Talk:Star Trek make-up effects

Obviously this can be moved to a different page title, especially if we decide to make it out-universe (ex: Species which do not require make-up), but regardless this information is worth compiling. Jaf 03:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)Jaf
 * Indeed. This isn't an appropriate in-universe article as the internal physiology and even bodily details covered by clothes may be completely different from humans. Real-world list would be interesting though. --Pseudohuman 05:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What links here? Nothing. How cool is that? A Wiki isn't for filling up with orphan pages, it's for building the web. Beyond that, MA doesn't have any POV under which this is appropriate, realworld or otherwise. Why not? Because this is along the lines of an essay or personal opinion or speculation. --TribbleFurSuit 05:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Just because few articles link here now is no reason to condemn a topic as "uncool", dude. The true attribute that should be measured is how many articles could link here -- and its a great number. -- Captain MKB 05:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * TribbleFurSuit: All the listed species articles would link here and the humanoid article. This could be a sister list to Humanoid species. I dont see anything inapropriate with a real-world pov article that lists all alien races that have appeared that have not used any makeup on them to distinguish them from humans. --Pseudohuman 05:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with most of the other commenters. I think the article has merit, and if we could find a way to link this article to other established ones, along with a good overhaul, it would make an interesting piece. --Fleurdelista 05:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems to me this would be more of a category and not a page. &mdash; Morder 06:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Category, OK, I can get behind that. The topic's not that uncool. There's just been a rash lately of people creating orphan articles with POV problems, O.R. or essay-type content, and no apparent plan for building the web. Sorry for reacting too strongly. --TribbleFurSuit 14:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I notice nobody said anything about the rest of my reasoning: "this is along the lines of an essay or personal opinion or speculation". So, I'll do it. Pseudohuman makes the point that "no makeup to distinguish them from humans" is the criterion. OK, I guess that's not necessarily speculative, opinionated or original research. I take it back. --TribbleFurSuit 15:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Please don't bulk me in the "rash editors" list. I may have been short on participation over the last few years, but my edit history should demonstrate my past contributions as well as my understanding of wiki format. Jaf 18:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)Jaf
 * What about 'Species that appear physically indistinguishable from humans'?--AnonyQ 04:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well as I said, it doesn't matter where the information goes, I just thought it should be recorded somewhere. Jaf 15:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)Jaf
 * I agree with Morder, this should be a category. There is nothing here except a list of links. Mr.gn 04:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)