Talk:USS Saratoga (NCC-31911) personnel

moved from File talk:SaratogaCommandOfficer.jpg
This image is awful, not the mention the fact that we've gone waaaaaaay beyond creating references to unnamed characters with credited actors, but now we are doing unnamed characters with no actors, no faces, and no possible "story" to include about the individual other than they served on a ship, wore red and likely died?!. --Alan del Beccio 03:52, 18 Oct 2005 (UTC)


 * I wondered about that myself when I first saw the "Unnamed (Whatever)" pages. It does seem pretty absurd, but then again, look at the unnamed aliens page and tell me if any of those has a a story behind it? On the other hand... If we never saw his face, I don't think he mattered enough for anyone to care. Weyoun 03:55, 18 Oct 2005 (UTC)


 * Well the "unnamed whatevers" were created to give characters who actually had actors credited to their role but no name given to the character a place to live, as an article titled "Saratoga Captain" doesn't fall into our realm of acceptable names. So creating USS Saratoga (NCC-1887) personnel, for example, gives those actors who have a story to tell and an actor to credit the role to a "home". So instead of Saratoga Captain we have USS Saratoga (NCC-1887) personnel. --Alan del Beccio 04:24, 18 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll admit, your points are quite valid. However, I may have a solution that can benefit both sides of this argument. 'Unnamed' people pages appear to require pictures, to provide an idea of whom the section is talking about. For cases, like this command officer (Who's face doesn't really appear), perhaps instead of a whole section for it in the article, how about a slight note. That way personnel/people can still be mentioned, but minors won't need a large section in the article. For example:

---

Minor Personnel
---
 * A Command Officer was killed on the Saratoga during the Battle of Wolf 359
 * Two civilians, in blue and yellow shirts, were seen walking the Saratoga corridors during the Battle of Wolf 359

Comments, suggestions, objections? - Adm. Enzo Aquarius 20:34, 18 Oct 2005 (UTC)


 * I wish I had caught this before now. The problem with moving the images out and not address the "characters" is that it moves part of the article from a sense of 'trek reality' to a sense of 'trek production'. If this is written as if we are in the trek universe we cannot have 'minor characters' in the same way we do when we are dealing with production. Jaf 04:49, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC)Jaf


 * The alternative is to list them, but in a more concise manner -- for example, i compressed several minor security officers over at Unnamed_USS_Enterprise_%28NCC-1701%29_personnel -- there aren't any known actors, and the pictures can be combined (such as the TMP frames at Unnamed_USS_Enterprise_%28NCC-1701%29_personnel)


 * I think that simply saying less about the character, giving them a definition list rather than their own subsection might be a good resort if the character is unnamed, unseen, or both, and has no known performer or trivia associated with them. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk


 * Yeah, that sounds pretty good. Jaf 23:43, 9 Nov 2005 (UTC)Jaf

Bolian
You know, I've always referred to the Bolian guy as "Kaplee". When Sisko's trying to lift the rubble off Jennifer, he calls out "Commander!" and it always sounds to me like Sisko shouts "Kaplee!" He's probably saying "Help me!" but it doesn't really sound like it. – Skteosk 22:34, November 21, 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you proposing some sort of note be added? --31dot 22:36, November 21, 2009 (UTC)
 * Why? He said "help me"...script confirms it, anything else is just chit chat. --Alan 22:38, November 21, 2009 (UTC)
 * I completely agree....:) I was trying to determine if it was that in order to point out that comments must be relevant to the article.--31dot 22:40, November 21, 2009 (UTC)