Talk:Q (Star Trek)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Star Trek (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Star Trek, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to all Star Trek-related topics on Wikipedia. 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Fictional characters (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.


It always seem to me that Q was "God." Isn't he God, in effect. I love God aqnd I love Q. I know I'm an old stupid drunk jerk. But what I'm I Missing here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kornbelt888 (talkcontribs) 05:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I think I'td be fun to speculate on Q's Omnipotence and apperant interest in humanity as a form of "proof" the the simulated reality of a posthumanistic era. He only seeks to trick ,test and be amuzed by the reactions of it's pets,much as you would expect from an equivilant "master of the Virtual Zoo"


The Procrastinator 18:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

In the Star Trek: Voyager episode Death Wish (Voyager episode) it is mentioned that the Q are NOT omnipotent. SD6-Agent 23:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Actualyl it is ONLY mentioned as an general statement. He later tells Tuvok ,that BEING omnipotent and nearly perfect in their evolution to the rest of the unchanging universe,they SAY nothing and do not aspire for Change... it's kinda liek saying that knowing all is boring to live with. I would'nt really call that a disproof. The Procrastinator 00:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Um, I would, I think he meant it litterally, which is usually how I take something most of the time unless there's a reason to think he isn't serious, if someone said "you must think money grows on trees" we know it's a figure of speech, because money doesn't, but this is a straightforward statement, besides, even if that wasn't stated there is plenty of evidence the Q aren't omnipotent, they can be killed in Q and the Grey, they wouldn't have been able to throw Q out, no matter how many "ganged up" on him, and remember Q saying to Riker that eventually Humans could overtake them in evolution in Hide and Q. The snare 04:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Q gospel[edit]

I am curious if anyone has explored a connection between this character, and the Q gospel (Quelle/source)? I think if you compare the two, there's lots and lots of parallels, ironies and otherwise there. Shensey (talk) 09:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Please clean?[edit]

The first two paragraphs of this article are duplicate to a degree.

Fixed. It wasn't that hard though, you could have done it...

What about Charlie X?[edit]

Since the article discusses the speculative Q -> Trelane link, what about Charlie X? I've also heard it suggested that he might have been a Q along the lines of Amanda Rogers. 23skidoo 06:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Charlie X was definitely not a Q. He was a human child who was the sole survivor at an outpost. Rather than let him die, some super-powerful beings (maybe Q) gave him powers to create the things that he needed to continue to live. After he demonstrated that he couldn't live among humans without harming them, the super-powerful beings came and took him back to live with them.
Amanda Rogers, on the other hand, was the daughter of two Q who had ceased to use their powers so that they could live as humans on Earth. They had actually used their powers to do something (I forget what), so the Q killed them with a tornado. Amanda thought that she was human, but was actually Q. Once she discovered her powers, she agreed to voluntarily not use them. When she used them anyway, Q came back and she willingly went with him. Val42 03:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Articles on other Q[edit]

Are there articles about the other Q mentioned? I don't find links to them on this page. I know that there isn't much information on them individually, so I have two proposals: Make this article about Q as well as the Q themselves, or (my favorite) make and article about the Q, with a link to this article about the most-seen Q. Val42 03:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Which "other Q"? There have been several. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Noblethrasher (talk) 21:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)==Gender issue== i belive Q should be classified as male, as he has a wife and child...I will change his classification to male untill proof to the contrary arises -- (sig added by Cburnett)

First, please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) so we know who you are (regardless if you have a login).
Having a "wife" and child does not necessitate him being male. The same genderification "rules" that apply to humans....I don't believe are applicable to an omnipotent species who mates by touching fingers. Considering the Q are played by humans, they obviously have to have some gender but neither their labels nor actors' gender can actually be used as evidence of their gender. First, it must be established that they indeed do have gender. Secondly, it must be established that their genders are male and female. Thirdly, I would need to see something to the effect that having a "wife" is evidence enough to label Q as male (this assumption fails in the case of two married homosexuals).
So, in summary, I guess I disagree with you on the grounds that you're used humanistic terms to an omnipotent species played by human actors. Cburnett 04:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I would say he is male. The definitions of male and female are based off of children and sex. First off, his wife is called a female. They physically have a child. As best I know, and as best we can define, the parent of the child who does not carry the child and is not a female is a male. -Platypus Man | Talk 13:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Regardless of whether he has a wife or children, or even a gender at all, he chooses to take the form and characteristics of a male in every episode he appears in which, for all intensive purposes, makes him male. 15:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I would agree with calling him male (as he has always taken that form), but in the episode Q-Pid, he says he only appeared to Picard as a male, but he could have appeared as a female. This suggest that he is sexless. The "female" Q he has a child with may have appeared female simply for appearances to humans.Rt66lt 00:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
In the episode "Q- Pid," Q chides Picard about how he should have appeared to him as a female after seeing how a woman (Vash) can get Picard riled up. This strongly demonstrates Q's naturally sexless state, as he can appear as whatever gender he desires. Also, in all episodes involving Q, it is stated that the Q Continuum is on another plane of existance, and they themselves are noncorporeal beings, rendering the concept of gender practically useless. Q, as well as other Q, simply appear in a familiar form (human to Picard, Sisko and Janeway) so as not to overwhelm the "puny, human mind" with their true form. I hope this helps??? Jason Keyes 13:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
The Q have no gender, this Q just chooses to take on a male form(like how Data let his "daughter" Lal choose it's gender). Q could choose to appear female if it wanted to. TJ Spyke 07:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
So then shouldn't the article say it instead of he? 00:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
"He" in English is also used for persons whose gender is unspecified. 18:42, 14 July 2007
Q does not have sex but certainly does have gender (sex ≅ male/female vs. gender ≅ masculine/feminine) noblethrasher.


The Q reference each other as he/she, dress the part, and behave the part while interacting with beings just as we would. They should probably not be classified with a gender based on biological criteria but clearly they have assumed a gender. We should accept that beings of unlimited power could choose to be, or choose to change, but it isn't quite anyone's place to dictate they do not have gender when clearly they can choose to, and present them self as having chosen. Alpinedigital (talk) 00:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC) Alpinedigital

Agreed. I think it's showing "Trekkie" bias as well as original research to put all this non-gender assumption on the Q Continuum - something that is impossible to confirm. If gender doesn't matter, why do they always appear in gender-specific forms? Ckruschke (talk) 17:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

Split Q from Q Continuum[edit]

I have made a new article at Q Continuum for info about the race, have taken most of the necessary info from this page to leave this page as a page about the character Q. If people spot any omissions or anything, please correct.. cheers! Rob.derosa 13:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Eye Color[edit]

I may seem nitpicky, but are Q's eyes really brown? I've been watching the episodes in the Q box set, and in a few scenes his eyes look signifigantly lighter. I think they may be green. Being green eyed myself, I often get confused for a brown eyed person. I will change it unless anyone has any problem with it. Or rather, do we even need an eye color for him? - Defunctzombie 00:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Most certainly. 18:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC).

Unclear paragraph[edit]

The sentence "This unchanged attitude..." is very confusing, I think. The previous sentence says he "reverted" suggesting a change (contradicting the phrase "unchanged attitude"). Second the quote refers to a trial which is not otherwise mentioned in the article. The following sentence says that this quote "makes the two episodes contiguous." Which two episodes, and how? Also, I don't think contiguous is the proper word here, perhaps consistent? I don't have sufficient knowledge to fix the article myself, but if someone else would undertake the work, I would be appreciative. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 01:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


"Some fans have come to believe that Q was somehow attracted to the stoic captain, and it could be argued that there is something flirtatious in the way Q teases Picard." - "Some fans" is not a source, and "it could be argued that" is one of the specific examples given on WP:WEASEL. --Grey Knight 13:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Q (Star Trek).jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Q (Star Trek).jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


Can an omnipotent being commit suicide? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

This is dealt with in the Star Trek: Voyager episode "Death Wish". — Val42 (talk) 19:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Don't you hate it when they never give an answer? The answer is yes.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:STDS9Ep107.jpg[edit]

The image Image:STDS9Ep107.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Borg introduction to humanity[edit]

The article currently states "Events later shown in the prequel Star Trek: Enterprise suggest the Borg were already on the way when Q introduced them and Picard to each other." This is simply incorrect to my understanding. The Borg were found on Earth because of the events of First Contact, where were because of the events of "Q Who?". The dialogue in the relevant Enterprise episode confirms that Cochran had spoken about aliens from the future. There is, to my knowledge, nothing in canon supporting the idea that "the Borg were already on the way"... I'm going to take this sentence out unless anyone has an issue? Dphilp75 (talk) 00:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

go for it. But the sentences that follow all are written as part of a narrative to support this sentence. It will require a re-write in order to remove that one. Smitty1337 (talk) 01:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Quite right. I'll give it a day to see if anyone else wants to chime in and then change it... Thank you! Dphilp75 (talk) 02:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
There is actually canon that supports this (as well as non-canon "behind the scenes" material. In the episode "The Neutral Zone", prior to "Q Who", several colony worlds along the border of the Neutral Zone have been destroyed in the same way that the Borg were shown to have destroyed the worlds they assimilated later, and according to the "Star Trek Next Generation Companion", the intent of the writers was that the worlds destroyed along the Neutral Zone had been destroyed by the Borg. So the Borg were already in the area. Later in Voyager we learn that the Borg had already assimilated the Hansen family, and were therefore familiar with humanity. So while the specific concept that the Borg were on their way was the result of the time loop caused by Q Who -> Best of Both Worlds -> First Contact -> Enterprise, there's ample canon support for the notion that the Borg were already familiar with humanity, had already assimilated some Federation colony worlds, and therefore the likelihood that humanity would *not* have confronted the Borg had Q not intervened seems utterly implausible. AlaraJRogers (talk) 22:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)AlaraJRogers
One needs to consider that scripts for such a long and complex projects are often inconsistent and can be somewhat contradictionary. The use of the Q outside STNG series is not fully consistent. --Kmhkmh (talk) 23:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

"All good things..."[edit]

I haven't seen "All good things..." in a while, but as I remember, the fact that humanity was about to be destroyed was actually indirectly Q's fault. He caused Picard's shifting in time, apparently just to screw with him, knowing that Picard's time shifting would lead to the end of humanity. This article seems to paint Q's intentions in that episode as being more benevolent, saving humanity as if we hadn't caused it.--Louiedog (talk) 08:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


Is Q based on the Great Gazoo from the Flintstones, at least in part? -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Time Travel[edit]

In the "Behaviour" section there is a piece that describes Q's capabilities with his Omnipotence. However this includes Time Travel, and the ability to manipulate/stop time. The impression i've had from Q is that he was NOT able to actually travel or manipulate/stop time and that it was an Illusion or Fantasy created by Q for his own amusement. Correct me if i'm wrong, but he doesnt appear to have any knowledge of future events. (talk) 23:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Other TNG episodes[edit]

True Q and Qpid were left out -- if you're going to list almost every episode Q appears in, you might as well be complete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


'He serves as a major antagonist in the beginning of The Next Generation. During the early seasons of The Next Generation and later over the later seasons of The Next Generation and Deep Space 9, Q evolves from an enemy to a full-fledged hero by Voyager.' - I certainly would not describe Q at any point of his character development as 'heroic' and certainly not as a 'full-fledged hero'! He's a complex character, and at times he torments the characters for fun, other times to teach them a lesson, and sometimes because he needs help, but at no point is he heroic! I'm going to change this sentence. --Imagine Wizard (talk · contribs · count) Iay amay Magineiay Izardway. 17:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Here, here! Good, needed change. Ckruschke (talk) 18:07, 18 July 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Q source?[edit]

I was wondering if anyone thinks there might be a connection to Q source, the hypothetical primary biography of Jesus which collected his sayings and were the written basis for compiling the gospels. This is a new though to me just now, but I thought perhaps since Q seems to explain Star Trek Next Generation in a mysterious way, and that the character himself is not defined as a single person.. Well, I'm still sorting the details in my mind. But does anyone else think this is possible? --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 16:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Star Trek: Borg audiobook[edit]

This does exist. It's basically a playthrough of the complete game in audio form only. The ISBN is 0-671-57502-3, and it has a 1996 copyright date by Simon & Schuster Audioworks.


The current revision, by Jade D Face, contains the following in the lead:

he and his fellow Q are said to be omnipotent (which is proven wrong, when Q was stripped of his powers by others of his race)

I think the bracketed section should be removed. The statement is that he is "said to be omnipotent" - this is true regardless of whether he actually is omnipotent. Furthermore, such explanation is out of place in the lead, and would be best left for further in the article.

Ping Maplestrip and Onel5969 as being previously involved with this sentence.

-mattbuck (Talk) 23:01, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Mattbuck - and thanks for the ping. Obviously I don't feel it belongs in the lead, since I've reverted it at least twice now. But for two reasons. The first is that, like you, I don't agree that it belongs there, even if accurate; if accurate, it belongs in the body of the article someplace. However, right now it doesn't belong in the article anywhere, since it is completely unsourced, and an editor saying "I saw it in episode X", is pretty much the definition of original research -- a big no-no on the WP. Onel5969 TT me 23:39, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. According to the source - which is the show itself - all Q are omnipotent. Anything else is original research. And even if Wikipedia did allow original research - which it does not - what happens when several omnipotent beings try to produce different outcomes is unknowable. Dlabtot (talk) 04:06, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't believe I was actually involved with this sentence at all, but regardless, I agree that whether or not Q are "technically" omnipotent should only be discussed/described if reliable sources do so. For all intents and purposes, the species is portrayed as properly omnipotent in-universe. ~Mable (chat) 08:21, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
It is not original research, stop it. I have never said "I saw it in episode X". I said it WAS in Episode X. This is my source: Q was stripped of his powers, which means he isn't Omnipotent.--Jade D Face (talk) 12:43, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
I have provided you source, my information is right. Stop reverting my editations now.Jade D Face (talk) 23:50, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Jade D Face, please remember that wikipedia works on consensus. Q is stated to be omnipotent many times. Whether he is or not, whether omnipotence even makes logical sense, is not relevant to this. Can an omnipotent person create an object they can't move? Don't know, don't care. Are many Q more powerful than one Q? Don't know, don't care. All that matters is whether he is stated to be omnipotent. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:57, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
In addition, the source quoted is not a reliable source. Onel5969 TT me 00:37, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
You can say that, but it doesn't matter. I have verified the source and it's right. Here are more sources for dumbasses like you: Jade D Face (talk) 12:32, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
When he is stated doesn't mean he is. Omnipotent being can do anything. When he was stripped off his powers, he couldn't resist. Therefore, he is not Omnipotent. Omnipotent person can create object they can't move and move it, because they want it. It's not don't know, don't care. They just can do anything, manipulation of logic. Q couldn't do anything.Jade D Face (talk) 12:43, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
None of which are reliable sources either. But you are missing the larger point, which has been pointed out to you by above editors: even if you are correct in your interpretation of whether or not Q is omnipotent, that is not what the lead says. It states that Q "are said to be omnipotent". Therefore your addition would be incorrect, regardless. Please stop edit warring, you are now in violation of WP:3RR. And your lack of civility is also discouraging."Onel5969 TT me 12:44, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
{{u|Jade D Face|Jade]], no one is arguing that Q wasn't rendered powerless. But that is irrelevant to the matter. We are not saying Q is omnipotent, we're saying Q is said to be omnipotent. Omnipotence is logically problematic - can someone omnipotent create something they cannot destroy? Perhaps it's something along the lines of different infinities - there exist infinities which are "bigger" than other infinities, yet both are still infinite. It frankly doesn't matter. It's a TV show, and Q is stated to be omnipotent many times. That he has his powers taken away at one point is mentioned in the body text, but it doesn't belong in the lead. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:46, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Jade D Face - It's obvious you care about the article, but edit warring is not the answer. Please read the description of the WP:3RR rule. Onel5969 TT me 12:48, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
That article is too long, I don't understand it. All of sources are reliable. If you insist, episodes themselves are the most reliable source there is. In episode Death Wish, Quinn states that Q are not Omnipotent. Hence, I am right.Jade D Face (talk) 12:52, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Jade, no one is arguing over whether you are right. Clearly Q is not omnipotent, because omnipotence is a logical impossibility. But Q is nevertheless said to be omnipotent. That is what is important - he is SAID TO BE omnipotent. Not whether he is, whether he is said to be.
As for WP:3RR, it basically says "don't revert stuff three times or you'll be blocked". -mattbuck (Talk) 13:06, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
He is incorrectly said to be omnipotent.Jade D Face (talk) 13:14, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
It doesn't matter that it's incorrect. See WP:V - we want verifiability, not truth. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Since source are episodes themselves, verifiability is definitely good here. Jade D Face (talk) 13:38, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
You should be able to recognize that at this point, there is a clear consensus, even if you disagree with it. It's past time for you to recognize that consensus. The next step is WP:ANI. Dlabtot (talk) 17:28, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

What about Star Trek, The Original Series, Season 1, Episode 17, "The Squire of Gothos"?[edit]

I thought I read or watched a documentary that the alien in the Star Trek Episode, "The Squire of Gothos" (From Star Trek, The Original Series, Season 1, Episode 17, original air date: January 12, 1967[1]) who called himself "General Trelane, Retired" (and also told the Star Trek crew that they were welcome to call him "General Trelane, retired", "Squire Trelane", "Squire" and "The Lonely Squire of Gothos") was the first Q and more specifically, a child Q.

With that said, I thought that the very first sentence in this Wikipedia page would start something like this, "Q is a fictional character in Star Trek: The Original Series, Star Trek: The Next Generation," and etc. I was hoping that someone (on the main Wikipedia web page) would point out that even though Gene Roddenberry might not have given the name "Q" to "General Trelane", in the original Star Trek TV series, but that one can surmise that Roddenberry had obviously thought of a god-like being (or actually a family of god-like beings) either before or during the first season of the original Star Trek TV series (which aired from 1966 to 1969[2]). MikeWest (talk) 01:02, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^
  2. ^