Talk:Illusory people

Ardra
I wonder if Ardra's appearance as a Starfleet operations officer in should be added to the list of illusory personnel. - Intricated talk page |undefined 22:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge?
Should this maybe be merged with Doppelgänger, or that section, which needs a lot of work right now, be moved here, since each has a few characters the other doesn't. - Archduk3:  talk  04:10, January 5, 2010 (UTC)

Redux
See Talk:Illusory people.

Point of the article?
So, what's the point of this article? It's uncategorized and it's orphaned. And aren't most of these on the character pages anyhow? -- sulfur 15:33, January 4, 2012 (UTC)


 * If anything, this should be a category, and even that is debatable.--31dot 16:20, January 4, 2012 (UTC)


 * I think this should be merged with Unnamed illusory people and Starfleet personnel (illusory) to create a Illusory people article that covers all of them, since overall there isn't really a reason to have three articles for one subject. The info should also be covered on the real counterparts much like the Holographic duplicate info is. - 16:33, January 4, 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I like the sound of that.--31dot 17:56, January 4, 2012 (UTC)


 * I created the page and I also agree, the nammed, unnamed, and Starfleet personnel illusory be combined in on article under Illusory people. One section could be named, one unnamed, and one Starfleet. I would create the page if their are no objections, thank you. --Shamutto 20:42, January 6, 2012 (UTC)

The page will be created by merging the current pages together. -- sulfur 02:15, January 7, 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, since I forgot Humans (illusory), it might be better to keep Unnamed illusory people and merge the illusory Humans list there, with "Illusory people" for the named people and Starfleet personal. Unnamed Starfleet people would be on the unnamed list of course. I just feel the unnamed part would dwarf the named part if they were on the same page now. - 16:18, January 16, 2012 (UTC)

Waltz
I don't remember illusions of either Odo or Quark in the episode, and it seems weird that we would state that Quark wasn't in the episode if an illusion of him was. Unless someone has a different cut of the episode than the one I watched, these two should be removed, again. - 13:54, February 15, 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with removal. Quark is not in the script at all; the real Odo has two lines in the first act, but there is no illusion of him.  The closest they get is Dukat asking Sisko how Quark and Odo are- but we certainly don't see them. --31dot 16:57, February 15, 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with removal. I have no idea why I added them. Read script wrong, must be as delusional as Dukat was. Sorry. --Shamutto 16:57, February 15, 2012 (UTC)
 * No harm done. It happens; I've done it myself.--31dot 22:41, February 15, 2012 (UTC)