is the only article named "Odo". I appreciate this will not be universally popular but some decisions are not easy and this one has been taken after deep consideration and consultation with other admins. --kingboyk (talk) 15:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC) Amended/updated --kingboyk (talk) 16:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

I come on Wikipedia looking for information about the 10th century Archibishop of Canterbury and get some Star Trek nonsense. I certainly don't object to fictional characters having articles, but prioritising this drivel over the articles on dozens of historical figures named Odo makes Wikipedia look ridiculous. I suppose this article is mainly attended by fans of Star Trek, but if any of Wikipedia's writers with a sense of perspective stop by this page, I hope they'll see sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.251.70 (talk) 21:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The name of this character is Odo. The other uses of the term "Odo" have more appropriate proper names (e.g. Odo I). That's what this article is here and those articles are there. This is a standard naming convention of Wikipedia, and has nothing to do with some endorsement of Star Trek. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The standard naming convention is to point the article to waht most people would expect to find, and I don't most people would think a fictional character from a 10 year old science fiction series, is what most people would expect if looking for a former leader of the English Church or a Grand Master of the Knights Templar, who amongst others bear the name Odo Fasach Nua (talk) 20:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

When the two have the exact same name yes. But they don't. Hence the clear and obvious disambiguation link at the top of the page. Is one extra click so much of a burden? --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

And for the record, I see no evidence that this fictional character is any less popular than random obscure religious figures. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

And one more thing - this was discussed and rejected only a few months ago. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see the previous discussion! I dont agree with the outcome, but with such a recent consensus, I wont challenge it Fasach Nua (talk) 20:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

If the article is moved, it should be to Odo (Star Trek); although I'm not sure a move is really necessary. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 22:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

As much as I love DS9, I have to agree that Odo should likely be a disambig and this should be at Odo (Star Trek) or somesuch. Narson (talk) 02:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

There is only one page with the title "Odo" - how could it not be the primary meaning of "Odo"? All other pages have more precise proper names that are easily accessible through the diambiguation link at the top of this page. --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Odo of Fézensac had the proper name of Odo, just as the fictional character Odo of Star Trek has the proper name Odo, the only reason this Odo does not have aqualifier is that WP made the choice not to give him one. Fasach Nua (talk) 15:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

"Odo of Star Trek"?? Since when is he ever called that?? He is known as "Odo" and only as "Odo." That is how he is properly named. The other people at Odo (disambiguation) have different article titles because they have other, more appropriate names (e.g. Odo I or Odo IV or Odo de St Amand). --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The other people are all called just Odo, I'm sure Odo de St Amand was called just "Odo" by his mother, the "de St Amand" was added to ditinguish him from all the other Odos, just as this character is called Odo in show, it needs something t distinguish it from all the other Odos, hence Odo (Star Trek) would be no diffent of a treatment than all the other characters. Do you think Odo I was not originally called Odo until need arose to distinguish him from the next Odo? Fasach Nua (talk) 11:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Once again, You're missing the point entirely. What those Odos were referred to by their pals is irrelevant (otherwise we'd have to add "known to his friends as 'Al'" to "Weird Al" Yankovic's article, and any other number of ridiculous accommodations). The Odos you mention have other full names/titles so that we, today, can distinguish them from each other. When World War I occured, it was called The Great War, but today we call it World War I. The Star Trek character is the only Odo that is known only as "Odo" for the purposes of a Wikipedia article (and from the perspective of mainstream popular culture). Linking to the disambig page from the top of this article is more than sufficient to acknowledge that there are other Odos which someone may be looking for. - Ugliness Man (talk) 17:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support move. This is exactly why we have disambiguations, and especially for fictional Star Trek characters that might get mixed up with real life notable people. Google search shows anything but consistency with the Star Trek character. The Evil Spartan (talk) 17:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Google is neither a source of content, nor of disambiguation policy. Which page do you assert is also specifically and precisely called Odo? Because if not, policy dictates that this is the primary (indeed only) article named "Odo." And that is exactly why we have disambig notices at the top of many pages (like this one). --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• While I tend to agree with Cheeser1's logic, a disambig page at Odo may be the safest idea. If that is the case, this article should be located at Odo (Star Trek), not Odo(DS9), which violates any number of naming conventions. JPG-GR (talk) 05:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Could you qualify "safe"? It sounds to me like "safe" means "avoid making people angry" (check out the first post "requesting" the move) and possibly "ignore naming convention to appease people who dislike Star Trek." I understand that diplomacy and compromise are necessary at times, but this isn't a content dispute, a sourcing issue, or anything of the sort. It's a naming convention, a consensus-supported sort of guideline, and the infuriated IP who started this conversation notwithstanding, I see no rhyme or reason to going against the standards. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support move to Odo (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine) - A move to Odo (Star Trek) would be wrong, as Odo was not a character in the original series, and a move to Odo(DS9) is just plain wrong on so many levels. I can see where both Cheeser1 and Fasach Nua are coming from with their arguments, and I believe that Odo should become a disambiguation page, linking to all the different Odos on Wikipedia. – PeeJay 12:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Almost entire fictional character biography removed

Almost the entire fictional character biography of Odo was removed by User:Arithefrog as their only contribution ever a year and a half ago. While I approve of the concept of separating fact from fiction, the user seems to have gone too far. The article now has pretty much no in-universe biography left. Should the biography be added back? JIP | Talk 23:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Gender

The gender neutral use of "they" and "their" seems unnecessary as "The original Writer's Bible from 1992 for Star Trek: Deep Space Nine described Odo as follows: Odo, an alien male,...". A quote from within this very article. The use of these pronouns is confusing here. I don't recall Odo ever identifying as LGBQT, but I could be wrong. Anyone remember any such reference other than what the original writer's intended. Anyone without a political agenda have an opinion on this? Of course the article also states something about the Changlings being agendered species. Not much is found on Wiki about this though.

Let's not confuse gender with sex. His species is sexually monomorphic, true. But Odo is consistently referred to as "he" in the series, so Odo's social performance is that of a humanoid male. Given that, and that I don't recall Odo ever discussing his gender identity or challenging his gender role, it may be assumed he is cismale.

This is a bit of a jugdment call, but I prefer using male pronouns for Odo, taking writer's intentions in lieu of Odo's unstated personal preference.

I wouldn't object if the consensus ended up being to use WP:GENDER neutral language, though. Paradoctor (talk) 01:26, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Deep Space Nine absences

Paradise By Inferno’s Light Change of Heart Goojrr (talk) 01:22, 4 January 2024 (UTC)