Talk:Weyoun

Nomination
Self-nomination. A detailed article about one of my favorite DS9 characters. (Or does he count as five characters? :-D) -- Dan Carlson 22:33, 10 Jun 2004 (CEST)
 * Seconded. -- Michael Warren 22:57, 10 Jun 2004 (CEST)
 * No references yet, for the rest OK. I'll second it when it has references. -- Redge 16:20, 12 Jun 2004 (CEST)


 * Seconded. It's a good article, but I would try to find a higher-quality image. ;) Ottens 19:55, 12 Jun 2004 (CEST)

Reconfirmation
Not sure if this should be reconfirmed yet, but since it's from 2004 it's next up on the list. - 18:23, May 23, 2012 (UTC)
 * Having done a once over, mainly making changes to the Weyoun 6 related content, and creating a blurb, I now support the reconfirmation of this article. - 20:48, May 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * Support with the changes made. 31dot 10:13, May 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Tom 08:47, May 31, 2012 (UTC)
 * I haven't read the page, yet, but the main image could be replaced, for starters; it looks awfully grainy! --Defiant 10:06, June 1, 2012 (UTC)

Most of the latter episodes in DS9 look grainy, for whatever reason, and the current image actually looks pretty good when compared to other shots. That said, if you have, or find, a better one of the last Weyoun, by all means upload it. - 10:34, June 1, 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with the view (angle, etc.); it's just that the image quality is pretty poor. I reckon a re-upload of the same view (taken from DVD, of course) would sort this out. --Defiant 10:46, June 1, 2012 (UTC)

Well, I pulled this version off of Trekcore, but it still looks as grainy as the last one to me. - 10:57, June 1, 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, fair point. I'll just accept that, for some odd reason, a lot of DS9's latter episodes look grainy anyway. I'll also try to have a read of the article and support/oppose, despite being fairly busy. --Defiant 11:05, June 1, 2012 (UTC)
 * Having now done a once-over of the article, my verdict is that it's more-or-less up to FA standards, though could do with some more citations for the bg info. For instance, it cites the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Companion but doesn't give a page number. --Defiant 12:29, June 1, 2012 (UTC)
 * Another issue is... do we really need such an in-depth apocrypha section, currently larger than any other section on the page, when there's already an entry for Weyoun at Memory Beta (as well as the appropriate link to it at the bottom of this page)? --Defiant 13:37, June 1, 2012 (UTC)

Excepting the last paragraph, which seems to be mostly drawing connections without citations, all of that is relevant and helpful. While we do currently seem to have more info on Weyoun in Millennium than MB does, that's their problem, not ours. The guy did manage to destroy the entire universe, which isn't too shabby for a clone, and he was the crux of the entire story, so I think going into detail in this case is warranted. - 14:13, June 1, 2012 (UTC)
 * It's easy enough to say "that's their problem, not ours," but I've been under the impression that the two sites are closely affiliated (both sites being hosted by wikia, having similar names, and with external links to that site appearing all over the place, here). Therefore, shouldn't we be acting accordingly? I think it would only benefit both sites if they did act with respect to one another. --Defiant 14:28, June 1, 2012 (UTC)
 * Er... I was kinda forgetting that they also have both canon and non-canon info, just as we do, and that some content of both sites will therefore necessarily crossover. Anyways, how about making the Millennium info here a subsection of apocrypha (maybe titled something like "Appearance in Millennium")? --Defiant 14:33, June 1, 2012 (UTC)

MB is CC-BY-SA and we're CC-BY-NC, so we don't mix well when it comes to sharing info. I also personally don't do extensive work on SA wikis hosted by wikia as a rule, and even if I did I don't have the time to rewrite our info enough for it to not be an issue. The only close affiliation between us that I know about is the overlap in admins/active users. MB and MA actually don't agree on a lot of things, the least of which is basic formatting and templates. That's not to say that someone shouldn't fix the lack of info over there, just that I won't be, because I have more than enough to do on this side of the fence, and wikia makes enough money off my not for profit content as is. - 14:40, June 1, 2012 (UTC)
 * Personally, I'm pretty much in the same boat, having only a minimal interest in the expanded universe. But this course of discussion doesn't seem very relevant to this particular article, so let me return the topic to this page; is the option of including a subsection heading of the apocrypha section here a viable one? --Defiant 14:48, June 1, 2012 (UTC)

Since we're only dealing with five books, I think it would look weird to section off three of them. Removing the last paragraph to the talk page and streamlining what we do have for all the books (not by removing info, just by presenting it better) might make any subsection(s) unnecessary. That said, I'm not really opposed to the idea, as most of the Millennium stuff did happen in an alternate timeline. - 14:58, June 1, 2012 (UTC)
 * As someone unfamiliar with the stories, I find it makes for easier reading. I'm not quite sure where the info about Weyoun's visit to Vorta should go, chronologically, but I thought it may be worth saving; delete and/or move at your convenience, basically. --Defiant 15:12, June 1, 2012 (UTC)


 * Support; I'm now happy with the entire article. I do find the suggestion that I read the books (given in the edit summary box, no less) somewhat laughable, though, considering that I state my dislike of DS9 on my user talk page and have mentioned here that I'm not only fairly busy but also have only a minimal interest in the expanded universe in general. But good work on this article. It makes for an insightful read. :) --Defiant 13:59, June 2, 2012 (UTC)


 * Support-Looks fine to me; took the liberty to enlarge the bg-section with commentary of Combs on his role of the character--Sennim 09:05, June 7, 2012 (UTC)

Top Scifi Villains
It might be helpful if anyone can find a link to the list referred to at the end of the article. I can't find it anywhere. --Ortzinator 06:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Claps him on the shoulder?

 * According to the script for, when Weyoun claps Odo on the shoulder, he infected him with the virus that presents itself in and necessitates his return to the Great Link.

I could be mistaken, but it's only in the skript, isn't it? Because I don't recognize a scene where Weyoun dares claping a god on the shoulder. --Trent_Easton 10:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I doubt a Vorta (or any Vorta) is even ALLOWED to even "touch" a god? --Ambassador Weyoun 18:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That moment in the episode is shot in close-ups, so we cannot see Weyoun's hands or hear a clap. It might be possible he briefly touches Odo, based on the reaction in Jeffrey Combs face, but nothing is seen on screen. --Jörg 07:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Which I actually noted a short while ago on the episode page. --Alan del Beccio 07:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Page split
Since this is such a big move I thought I would propose it here. Why are Weyoun 4, Weyoun 5, Weyoun 6, Weyoun 7 and Weyoun 8 all placed on this page as if it was one individual? Clearly, yes, they originated from one individual, but they are not all the same, therefore, it seems, this page should be 5 pages to cover the 5 known Weyouns. It also seems that M/A, otherwise, follows a standard of separating clones from the people they were cloned from, like Kahless the Unforgettable/Kahless (clone) and Jean-Luc Picard/Shinzon. Why is this the exception? --Alan del Beccio 20:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * And of course, Spock and Spock 2. --Bp 20:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Because Vorta clones are very much alike. Although they see themselves as different persons, they share behaviour and memory - the (most) other clones in Star Trek don't posess the memory of the original. And do not share their behaviour because both is based on how and where one ose raised. The Vorta get cloned to be some kind of immortal, and thus consider themselves as one of a line of one individual.
 * Pro:
 * Each clone thinks of himself as an individual person, although they share memory and experience. e.g. they don't want to die, although death does not realy matter to them because there will be an other of their row. So, yes they feel like individuals so propably the articles should be seperated.
 * Contra:
 * Because their memory is shared they all are somewhat the same person, because what defines us is the memory and the thought, and the behaviour, and in this, they are very much alike, if not even the same.
 * They are cloned and memory-copied to BE the same person - otherwise the founders could have planted the experience and memories into an other Vorta and send him instead. But they want the Vorta of one line to be the same. Not just to make it easy for others to stay with the diplomat they come ro trust, but also the founders come to trust one line of Vorta, wich indicates that they are all pretty much the same person.
 * The Vorta are cloned because they have to be and that's their way of life. The above mentioned clones were done by persons who wanted to use them or some similar way. Not to give one person imortality, but to use the clone for something the original would possibly not do, or something like that.
 * Conclusion: (imo) the article should stay as it is, because the Vorta clones are pretty much the same person - and don't bother beeing adressed as someone else, while most other ST clones spoke of themselves as an other person than the original. Therefore you can consider a Line of a Vorta as the same person.
 * An other option would be to rename the article to "Line of Weyoun" as he reffered to that topic by himself (think it was something like "That was the fourth incarnation of out noble line, I am the fifth.", I'll look it up tomorrow, if necessary), with a forward from "Weyoun". ~ Trent _ Easton  ~ talk 23:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I still don't agree, per a couple things. Using your reference as an example: Weyoun 5, himself, said regarding Weyoun 4 that "that wasn't me." "At least not exactly."
 * SISKO: We've met. But I saw you die.
 * WEYOUN: That wasn't me. At least not exactly.
 * DUKAT: The Vorta are experts at cloning.
 * WEYOUN: It tends to mitigate the risk involved in so much of our work. My predecessor was the fourth incarnation of our noble progenitor. I am the fifth.
 * SISKO: Immortality.
 * WEYOUN: Of a sort. Interested?

Secondly, to contrast one of your "cons"-- even Kahless (clone) believed himself to be the "real" Kahless the Unforgettable. His creation was essentially the same as the way Weyoun was created (just not quite as successfully), picking up with the memories of where the last Kahless left off.
 * KOROTH (to Kahless): The problems with your memory are a result of the way you returned.
 * KAHLESS: What do you mean?
 * KOROTH: We, the Guardians, have been awaiting your return for centuries. But we did not have the technology to bring you back until now. We were able to use an organic sample of the first Kahless to give you life.
 * KAHLESS: The first Kahless?
 * WORF: A clone. He is a clone.
 * KAHLESS: What is a clone?
 * WORF: A being created in a laboratory from genetic material taken from another being. You are a copy, a fraud.
 * KOROTH (to Kahless): You are not "just" a copy. We gave you more than the body of Kahless.
 * TORIN: We found a way to imprint specific information into your neurosynaptic patterns, we gave you memories. And not just any memories, we gave you the experiences of Kahless as written in the sacred texts.

There is more, but I think this shows that he is really no different than the Weyoun line, the difference being the second Kahless wasn't waiting in a freezer somewhere to be activated, and was created/activated several centuries after the fact, rather than days, weeks, months...

Just a couple other clones that came to mind that are treated as individuals rather than "a line": Walter Granger/Wilson Granger/Victor Granger, and Stavos Keniclius/Stavos Keniclius 5. --Alan del Beccio 16:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Alan (I think), and think that this page should be about the similarities within the Weyoun clones, the supposed death of the last clone, and link to Weyoun 4-Weyoun 8 (and Weyoun (hologram)). This is mostly because I like to think of Weyoun 6 as a different character (as he should be treated). Most of the Weyouns were Weyoun 5 anyway (12 Weyoun 5's versus 11 others), and we can add 4 new characters to Jeffrey Combs table, somehow.--Tim Thomason 16:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I still think they belong together. But it's not that important to me, you may part them or not. But it would be a shame to cut this featured Article into tiny peaces. Here you have everything on one page rather than on five different ones. And I don't see a need to seperate them. Because if you are looking for Weyoun you find all Weyouns you might be looking for and if you want to link to one of them you can use the anchor (eg. Weyoun 5 ) ~ Trent _ Easton  ~ talk 20:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Redux
I would like to get a recount on this once again, seeing as this discussion is old and might come across odd to anyone wondering why this page is getting split up, seemingly out of nowhere. --Alan del Beccio 00:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I oppose splitting up this page. All relevant information is in one place, and if people are concerned with an individual Weyoun they can use piped links.  (and all Weyoun numbers should be redirects to the relevant section).  Call it subjective, but to me, Weyoun was always one character (or close to one), whereas your other examples were not.  If it comes down to consistency for clones that "carried on" the memories of an individual, I'd rather have Kahless (clone) merged with Kahless the Unforgettable, then to split up Weyoun.


 * In which case the first line should state that Weyoun was a line of Vorta clones (and the other sentences rephrased accordingly).– Cleanse 01:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Multiple characters = multiple pages. They are not the same individual, and even Weyoun agrees with that assessment, "That wasn't me. At least not exactly." Just like how the USS Sao Paulo was renamed the USS Defiant. Sure they have the same name, same registry, same design, same crew, but they were still different ships. --Alan del Beccio 01:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I support page split. Tyrant 01:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)Tyrant


 * But we merged the Sao Paulo article into the Defiant article...as they were the same ship. So I'm not sure what you mean by that analogy.


 * The current setup is most accessible to readers, and helps those who don't remember exactly which Weyoun was in which episode.


 * In any case, I'm not changing my vote, but if I'm outvoted (which seems likely), I won't be torn or anything. :-) – Cleanse 02:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As I've stated before, Weyoun 6 is an entirely different character and deserves to be split. Most of Weyoun we know and love is Weyoun 5, and Weyoun 4 and the last two made minor appearances. I also believe a centralized page here covering the "Weyoun series" is called for (as opposed to a disambiguation page).
 * As for the Sao Paulo connection: Sao Paulo and "Defiant II" were separate articles until they were merged (as they were the same ship). Now "Sao Paulo/Defiant II" is a different ship than the "Defiant I," despite the fact that they share a very heavily connected lineage (same crew, same design, same appearance even), and like the Weyouns, deserves to remain separate. (I think that's what Mr. Beccio is trying to say).--Tim Thomason 05:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Never change a running system. I think the page should be as it is. Now it's a good article. If you split it, you have several pages with only a few sentences about 1 special clone of the same linage. For they have all the same memory and despite Weyoun said otherwise, they have most defenitly the same character (not speaking of the 'defective' one, who was.. well defective), and thus should remain on one page. I fail to see the point on splitting this up. If you search for Weyoun you learn about the character who played part in the series. Not everyone is such a DS9-fanatic to know exactly wich Weyoun was in wich episode. So if they look for 'Weyoun' and get 5+ resultes, they're confused. Don't forget, that this is an Enzyclopedia! ~ Trent _ Easton  ~ talk 16:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is an encyclopedia, and therefore should be accurately parsed as one. A simple template can allow a user to navigate between "Weyouns". --Alan 18:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

From Talk:Weyoun (hologram)
Should we include the Hologram which is seen in ? --Trent Easton 08:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Was it not a holo-recording of a meeting between him and Sisko? I suppose we could add it. -- Tough Little Ship 20:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It was a record between Weyoun, Damar, and yes I think it was Sisko, about the new borderline of the Dominion. ~ Trent _ Easton  ~ talk

Merge w/Holographic duplicate
Now that the Holographic duplicate page has been established to consolidate all these holographic doppelgangers, this page should probably be merged into there. This page expounds a bit more on the actions of the various Weyoun holograms; possibly some of that information could be worked into the other article. -Mdettweiler 22:47, December 9, 2009 (UTC)

Removed
I removed the following info from this page, as it's quite speculative: "In an interesting 'echo' of the true timeline [...] Although altered to make it the Founders rather than the Prophets that Weyoun 6 did not entirely believe in, this idea remained in the true timeline when Weyoun 6 attempted to defect to the Federation by contacting Odo, only to die while trying to escape from Weyoun 7." --Defiant 15:18, June 1, 2012 (UTC)