Talk:Tasha Yar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Tasha Yar is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 9, 2013.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
February 25, 2013 Good article nominee Listed
August 25, 2013 Featured article candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured article
WikiProject Star Trek (Rated FA-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.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-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 FA-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.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.

Written Out?[edit]

Was the character written with the intention to eliminate her in the first season? Or did they write her out because Crosby didn't want to play the part anymore? (As a regular, at least)

Crosby left the show on her own accord, which is probably why they gave her such a dumb death.


This strongly parallels the death of Jadzia in DS9 -- while being a major character she also died rather randomly when the actress decided to leave the show. The pointlessness of these deaths also strongly remind me on the stereotypical redshirts of TOS, who would usually die a very stupid death shortly after being introduced to the public.
The randomness of the deaths of Yar and Jadzia also reeks of improvision. While Yar died the typical redshirt death (the character's death being a turning point of the episode), Jadzia's death felt entirely improvised to me -- it's one of "those other things" that happen throughout the episode and cutting out the scene wouldn't have changed much about the general plot of the episode (other than the plots developing out of Jadzia's death and the introduction of Ezri Dax (in fact, I'm a bit suspicious that some episodes featuring Ezri Dax may have originally been written for Jadzia's character and then tweaked after they had to replace her)).
This is just MHO, though, so don't take any of that as fact. I'm just one of the TNG fanboys who would've rather liked Wesley Crusher kick the bucket than Tasha (who, after all, had sex with and android -- which is a big plus for any true geek). --Ashmodai 22:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


It was originally reported in the Canadian media that she was fired due to her work as a porn actress that was only discovered by producers only after she signed on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

She's in an episode of red shoe diaries with Robert Knepper, who was also in an episode in the first season of star trek. Family Guy Guy (talk) 05:48, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Headline text[edit]

Media in Vancouver suggested that she was terminated after producers discovered her stint as a porn-star. They felt that her history would distract viewers from the character significantly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


I dont think her name is really natasha its just tasha...she mentions that in "survivors", a star trek novel.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 18:27, 12 July 2006

According to memory alpha it is Natasha. Gimmetrow 00:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Memory Alpha has no connections to StarTrek except being a fan page. Now if they got this from Paramount, that would be different. SRodgers-- 19:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

It is Natasha. It is stated on ----Willie 08:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Can't remember any exact episodes, but her name being Natasha is definitely mentioned in one of the first few episodes.WinterSnowblind (talk) 17:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... the Ukranian transliteration of her first name that's given in the article is "Natalia", not "Natasha". I suspect the transliteration's wrong -- can anyone verify? --Heath (talk) 16:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

"Natasha" originally started out as a Russian and Ukrainian pet form of the name "Natalia", but eventually became a common first name in itself, though mostly in Western countries. If Yar were a real-life person, her birth name would likely be Natalia and she might be referred to affectionately as "Natasha" by close family and friends.-- (talk) 22:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

German American[edit]

Can the editor who keeps trying to place this article in Category:Fictional German-Americans please provide some justification? The character was born on Turkana IV, not Earth, so I am unsure you can claim she is a German-American. Even if she was born on Earth, the nations of Germany and the USA had ceased to exist centuries earlier. Do you have a reliable source to say she was a German American? Road Wizard 18:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I put on that editor's talk page that I thought the character was considered Ukrainian ancestry. The memory alpha page (linked in this article) supports that. Gimmetrow 19:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC) also has it as Natasha. PrometheusX303 19:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

True...Tasha is not German, but Ukranian and I think part Russian.

removed "homage" reference[edit]

I'm deleting this line:

Yar was oringinally named "Hernandez," an homage to the character of Private Vasquez from the film Aliens.

It seems silly to say that one character is an homage to another when the only they they have in common is being portrayed by the same actor. By that logic, Benjamin Sisko is an homage to Hawk from Spenser: For Hire, as Avery Brooks portrayed both.

Except that they aren't portrayed by the same actor. Private Vasquez was played by Jenette Goldstein. Bones O'Malley (talk) 18:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


I thought Yar had a sister.

Nevermind I found it.

She does. The sister's name is Ishara and at first she mocks Tasha for fleeing the awful world they grew up in, then eventually grew to admire Tasha's heroism.

Yeah, Ishara Yar. She was hot. (talk) 20:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


I am almost 100% certain that this is in the TNG Companion. Will add this once I get back. Morwen - Talk 11:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

reason for departure[edit]

The official word, as given by Denise Crosby herself in interviews, is that she felt stifled by the writing on the show. Her character did not see much action, and she felt all Tasha did stand at the bridge and answer to the captain. (Having just finished watching season 1 up to "Skin of Evil", I have to agree.)

I don't know if Denise Crosby ever did hardcore porn (and the couple episodes of Red Shoe Diaries post-Trek don't count), but she was in an issue of Playboy, which I have also seen cited as the secret/true reason for her departure from the show--that she was fired. The pictures were first published in a 1979 issue and apparently some others from that time appeared in a 1988 issue, so the timing might be of interest if the fired theory is true. She did a couple episodes of Red Shoe Diaries post-Trek

Also, I don't know how relevant any of this may be to the Tasha Yar article; I just saw it above and wanted to comment. Sorry about that. I'm gonna hop over to the talk page on Denise and see if there's anything of interest... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The official word is bunk to save face for Crosby. She was gotten rid of because she was so despised by the fans that they received thousands of hate mail calling for her death, but Roddenberry and crew liked her so much they managed to figure out ways of bringing her back.-- (talk) 06:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Is there any evidence to support the "fans hated her" premise? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lars Haeh (talkcontribs) 23:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit Made[edit]

I removed the category 'women warriors' from this page- she was not a 'warrior' as such but rather a security officer on a ship of exploration, if anything she was more a police officer/security guard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

^^ Without comments like these wikipedia simply would not be wikipedia (talk) 17:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tasha Yar/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ed! (talk · contribs) 20:49, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Repetition in the lead: "critics, who were disappointed with the manner of the character's exit from the show." and then "The manner of her first death was received with mixed reviews,"
  • Removed the first mention of critical response. Miyagawa (talk) 22:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • In "Appearances," you should note the actors who portray characters mentioned.
  • "Rather than creating a third timeline where Yar was on board the Enterprise-C, she simply moved back into the main timeline causing her to both be on board the earlier Enterprise and to have died at the hands of Armus on Vagra II. This process was later described as "world jumping" rather than a typical timeline travel story by critics.[24]" -- I don't understand this sentence at all. Could you try to rewrite it?
  • Re-written, but I think it needs a diagram. I'll see if I can draw one up. Miyagawa (talk) 23:09, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I think her death impacted Data's character development, right? Particularly in "The Measure Of A Man." It could be added in at the end of the line about her and Data's romance.
  • You note in the lead that Yar inspired the women characters of the subsequent series. Was it just Kira? Do the sources not any specific impact on the Dax, Janeway or Torres characters?
  • It doesn't mention them specifically, what the source says in relation to Yar is "They also see a progression from the original series in the "gender assumptions" of The Next Generation (TNG), Deep Space Nine (DS9), or Voyager (STV). "For one thing, women are everywhere visible in positions of genuine leadership" (90). This may be arguable for TNG, where the doctor and the psychic counselor, although important, are not in command positions, and the one female who is, security officer Tasha Yar, is killed early in the series. In DS9, not only are such women in such positions among the regular cast, but more appear: starship captains, Romulan Ambassadors, Starfleet Admirals, and the leader of the Dominion, the Federation's most dangerous enemy since the Borg. Gregory notes that in DS9, the female leads "are assertive, combative women who take leading roles in action sequences" ". Miyagawa (talk) 22:49, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I'd suggest you mention those positions specifically. Perhaps after "where women are in lead parts." add something like this: "He noted specifically that women appeared in command positions more regularly as main and supporting characters, and are portrayed as more assertive, combative women who take leading roles in action sequences". —Ed!(talk) 23:03, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I believe she has a few stock footage appearances, which might merit mention.
  • Done, added to casting and concept. Miyagawa (talk) 23:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Memory Alpha notes a surprise appearance by her in the background of an episode, which might be interesting to note here.
  • Duplicate links tool shows six duplicate links to correct.
  • Fixed. Just installed a duplicate link highlighter so that should hopefully stop me from doing that in the future! :) Miyagawa (talk) 23:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • No problems with Dab links, but one external link appears to be dead.
  • Replaced with a new one. I'm surprised the old one died so quickly, it was only about six weeks old! Miyagawa (talk) 22:37, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I see no problems with article stability or neutrality.
Placing it on hold pending a few fixes. —Ed!(talk) 21:42, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Do you think the image in the infobox would be better if it was the season one promotional image? Its this image. I only ask because I based the structure of this article off the Grey's Anatomy character structures and those use the promotional shots where available. The image currently on this article was already on there when I expanded it. Miyagawa (talk) 22:55, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd think the promo image is of higher quality so we could use that. —Ed!(talk) 23:03, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm wondering if "Casting and concept" would be better entitled "Concept and development". What do you think? Miyagawa (talk) 23:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Decided to be bold and change the section header. Also uploaded a reduced size version of that promotional photo and swapped out the image in the infobox with it. Miyagawa (talk) 23:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Great work! Passing the article for GA. —Ed!(talk) 00:46, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

What about the action figure?[edit]

Surprised no mention is made of the action figure that is a highly collectible figure in the secondary market. Weak and the failure of the mention should've disqualified it for FA status. (talk) 07:41, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

It may just be that there's no source for the claim that it's "highly collectible". Dismas|(talk) 10:03, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Every character in Star Trek has had at least three action figures made of it. I've never seen a reliable source that states that any figure of Yar is anything special. Miyagawa (talk) 22:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Really surprised by FA status on this article[edit]

I was really disappointed by this article's appearance on the main page on 9 September 2013. I think it's one of the lowest quality articles I've seen make the grade in a long time. Nothing personal to those who've worked on this but it's just an honest opinion. I think the article fails the FA criteria on 1a (well-written) and 2a (lead) and possibly others. The lead paragraph is far too concerned with minutia and does not give a rounded view of the subject. The "Reception" section (nearly a third of the article) is very incoherent, barely focused on reception and more on character analysis. (On a personal note, I'm also left scratching my head about the general sentiment given in the section. I've never meet a Trekkie that liked Yar; yet judging by this section she was basically loved.) On top of this, a large fraction of the references are subscription-only. And the cite templates are still using deprecated parameter usage. In my opinion, this article doesn't qualify for GA status. Perhaps it should be nominated for reassessment. Jason Quinn (talk) 15:38, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The use of subscription-only references doesn't disqualify an article from FA status; see WP:PAYWALL ("Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible... Do not reject sources just because they are hard or costly to access.") What are the deprecated parameters that the templates are using? Often these are flagged up with red warnings in the references, but I can't see any of that. BencherliteTalk 16:06, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
That's true but I wrote it was the large fraction of sub-only refs that concerns me. As for the template stuff, I can update those. It's easier to do it than to explain them. My point there is that the article just wasn't gone over with a fine tooth comb. Jason Quinn (talk) 18:44, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Fixed them. It was mostly just use of "coauthors" (long deprecated, no error warning) and a handful of other minor things. A featured article however serves as a model to editors of what good articles should be. So some attention should be paid to these minor things. Jason Quinn (talk) 19:19, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the love. This was my very first Featured Article after some hundred or so Good Articles. If coauthor was meant to be deprecated, then why has no other bothered to remove it from the guidance notes for the cite templates? And why must a Reception section must be three paragraphs of someone saying that they liked something, and another three saying that they don't? Reception is having an opinion about something which doesn't necessary mean a straight forward like/dislike discussion. As for the subscription-only references - that is just nonsense. There are plenty of FAs out there which only have offline sources. I could have just as easily not placed the links in the article to the subscription only locations and no one would have batted an eyelid at them as offline sources. Perhaps if you were so critical of these issues in Featured Articles, then you might like to look at reviewing some whilst they are still candidates. Miyagawa (talk) 22:35, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Coauthors is mentioned in the documentation as deprecated, however, it is not obsolete. There's a lot of code however that still uses "coauthors" and so ripping mention of it out completely is unfeasible at the moment. But, yes, more should be done regarding that. As for the Reception section, I never said anything about giving equal weight to all views. Views should be given weight according to their relative importance. I did mention what seems to me like a curious disconnect between the impression the text gives and reality about Yar's popularity. It indicates a possible bias in that section in her favor. Regardless if the section is biased or not, the writing in that section is, well, pretty terrible. It's just a bunch of clunky facts loosely strung together with no real hint where things are going or what's going to be covered. According to the FA criteria, a FA article must have prose that is "engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard". The section simply does not meet that standard. The lead also needs work, especially the first paragraph. The first paragraph should basically say who she is, why she's important, and what most important things to know about her are. After all, it's the only thing a lot of people will actually read in the article. Instead most of the paragraph is covering inconsequential details related her concept and development. In the FA nom, I see you praised the prose as "good", as did another editor. As far as I'm concerned, that's untenable. As for participating in the feature article process, that's what I'm doing right now. I'm at the "Raise issues at article Talk" step of Wikipedia:Featured article review. I wish I had seen this article's nomination but Wikipedia is too big to see everything. In general, I'm extremely impressed with FAs; perhaps that's why this particular one stuck out to me. The "you should have participated" argument, while a nice invitation, is a red herring. This is an article which should have failed review; it fell through the cracks; it exposed flaws in the system. As editors, our FA articles are supposed to be "the best articles we have to offer". We must take that to heart. Even if only a few editors participated in the initial review, they must apply a critical eye asking, "Is this the best we can do?" or it lessens the very value of what FA means. Do you think this is nearly the best that can be done with an article on Tasha Yar? I really hope not. And if so, it means that perhaps the nomination was premature. Jason Quinn (talk) 05:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Coauthors also still shows in the automated insertion tool, which I use. I would have thought that if we weren't meant to use them, then it wouldn't be so easily avaliable. Regarding Yar's popularity - perhaps there is discussion on bulletin boards about her, but that couldn't be used as a reliable source. One of the older posts on this talk pages mentions a letter writing campaign - I've never seen anything to support it - even from the same sources that discusses the letter writing campaign to remove Pulaski and bring back Crusher in season three. To include a bias which does not sit within the sources is Original Research. Please bring it to FA review - so that it can be seen by the same editors that promoted it in the first place. Just because the article does not meet with your expectations, does not mean that it does not meet the FA criteria. Per WP:DONOTFEED, this will be my last post here on the subject. Miyagawa (talk) 11:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm in a stinkingly bad mood right now as I've just gone through an offline thing. This just came at a bad time and I'm getting overly aggressive when you're just trying to help. I'll come back to this in a week with a clear head and discuss properly with you what we can do to improve this article. Miyagawa (talk) 17:15, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Jason, as you've read the FAR instructions you'll also have seen that no newly promoted FA should be taken to FAR until at least 3 to 6 months have elapsed, absent exceptional circumstances. Saying that it shouldn't have passed FAC in this state is not an exceptional circumstance. As this wasn't promoted until late August, that means that any FAR now will be removed as premature. If there are problems with prose and / or the lead, these can be addressed through editing and discussion. BencherliteTalk 12:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Absolutely agree with the first post in this section. This is a featured article? When God Writes Your Love Story a couple of weeks ago, and now this? Is Wikipedia this desperate for featured articles? There are no other good article candidates? It's not really even about whether any trekkies liked the character — this is not an extensive article on an interesting topic obscure or not, or a subject of any real import. It's ridiculous that this passed muster. PJtP (talk) 21:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Rightly or wrongly, the relative import of a subject has nothing to do with its potential to be a Featured Article, so long as it passes the basic WP notability criteria. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

who asked the question, and who thought it answered[edit]

"Questions were raised over the sexuality of the character, and it was thought that the events in the episode "The Naked Now" were designed to establish her heterosexuality. " This bit of text, who asked questions and who thought Naked Now answered them? It needs to be sourced. Vince (talk) 21:17, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

See Reception, third paragraph. All fully cited. Miyagawa (talk) 22:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Mar 13[edit]

"The character was subsequently renamed "Tanya" around March 13, which lasted for two days.[1]"

March 13th lasted for two days?!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that wording wasn't great. I've fixed it. --Fru1tbat (talk) 16:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Commentary-"heterosexualized lesbian"[edit]

I will put that part on my list of some of the biggest bullshit I have read in my life, right next to the claims that video games cause sexism, violence and apocalypse. Is this just something some guys made up when they were bored..why...because Tasha has short hair or something? Do we have any confirmation that this is canon, a comment from Star Trek creators, anything? Or is this a gigantic lie that some Wikipedian editor nitpicked from the hidden corners of the internet for whatever reason? I couldn't find this information anywhere else, Wikipedian article seems to be the main spreader of this lie. Ok, there is no harm in fan fiction and fantasising about characters you are attracted to, that's no problem. People can write their own fan fiction. But why is this lie and fantasy included in this article and why was this lying article featured? This was an honest question. Why was this article featured? The entire "commentary" should be removed with prejudice. I look at the entire internet and I see wishful thinking from Yotuube videos and books written, edited and made for fans. I have a feeling that you wouldn't be so kind to books that talk about "hidden jews " or "hidden sodomites in Star Trek", but you still list it? Why? Early episodes exist but they are barely canon. At least now I know who made this rumour and now I know that it is a lie. But not many people look at the sources. :(

Ugh...I am watching Star Trek on TV and I waiting for the episode where poor Data became bloodless and unprivileged unlike the privileged white sexualized bigot he used to be. Oh poor justice of mine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

In a section on the reception of the character, the opinions of critics and observers are relevant, with some threshold for notability of course. The statements in the article appear to be sourced (I have not checked the text of the sources, if they're even available online) - if you can't find reasonable support for them, that's worth discussing. Your accusations of prejudice against similar content on other character aspects, on the other hand, are irrelevant here, and inflammatory - can we stick to one matter at a time and keep the discussion factual, please? --Fru1tbat (talk) 13:44, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Was Yar ever an ensign?[edit]

In "Yesterday's Enterprise" she says that she's been on the Enterprise 4 years, "straight out of the academy". But in Season 1 she was already a lieutenant and the security chief. This has to be a plot hole, no? No one graduates Star Fleet Academy as a lieutenant, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bencope (talkcontribs) 00:35, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Might be worth double checking "All Good Things..." to see if she's an Ensign or a Lieutenant in the past time period. I'm pretty sure she's a Lieutenant though. It could be that the 4 years part was just because of the alternative timeline seen in "Yesterday's Enterprise". Miyagawa (talk) 17:19, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
She could have come out of the academy as a lieutenant. As far as I know, graduates from West Point, et al, graduate as lieutenants. Dismas|(talk) 18:18, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Careful - army ranks (i.e. for West Point graduates) are different from navy ranks - in the U.S. at least, the first rank called "lieutenant" is slightly higher in the Navy than in the Army. Either way, let's not get off-topic with speculation. She's definitely a Lieutenant in the series, and minor nitpicks like the apparent inconsistency mentioned above are probably just too trivial to be worth mentioning. --Fru1tbat (talk) 19:33, 3 May 2016 (UTC)