From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search


With all respect to the original author, I am wondering if this page should be included into the existing Star Trek page? --₮K/Talk! 18:24, 29 December 2008 (EST)

You don't explain why, so I'll assume that it's to avoid lots of small articles about individual characters?
I don't agree with it being on the Star Trek page. Conservapedia wants concise articles, and the Star Trek article is already a fair size (in fact I think the religion section should be removed to a separate article).
I support this article staying, but an alternative is to have a single article covering all the main characters ("Star Trek characters", "Characters of Star Trek"?) rather than separate articles for each.
Philip J. Rayment 18:58, 29 December 2008 (EST)
You surmised correctly, Philip. I agree, as a compromise, a single linked page to the Star Trek main article, detailing the characters. Perhaps detailing the main characters of all three Star Trek series. And I also agree with your suggestion about putting the religion discussion onto its own, linked page. --₮K/Talk! 19:07, 29 December 2008 (EST)
There's been five live-action series. I'm not sure whether putting them all on the one page is a good idea; one page per series might be better (although a few overlap series).
As a minimum, the page(s) should contain details of all the regular characters:
Original series Next Generation DS9 Voyager Enterprise
  • Picard
  • Riker
  • La Forge
  • Yar
  • Worf
  • Beverly Crusher
  • Troi
  • Data
  • Wesley Crusher
  • Benjamin Sisko
  • Odo
  • Worf
  • Dax
  • Jake Sisko
  • O'Brien
  • Quark
  • Bashir
  • Kira
  • Janeway
  • Chakotay
  • Torres
  • Kes
  • Paris
  • Neelix
  • the doctor
  • Tuvok
  • Seven of Nine
  • Kim
  • Archer
  • Phlox
  • T'Pol
  • Reed
  • Mayweather
  • Sato
  • Tucker
And I've missed a few (including at least two from Next Gen). Plus there's a number of other semi-regular ones that could be included. Putting all them on one page is going to make for a large page, even given only a paragraph or two each.
Philip J. Rayment 10:10, 30 December 2008 (EST)

Great contribution, Philip! Perhaps, since you can, you will add that as a template once others read this and add the missing players? --₮K/Talk! 16:06, 30 December 2008 (EST)

If we have separate articles on (most or) all those characters, a nav-box template would be a good idea, but unless/until then, I'm not sure there's much point. Philip J. Rayment 18:31, 30 December 2008 (EST)
Sometimes I am obtuse, to be sure, but then I don't understand the reason for your work above. Anyway, as you wish, Philip. --₮K/Talk! 18:52, 30 December 2008 (EST)
The reason for the list above was simply to point out that, at a minimum, a page covering all the regulars would be a rather large page, with more than 42 different characters being covered. Philip J. Rayment 03:23, 31 December 2008 (EST)
May I add a few? Next Gen: Q, Guinan. DS9: Nog, Rom, Female Changeling, Weyoun (post-Season 5), Gul Dukat. Enterprise: Degra (Season 3).-TitusL 18:54, 30 December 2008 (EST)
They are all worthy candidates, but few fit the criteria of my list above as being regulars, which I define as being those that are listed on the opening theme (sorry, I don't know the technical terms) of the episodes. Nog and Rom may, I don't recall. Q, and I'm fairly sure Guinan, don't, for example. But yes, add others like your suggestions and that 42+ I mentioned could easily become 50 or 60. The ones that I know I missed are the other doctor on TNG and the Bajoran that I think replaced Yar. I could look them up but I couldn't be bothered at the moment, as it doesn't really matter for the current discussion. Philip J. Rayment 03:23, 31 December 2008 (EST)
Dr Pulaski and Ensign Ro Laren respectively. (PS - my TV shows fireworks in Sydney as I type this, so happy new year PJR!) BrianW 08:02, 31 December 2008 (EST) I figured that someone would save me the effort! Happy new year to you and others also. Philip J. Rayment 10:26, 31 December 2008 (EST)


I can't find the rule right now, and perhaps we have never adequately documented it (so the following may not be the exact criteria), but we don't include information such as a person being homosexual unless both of the following criteria are satisfied:

  • That their homosexuality is certain.
  • That their homosexuality is a defining aspect of their life, such as them being a homosexual activist.

As far as I'm aware, the second of these points at least is not the case here, which is why I've reverted the claim a second time.

Philip J. Rayment 19:47, 29 December 2008 (EST)

He's been on a gay speaking tour. Is that enough to satisfy #2?[1] - Rod Weathers 19:57, 29 December 2008 (EST)
Perhaps so. Philip J. Rayment 05:42, 30 December 2008 (EST)
He recently took part in a UK reality TV series (set in the Australian rain forest) in which he openly prosyletised for his particular orientation. Bugler 05:50, 30 December 2008 (EST)

Added info

Since this is an article about Sulu, should we really be adding personal info about George Takei? I mean, it makes sense to say Sulu was played by "openly homosexual actor George Takei," but all the information about Takei's "marriage" is terribly out of place. LiamG 02:05, 30 December 2008 (EST)

  • On reflection, Liam, I agree. I didn't exactly see the linkage and article about the real person, George Takei, when I added it.....just read the discussion about his being Gay, which I thought everyone on the planet knew by now, and had a link about the "marriage". I will remove the extra information, and thanks for bringing it up! --₮K/Talk! 02:26, 30 December 2008 (EST)