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

Television: Episode coverage Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force.

Star Trek Low‑importance

	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.Star TrekWikipedia:WikiProject Star TrekTemplate:WikiProject Star TrekStar Trek articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Science Fiction Low‑importance

	Speculative fiction portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction 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.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lists

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Film: American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Fictional characters

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.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles

Merger of Sito Jaxa

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]

Added because others requested the article be merged instead, which I now agree with. The article lacks real-world notability, and needs significant real-world notability to stand alone. Ejfetters 08:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I support a merge & redirect now. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I closed the AfD as Keep per the consensus there. I don't have a particular opinion either way about a merge, though the discussion at AfD probably tended to favour one. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Merger of Khan Noonien Singh

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]

Oppose Merge, Khan is a major character in the Star Trek universe, perhaps the best known villain in all of the series. He is also the title charater of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. In my opinion, he is definately notable enough to have his own page. Johnred32 00:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Khan is a major character and should clearly not be merged. Real world notability is almost certainly possible to show. Eluchil404 04:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- With real world notability it would be able to stand alone, but in its current state it has no real world notability. If someone has it, by all means, add it Ejfetters 04:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that he is the only villain to have an eponymous movie is real world notability in itself. Look, I agree that the rest should be merged. Khan is notable. Leave him his article. Sir Rhosis 04:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge as stated. At the very least, merge and redirect without prejudice to article re-creation when someone has time. You've nominated so many at once (on top of a bunch of PRODs by another editor) that it's hard to respond within a week. Some of us have other interests too, and even responsibilities outside Wikipedia! - Fayenatic (talk) 20:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge per above. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 05:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge -- he had a movie named after him, for pete's sake...--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 18:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge -- No need to merge, he's surely notable if he has a movie named after him, with a major role in an episode to support this Alastairward (talk) 12:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merger of Noonien Soong

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]

Is referenced several times, but only makes a single on-screen appearance in TNG. Should certainly not be deleted, but I could go either way on a merge. Eluchil404 04:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Need real world notability, in universe notability is irrelevant, see WP:NOT Ejfetters 04:56, 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 Sergey and Helena Rozhenko

Merger is fine for this article (which is the product of merging two seperate articles on the linked characters together. This content could fit either here or at Worf depending on how we want to structure our information on minor Star Trek characters. Eluchil404 04:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both here and at Worf. I don't mind which gets the redirect. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge done, redirected main article to this list of characters Alastairward (talk) 08:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merger of Christopher Pike

Oppose merge. He's a Captain of a Star Trek Enterprise. At the very least, merge and redirect without prejudice to article re-creation. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge, and oppose merge of Christopher Pike (Star Trek) as well. :-) Main character in pilot episode, prominent character in "The Menagerie"'s framing story, prominent character in episode of Star Trek: New Voyages, and apparently appears in upcoming movie as well.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 18:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge, Don't forget a main character in the Star Trek comic book series published by Marvel Comics entitled Star Trek: Early Voyages. (Dr. Stantz (talk) 20:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Oppose merge. He will be a prominent character in the upcoming Star Trek film. Valadius (talk) 15:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge. Little to no real world significance, main article consists mostly of rehashes of the plots of episodes he appeared in Alastairward (talk) 14:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merger of Surak

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]
- No real world notability for own article, merge, WP:NOT Ejfetters 23:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Both consensus and WP:NOT are official policies. However, you can't ignore one because it's inconvenient to you. So, while we understand that you'd like it merged, restating the exact same opinion without care for how they're relevant to the series or the sources or writing of a particular article, for each article in succession, isn't conducive to discussion. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 23:35, 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]
    - Note: I just revised "three" above to "two" -- for some reason, I thought he appeared in the animated series as well.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 18:11, 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

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 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposed to save articles

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]
- They aren't prodded, at least by me, they are merger propsals. Ejfetters 18:58, 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]
- Theres several characters in here that aren't just listings. All you have to do is just merge the information that is vital here. No one says this has to be just a list. Ejfetters (talk) 23:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It would save worry if you would generally specify "merge and redirect", as opposed to "merge and delete". If articles are redirected, it's easy for non-admins to retrieve text from the redirect page history and use bits of it elsewhere. Also, if you do the redirects yourself, please leave the categorisation intact; it helps to populate categories such as category:Bajorans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fayenatic london (talk • contribs) 01:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - No I never meant merge and delete, sorry if I said that by mistake - I did mean merge and redirect. Ejfetters (talk) 01:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, thanks. No, you never said "merge and delete", you just said "merge"; if you kindly specify "merge and redirect", that allows us to let it go for now since we can always come back later. - Fayenatic (talk) 18:57, 6 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

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]
- Again, real-world notability? Ejfetters 19:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - See me comment above. She is a character in real-world movies not in-universe ones. I consider her a clear cut keep seperate given the notability of Star Trek movies versus single episodes of TV shows. That is main characters in major motion pictures can have their own articles based on their notability as part of the film, even if they aren't widely discussed or analyzed apart from it. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - What are "real-world movies"?? She is a real person? Ejfetters (talk) 19:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - No she is an important character is a major film. I believe that that is an assertion of notability. The point is that it is the size of her role in the media franchise not that in th fictional universe which is being asserted. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:23, 7 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

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

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]

Support Merge Even within fandom, Offenhouse is small-fry. Grayfell (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Support A single canon appearance doesn't merit a separate article distinct from this list and the episode summary. Crispmuncher (talk) 02:52, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - a separate article isn't justified here. Robofish (talk) 20:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - minor character (at least cannon-wise) not significant enough to merit its own article. Cbbkr (talk) 15:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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