Talk: Unnamed Klingons (23rd century)

Ambassador/Kamarag

Split

I personally believe that for the improvement of both article the section on the unnamed ambassador should be split into its own article due to the size and detail of the section (as well as the fact it was a large role) Hutchy01 (talk) 20:01, September 12, 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. And out of the potential article titles "Ambassador" and "Kamarag", I opt for the latter. --Defiant (talk) 01:54, September 13, 2014 (UTC)

I would support the split and Kamarag as the tile of the new page, as that is a name given to him in a bg reference book. --Pseudohuman (talk) 23:58, September 13, 2014 (UTC)

Article split as per this talk. We have a few articles here on Memory Alpha created by information of licensed reference works. This is another example. Tom (talk) 17:57, March 8, 2015 (UTC)

But the policy --Tuskin38 (talk) 22:31, September 19, 2017 (UTC)

Re-merge

I'm curious as to what MA policy allows this page to be named based on the non-canon name of the character. Believe me, I've been calling him Kamarag since I read the novel Sarek when it was first published, and much prefer this to something like "Klingon Ambassador (23rd century)", but if this is actually in keeping with Memory Alpha policy, I couldn't find it anywhere. I'd very much like to know, for future reference. --TimPendragon (talk) 01:28, November 23, 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, this article title doesn't fit the naming of any article, the name doesn't come from any background sources, it comes from a novel--Tuskin38 (talk) 01:51, November 23, 2019 (UTC)

It seems that the Star Trek: Federation - The First 150 Years is being treated as a reference book? If it is then it is legit per the above section, if it is a work of fiction, then it should have never been split. I've never read the book so I can't answer that. --Alan (talk) 03:47, November 23, 2019 (UTC)

I own it, it's not a reference book. It's an in-universe perspective history book on the Federation.--Tuskin38 (talk) 03:50, November 23, 2019 (UTC)

Jaron is another example of an article title that comes from a novel. Arcadian, Arkenite, Ariolo, Bzzit Khaht, Kasheeta and Xelatian come from an RPG book. And there's nothing wrong with that in my opinion. A policy can have a few exceptions here and there. It's certainly easier than searching for Kamarag in the convoluted maze that the unnamed character lists have become. --NetSpiker (talk) 09:19, November 23, 2019 (UTC)

The policy, for reference. The First 150 Years is a reference book, but it's a fictional one, and we only explicitly allow non-fiction reference works to be background info, and by extention be comsidered as a source for names of unnamed stuff. As a fictional work, all the references to First 150 Years should be in the apocrypha sections. The "RPG book" also mentioned is explicitly called out in that same section as an allowed source for exactly those names, so there is no "exception" to the policy there. In fact, allowing bg sources to names things is already an exception to the baseline policy, so I think we have already bent enough in this regard. The current, one would assume temporary but extremely annoying, issues with the host rebuilding their platform after a decade of poor coding and planning which is resulting in mid-article page loads not accounting for the TOC is a pretty poor reason for changing anything permanently, like policy. That is assuming that is what was ment by the "maze," since otherwise it has never been easier to find things on the unnamed pages and this name would redirect to the entry anyway.

TLDR: Merge both the mentioned pages to their respective unnamed articles unless valid bg sources exist. - Archduk3 10:19, November 23, 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't know that Star Trek IV Sourcebook Update had been added to the resource policy. Good to know. --NetSpiker (talk) 10:27, November 23, 2019 (UTC)

And when I said "maze" I was thinking of examples like the Unnamed Deep Space 9 lists. There are 4 lists for Starfleet Deep Space 9 personnel, another 4 for Bajoran Militia Deep Space 9 personnel, another 1 for personnel in general and another 1 for residents. How is anyone supposed to find a specific character in that mess? --NetSpiker (talk) 10:53, November 23, 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. I also oppose the suggestion of merging this article to somewhere else, as I think we really need to take into account the fact that The First 150 Years was written by a verified production staff member, which doesn't seem to have even been mentioned in this discussion so far. --Defiant (talk) 11:04, November 23, 2019 (UTC)

There is no reason anyone would have any problem finding this guy on the page that the merge suggests. Let's try using comparative relevant examples in our pseudo-complaints.--Alan (talk) 05:14, November 24, 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. I didn't realize he would be the first entry on the list when I made the complaint. I still think my point about there being way too many unnamed lists is valid. Either reduce the number of lists or give every named character their own page, regardless of whether the name comes from a canon or non-canon source. That's my opinion.

You decided to add the Star Trek IV Sourcebook Update to the resource policy even though it's not a reference book and the addition hadn't been discussed on the policy's talk page. You could add The First 150 Years too. Or add novelizations, so that Kamarag and Jaron can both be covered. --NetSpiker (talk) 06:20, November 24, 2019 (UTC)

That's not an addition, it's a clarification of a practice we have done since 2005 and apparently never wrote down in the right place. If we want to discuss that now though, I would be fine with moving all of those to the unnamed lists. - Archduk3 18:41, November 24, 2019 (UTC)

MA:RESOURCE says that material not seen or heard in an episode or film may be used "to name items or people that were seen or referred to on-screen but not referred to by name." Isn't that what's happening here?

Names are useful. I agree with those who have suggested that the large number of "unnamed so-and-so" articles are difficult to navigate. If a character is unnamed in valid sources but named in ancillary material, I think it makes sense to use the name for that character's article, as long as we note the source of the name.

A separate question, though, is whether the in-universe usage of such a name should be restricted to the article (or cases in which the name is used). At the moment, we have things like President of the United Federation of Planets#Efrosian President, c. 2293, which reads "...when Kamarag, the Empire's Ambassador to the Federation, defended his government's actions..." It might be a more accurate representation of what was shown on-screen if it read "...when the Klingon Ambaassador to the Federation defended his government's actions..."

Is that a reasonable balance between ease of use and adherence to acceptable (canonical) resources? —Josiah Rowe (talk) 05:21, November 25, 2019 (UTC)

So, the solution to people not reading the policies in full and being bad at using links is to create a system where someone will have to constantly read every article this page is linked to make sure the name from an unapproved resource is not actually being used as a name.

No. That is an extremely unreasonable suggestion. It does have the merit of leaving all parties unsatisfied though, so at least it is a compromise, but it again makes the incorrect assumption that a compromise hasn't already been reached. We use names only from approved sources for very good reasons, and even if we were to push that line further into expanded universe territory, this page still wouldn't make the cut, because not all sources can agree on single name. If you're problem really is the unnamed pages, figure out a better way to do those.

If your problem is the content policy, and for some of you it very clearly is, spend more time at Memory Beta, they really could use the help. Also, how the hell do you people find anything if you're all so bad at using the search bar and links? I know wikia can't go too long without breaking shit, but there are over 21,000 redirects on this wiki and more than 500 of them are just for "non-canon" names and such. If you can't find something at this point, I'm of the opinion that the problem is most likely you, or at least wikia. Clearly efforts have been made to accommodate names from unapproved sources, so what are you doing wrong? - Archduk3 07:13, November 25, 2019 (UTC)

I actually do spend more time at Memory Beta and yes, they could use a lot of help. But when the Star Trek TV and movie writers go online for research, they don't go to Memory Beta, they go to Memory Alpha. That's what keeps me coming back here. I've never suggested turning Memory Alpha into a copy of Memory Beta and I believe the Apocrypha sections should stay where they are. I only wanted to expand the naming policy to cover a wider range of sources and liberate named characters from the unnamed lists where they don't belong. The last time I suggested this, the MA community rejected it, saying that articles would have to be renamed often due to the novels, comics and games giving different names for the same character. Since that time, lots of pages have been renamed, merged and split anyway for lots of other reasons. That's something to think about.

As for Kamarag not "making the cut" because a few other sources call him Kiltarc zantai-Neygebh, that's the same kind of situation as Ian Andrew Troi being called Alex Troi in Deanna's personnel file. We call him Ian Andrew Troi because that's the most widely used name. --NetSpiker (talk) 08:08, November 25, 2019 (UTC)

Again, let's try using comparative relevant examples. For in the canon universe, we have a flow sheets in place on how to determine which is "most canon", if what you are suggesting is to do the same from the non-canon universe, then how exactly are we going to even start deciding which is the "most non-canon" source to use? Novelizations of features? Books by production staff? There's a lot of grey area there that may make things worse than they already are. I'm not completely opposed to main, primary, featured, or credited unnamed characters having their own pages for sake of individuality and to support large amounts of supporting background content, and maybe there is a way to wedge that system into the unnamed X system we currently have, perhaps like sub-pages, but that's also why we have the unnamed redirect system we have. Reman Viceroy went from an individual page to a redirect, with his fellow unnamed Remans, and it works because it fits into an existing system. So, unless we can create a similar system with what is being discussed here, that doesn't create more conflict (ie use of noncanon sources) than it resolves (replacing redirects that take you where you need to go anyway), then that's going to be hard to change. --Alan (talk) 12:04, November 25, 2019 (UTC)

OK, I think I understand the problem better now. As I see it, it stems from an oddity in MA:RESOURCE#Production and reference materials. The list of approved resources under "3. Materials about a production" is, or at least appears, rather arbitrary. Why should Star Charts and the FASA sourcebook be allowed, but other works with at least as strong a connection to production be excluded? (I know that in the case of the FASA sourcebook, that’s been de facto policy for many years, but longevity alone is not a justification.)

It seems to me that we should either add The First 150 Years and novelizations, as NetSpiker suggests above, (perhaps explicitly for naming purposes only?), or remove Star Charts and the FASA sourcebook. —Josiah Rowe (talk) 17:12, November 25, 2019 (UTC)

Then let's remove them. Generally speaking, only Tier 1 & 2 should be used for providing names for unnamed things. We allowed the FASA book since, it has at least been reported, those names came from the production, and that would have been a Tier 1 source. Those names are allowed because they are supposedly the names they had for them when making the film and they just weren't used on screen. Everything else from that book is apocrypha. If someone wants to suggest that this name is like those others and comes from the production, I haven't heard it yet, and I would have fully expected at least the Star Trek Encyclopedia to have mentioned it if it was, which would be an aceptible source. Like it or not, but The First 150 Years isn't any different from a novel, and the most authoritative author we have said repeatedly that stuff from novels shouldn't be considered "canon." Not that we've based our policies solely on that, but his reasoning was sound. - Archduk3 19:59, November 25, 2019 (UTC)

Alan, we don't need any flow sheets to determine which source is the "most non-canon source to use". Just use whichever name is used most often. Or if two names are equally common, use the name from the most recent source. --NetSpiker (talk) 08:33, November 26, 2019 (UTC)

If you want to use them to continue to bastardize the canon wiki as you suggest, you would surely need them. Regardless, voting on this is moot, because it is a non-canon name, and therefore needs to be merged back to where it came from. The rest of this conversation can be held elsewhere to reevaluate our tier system. --Alan (talk) 17:11, December 3, 2019 (UTC)

Wrong; my objection is still withstanding. Either we do accept names from production sources or we don't. --Defiant (talk) 17:35, December 3, 2019 (UTC)

We don't accept information from production sources when it is fictionalized. This isn't the Star Trek Encyclopedia, it's Pathways, and that argument is long settled. - Archduk3 19:21, December 3, 2019 (UTC)

I don't accept that, since it's all fiction, ultimately. And I don't know what you mean by "long settled"; there should be and is always room for improving MA even if it means reversing mistaken decisions made long ago. --Defiant (talk) 19:50, December 3, 2019 (UTC)

It is simply not a production source, no more than Roddenberry's own novelization of TMP; direct from the Creator himself, and it's still not canon. 150 Years is way below that bar. --Alan (talk) 20:28, December 3, 2019 (UTC)

Of course that novelization is a production source, as it was written by Roddenberry. Still doesn't make it canon, you're right about that. Definitely a production source though. --Defiant (talk) 20:33, December 3, 2019 (UTC)

Besides, David A. Goodman wrote a handful of ENT episodes, he himself is hardly qualified to be a valid source for a character he had no part in creating, from 20 years before he even got involved in Trek. --Alan (talk) 20:35, December 3, 2019 (UTC)

I literally couldn't disagree with you more, and I think your stance is highly arrogant in addition to being very disrespectful to the creators of Star Trek canon. --Defiant (talk) 20:38, December 3, 2019 (UTC)

You literally have no ground to stand on, and that is literally not what the definition of canon is. Especially here. So, you can let your personal bias dictate what you personally believe to be and not be canon, but that's where it starts and ends here. --Alan (talk) 20:43, December 3, 2019 (UTC)

I see you're still not quite understanding the discussion and the case I'm presenting, Alan; there is no argument about what constitutes canon and what doesn't. The debate is about what can be used for naming articles. When there is no contradictory info for naming an article and a production source saying (in whatever form) that they refer to it in a particular way and for us to do so doesn't hurt in any way whatsoever, it's highly arrogant of MA to say we're going to completely ignore that 'cause we know better! --Defiant (talk) 20:51, December 3, 2019 (UTC)

Literally, the only thing we need to add is a note saying, "This article's name came from such and such a source." God, how many articles do we have that are named "Battle of..." that we've invented ourselves?! Not every single article name we have needs to nor does come from canon. This is why it's important to keep in mind that what constitutes canon isn't under debate. --Defiant (talk) 20:55, December 3, 2019 (UTC)

I am completely against the made up "Battle of" articles. As for what I am not getting, the fact of the matter is, there is no canon source and we are that arrogant. Otherwise we wouldn't have a bazillion "unnamed" pages, even when seemingly decent names are created to identify a person, place or thing that is otherwise so-called unnamed. --Alan (talk) 19:29, December 9, 2019 (UTC)

Getting back to this issue, 6 weeks later, I am forced to adamantly agree with Alan here. As Archduk3 says above, Star Trek: Federation - The First 150 Years is not a valid reference source for Memory Alpha. If we were to go by Defiant's logic, then anything written by anyone who worked on Star Trek at any time would be considered a "production source," and that's simply not the case. By that criteria, we'd certainly have to accept Jeri Taylor's Mosaic as canon, not to mention all the novels by Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stevens, because they later worked on Enterprise. Love it or hate it, Goodman's book is a fictional reference work along the same lines as the Hidden Universe Travel Guide: Vulcan, and has much less validity than the Okudachron or The Klingon Dictionary for the purposes of this wiki.

All that being said, I do *love* the name Kamarag, I use it myself to refer to this character, but unless there is a valid source from which to pull that name -- or unless Memory Alpha is going to consider a policy allowing at least some level of non-canon naming when nothing else is available -- then either this page needs to be merged into the unnamed Klingons page, or, since it is certainly long enough to warrant its own page, renamed to something like Klingon Ambassador (23rd century). To leave it as is, as much as I may want to, is simply not in compliance with Memory Alpha policies as they currently exist. --TimPendragon (talk) 16:01, January 18, 2020 (UTC)

Discovery season 1 High Council

Is it me, or is the Klingon woman that now bears the House of Mogh crest actually the same member of the High Council as one of the unidentified ones in DIS: "Battle at the Binary Stars"? The prosthetics seem to match. The guy on her right seems to be this one too. JagoAndLitefoot (talk) 05:04, February 2, 2019 (UTC)

Klingon bounty hunter

I noticed on the Short Treks episode "The Escape Artist" page that it has mention of a Klingon bounty hunter but is not on the Unnamed Klingons (23rd century) page, as it was just written without redirecting to that article page. I have not seen any of the Short Treks episodes, so I was wondering if there actually a Klingon bounty hunter in said episode or what was written had been done in haste, or both. -- Humanoid21 (talk) 15:22, April 9, 2019 (UTC)

Yes, there is one. JagoAndLitefoot (talk) 16:22, April 9, 2019 (UTC)