Talk:Reginald Barclay

FA Nomination (17 Feb - 25 Feb 2011, Failed)
I believe the article is well written, and follows the Manual of Style. -- Captain Rixx 03:33, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - it doesn't really include any info about the illusory Barclay in and some of the "Apocrypha" subsection seems quite badly written. --Defiant 12:48, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * Support: I have reworded and reorganised the article slightly, paying particular attention to the apocrypha section that was very confusing, I'll have to admit. I've also added another image to compliment the text. I think this is ready to become a featured article now. --| TrekFan Open a channel 13:59, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've also now personally done some work on this article, but I'm still not entirely happy with it. I'm somewhat frustrated with the wording of the fourth (MU-related) point in the apocrypha section. Also, there still seems to be insufficient info about the illusory Barclay in "Projections". So (for now, at least), I'm maintaining my opposing vote. --Defiant 17:22, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have re-worded the mirror universe point in the apocrypha section and I'm going to re-watch "Projections" now to get an idea of what to write. --| TrekFan Open a channel 17:32, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * Update:I have further edited it with slight rewording to the main body (and with another image) and I have included a "Holographic duplicates" section where his hologram in "Projections" is mentioned. Hopefully, this resolves the objection. Barclay is one of my favourite recurring characters in Star Trek. --| TrekFan Open a channel 19:31, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * Since the Reg hologram is currently a separate article, there's no reason to duplicate it on this one. If we want to do that, they should be suggested for a merge, if not, a link will suffice. - 19:45, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's any problem with mentioning it in the article as it is now, since it was Barclay's idea in the first place. Besides, holographic duplicates are mentioned in Jean-Luc Picard and Tom Paris, to name two examples. If the reader wants to know more information on the specifics, they can click the link to go to the article on the hologram itself. --| TrekFan Open a channel 20:00, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * The point is the event is already talked about in the article and at another article, so another recap seems excessive. As for the comparisons, those don't apply, since they're there because the separate hologram articles was merged into the characters. The section should still cover the Projections hologram, and have a link to holographic duplicate, but the other one is already covered twice. - 20:11, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * When I rewrote the section in Barclay's article dealing with the events in "Inside Man", I was careful to focus on Barclay himself so you'll notice the hologram doesn't get much of a mention. In the "Holographic duplicates" section, I focussed on his creation of the hologram and subsequent alterations as opposed to the man himself. However, after thinking about it, I would tend to agree that the Reginald Barclay (hologram) article should be merged with Reginald Barclay and I'm going to bring that up on the talk page now. --| TrekFan Open a channel 21:02, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is a problem with mentioning the hologram on the Reginald Barclay page. It doesn't go into too much detail and the user can always click on the link to the article for more information. --| TrekFan Open a channel 21:15, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * For the why and how of the hologram sections: read Forum:X (hologram) pages. Each mention isn't suppose to be more than a few sentences, similar to what's on holographic duplicate. Right now, there's way more information then necessary. - 21:28, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * Very well, I wasn't aware of that discussion. How about now? I have amended the description to be even shorter with a link to the main article. --| TrekFan Open a channel 21:39, February 17, 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Needs to be fleshed out. Copy editing. Also Needs a relationships section. Yes I know, it is not mandated, but given his role it would not hurt to mention his relationship with Deanna Troi and Geordi etc. It also needs some dividing of his duties aboard Enterprise and then during the Pathfinder project etc. Distantlycharmed 22:19, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * Is anyone willing to consider/reconsider voting on this one? I believe the objections above have now been addressed. --| TrekFan Open a channel 14:49, February 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * There still seems to be some details in the section about his career that aren't related to his career, such as the info about who he dated and his affection for cats; his fondness for felines could be a separate little subsection, I think, and maybe include some info about his other hobby/hobbies, such as holoprograms. A new subsection can surely also be created about his romantic affiliations. Just some suggestions... --Defiant 17:32, February 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * I've made some revisions. Does this resolve your objection? Please feel free to point out further areas that need improving should your objection remain. --| TrekFan Open a channel 02:03, February 24, 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. With the number of changes that this has gone through in the last week (or so), this has become more of a peer review than an FA nomination.  What was nominated a week ago is almost nothing like the article that appears now. -- sulfur 02:09, February 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * While it is true the article has changed, these changes have been in response to objections raised here. As per the nomination policy, "If you nominate an article, you are expected to address valid objections that are raised" and the objections have been addressed. The article more or less had all the information, it was just a matter of structuring and format. --| TrekFan Open a channel 02:19, February 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * Adding seriously large chunks of text suggests otherwise. Thus my comment. -- sulfur 02:21, February 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with sulfur on this one. The FA nomination has transformed into a peer review, which it'd be helpful if you could learn to use properly too, TrekFan! --Defiant 05:04, February 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey, I didn't nominate this one! Sorry if I actually want to improve on the objections rather than just comment "oh this isn't very good" and leave it. There's too much of that going on. The additions were made in an effort to resolve those objections, as I believe followed the nomination policy as mentioned above. But if you want to remove this from nomination, go right ahead. --| TrekFan Open a channel 19:22, February 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * One of the criteria for FA status is that the article's content does not change significantly between revisions. I think it would help if you kept that in mind. I don't doubt that your changes to the article were motivated by a genuine desire to improve it. As for your use of peer reviews, please try to ensure that you're not overcrowding them! I probably would have put "Scorpion" up for peer review, if the process hadn't been so busy already. --Defiant 23:58, February 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * Forgive me but is that not then a contradiction in terms? "Address all the objections that are raised during the nomination process but you're not allowed to change the article because then it would be different from what was nominated...?" Sorry if I seem frustrated, but it seems that a lot of the time there are conflicting things being said, whether it be in a "policy" or by admins. Can I propose that, since mine has been the only supporting vote thus far, that we draw a line under this and vote on the article as it is now, now that the original objections have been responded to? If not, then you may as well just go ahead and remove it from the nominations page now because it's not going to pass. --| TrekFan Open a channel 02:52, February 25, 2011 (UTC)


 * Archiving as of this date. If all objections are resolved, it can be renominated after fourteen days per the nomination policy.--31dot 04:21, February 25, 2011 (UTC)

Alien?
Do we know that Barclay was a human and not a human looking alien? I ask because in he deevolved into an arachnid while the human characters regressed into hominids. Tyrant 01:46, 26 Jan 2005 (CET)Tyrant
 * And Troi turned into a fish...I really think you're looking far too deep into it. --Gvsualan 09:11, 26 Jan 2005 (CET)

Troi is half Betazoid. Worf is Klingon and also had a unique deevolution. However, Ogawa, Riker and Picard all turned into prehumans. Tyrant 12:30, 26 Jan 2005 (CET)Tyrant


 * I believe dialogue in the episode established that the crew members de-evolved along random tracks of their genetic history -- meaning that human crewmembers could have de-evolved into several Earth species that were recorded in dormant sections of their genomes. Since a lot of the science from the episode seems to be bunk anyway, theres probably more complications to it than meets the eye -- suffice it to say that some aspect of the future science involved in all the dormant genes beings reactivated, some property we don't understand must have been at play. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 20:17, 26 Jan 2005 (CET)


 * I'm not suggesting we make any big changes because of this. And I realize the science in the episode is junk, but at the same time I think we should at least acknowledge the fact that the human crew members actually changed into creatures we have in our history according to evolutionary theory. Spiders are something we certainly didn't evolve from and only Barclay turned into one. Tyrant 22:13, 26 Jan 2005 (CET)Tyrant


 * The only explanation that really makes any sense (not that there's a whole lot of sense going around in Star Trek's internal scientific logic) is that one of Reg's ancestors had some kind of arachnid genes.

Im sorry but how would he get those? I really wonder how. --Matthew 01:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Interspecific reproduction. Jaf 01:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)Jaf

Featured status?
Anyone think this is good enough for a nomination?


 * No way! This article says nothing about, an episode completely about Barclay!  You can't have a featured article that is missing major sections of the character's life.


 * We need to add something about his ever more terrible combover! Huh?  (That was a joke.)  --Werideatdusk 03:41, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Actual Job title
Does anyone know for sure if he is ever mentioned as a diagnostic engineer as your article claims? In he is mentioned as a "diagnostic technician". A technician and engineer are quite different. A technician practices a technique, an engineer applies science. Three seasons later he is mentioned as a "systems engineer" during the episode you can infer that he might actually be a diagnostic engineer. However, anything that is not on screen is not canon. Is his job title mentioned anywhere else? --The Sunborn from wikipedia

Homage?
Is his name a homage to Rene Auberjonois' character, Clayton Endicott III, in Benson? -- Tough Little Ship 21:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * No. Barclay first appeared before DS9 even began production. 80.47.145.114 13:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Lieutenant Barclay

 * Memory Alpha:Pages for immediate deletion.

As best I can tell, it's not practice to put links in to characters by name+rank as above, and anyhow, nothing uses that redirect. -- Sulfur 00:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Why not keep it? It would only make searching easier. Jaz talk |undefined 00:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this one's an iffy. Redirects don't qualify as immediate deletions unless they're plain vandalism, is offensive, makes no sense, or if it causes confusion. I don't think these qualify in this case, but if anyone else feels otherwise, it should be brought up at Vfd, not here. --From Andoria with Love 00:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC) Then again, if it's an unused redirect, it does qualify. Hmm.... --From Andoria with Love 00:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Jaz: My worry at keeping this one is that it suggests that we should also have 'Captain Picard', 'Commander Riker', etc as links. last I checked, those didn't exist, and probably shouldn't exist.  But that may just be my take on this one. -- Sulfur 00:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Andoria: yah, it was unused when I posted here. -- Sulfur 00:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Call it preference to gain attention for articles about ranks, but its more useful to have Lieutenant.. Worf than Lieutenant Worf since the two links double the possibilities for the reader moving to another article. If we had these as redirects, we'd have to devote effort to making sure they are orphaned..
 * .. (unless we used them for subsequent uses of the term -- example: ''Lieutenant.. Worf beamed down, followed by Lieutenant La Forge and Lieutenant Yar). -- Captain M.K.B. 02:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It almost seems worth making a decision on this... the only problem with things like Captain Picard and Captain Janeway is... which Janeway is that (assuming that there were two for example)? That would be my big worry.  If you want a link like Lieutenant Worf, do it like Lieutenant Worf.  That would be the way I'd suggest doing things.  Otherwise, we'll have more redirects to potentially worry about than we have articles. -- Sulfur 02:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Further followup, it's been another 3 days (or so), and still nothing links to it. It's a poor precedent to set having redirects of rank+name.  If we're going to keep this Barclay one, then we should add one for every other named character.  -- Sulfur 02:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Autism?
This was just added to Barclay's article this morning:
 * It has been speculated that many of his personality traits are indicative of autism.

I'm curious. When and where was this speculated? This is the first I've heard of it. -- Sulfur 14:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm, first I have heard of it as well, but it actually somewhat fits. --OuroborosCobra talk 14:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I don't deny that it sorta fits, but I'm still curious to know where (and when) it has been speculated. And by whom? (or is that 'who', I always have trouble with those...) -- Sulfur 15:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * A google search finds this and this. That's about all I could find, though, and they both speculate on about a quarter of the major characters having autism, so I would not give them much weight. --OuroborosCobra talk 15:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Autisim is completly off mark. It's a form of Psychotic Organization, that is characterized by a lack of objectal relations to other people, in other words, absolutly no interaction with others. Asperger's is a possibility, but remote. Barclay doesn't seem to reveal great problems with most basic social behaviours, as the almost apathic AS patient. On the Wikipedia article, I reccomend that you read point 2.1, on the social characteristics of the typical subject. He does fill out most of the criteria for Social Anxiety anyhow.– Kitsune H 21:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Asperger's is out. I have it, and I wanted to join the armed forces, but they said it's an automatic 4F. So unless this policy changed during WWIII, the Temporal Cold War, or the Earth-Romulan War, the fact that Barclay's in Starfleet would rule out Asperger's.– Korora 01:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The policy would not have had to change during any of those. It could have changed at any point over the 350 some odd years from now until then. Hell, it may not have ever existed in Starfleet. Starfleet is not a continuation of any existing military on Earth, so any existing regulations do not apply in making a determination like this. --OuroborosCobra talk 03:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If we use military rules, Geordi La Forge would be out due to blindness, Jean-Luc Picard would have retired due to age (and that heart thing), and who knows what would happen with those Benzites and Elaysians with all their near-unworkable medical conditions.--Tim Thomason 20:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If AS is out, then my theory's screwed. I've got it too. But wait- might this have changed by this time? La Forge would be out. Picard should have retired, if not Tim's right, he'd be out. The best diplomat I know is a fully activated phaser bank. 22:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I would rule out Asperger's. My pre-teen son has AS and Barclay seems a LOT closer to what I would imagine him to be like as an adult than other media depictions, such as the AS character on Boston Legal.

Prof. Moriarty and mobile emitter
Something interesting to think about: At the end of Ship In A Bottle, Prof. Moriarty's holographic world is put in the care of Barclay. I haven't actually seen any of the VOY episodes with Barclay, but apparently, after TNG, he became very interested in the fate of the Voyager, and also became an expert in holographs, and specifically in The Doctor's program. Upon the return of the Voyager, he was undoubtedly made aware of Doc's mobile emitter, which could be used to solve Moriarty's dilemma. Although to do so, he would have to bring him out of his little cube and admit he had deceived him. I'm not sure I'd want to be around when Moriarty found that out.--207.119.46.109 06:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There are one or two problems with this theory. It is plausible, but the Mobile emmiter is the only one of its kind in the 24th century.  It is futuristic technology, and could be hard to duplicate.  Second, we have no idea what happened to the program.  It might have been destroyed in the Enterprise-D crash, or ben put in storage and forgotten.  Third, we know that the Moriarty program is just as evil as the character from the books, and it would be unwise to let him out, especially since he has no idea his existance at the time is already to his satisfaction. -Nmajmani 15:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)Nmajmani
 * I beg to differ on the last point. The final episode with him well established that he is NOT as evil as his book character. --OuroborosCobra talk 16:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Point #1: Barclay is just the kind of mad scientist who could figure out how to duplicate the mobile emitter if given the chance to examine it.
 * Point #2: It's is possible that it was destroyed with the Enterprise-D, although Barclay wasn't in Star Trek Generations. Perhaps he, and his personal effects such as the holographic cube, was not on the Enterprise-D when it was destroyed.
 * Point #3: He's definitely not someone you want to cross, but Ship in a Bottle did give him a very humane quality.  He certainly wouldn't be the worst of the Federation's problems.
 * This is all fascinating material. I can only hope this idea is what they base Star Trek XIII on.--75.120.254.179 00:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Chief engineer in Elite Force II?
According to this page, in Elite Force II Barclay is filling in for Geordi while the latter is on shore leave. But according to Wikipedia, Barclay is the Enterprise E's chief engineer because Geordi had transferred off of the Enterprise. Zek 19:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This is probably a better question for Memory Beta, as they specialize in non-canon content like the games, but as someone who played Elite Force II, they portrayed him as the Chief Engineer. I don't remember there being any explanation for why Geordi wasn't there. --OuroborosCobra talk 19:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I see. I ask here because this article notes that Barclay was the Enterprise E chief engineer in Elite Force II. If he was in that position only in a temporary capacity, then a clarification to the note would be appropriate. Zek 00:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, if Elite Force II never makes it clear, then we can't really either. :) -- Sulfur 00:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Removed Text
Any reason that this text was removed?
 * In 2371, Barclay transferred to Jupiter Station and worked as part of the original holo-engineering team in Dr. Lewis Zimmerman's holographic laboratory to test the Emergency Medical Hologram's interpersonal skills.

It was just removed with no edit summary at all... -- Sulfur 19:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I've deleted the foloving text from the article:
 * In 2371, Barclay transferred to Jupiter Station and worked as part of the original holo-engineering team in Dr. Lewis Zimmerman's holographic laboratory to test the Emergency Medical Hologram's interpersonal skills. 
 * because I don't think it's real. Barclay was shown to be a hologram created by a malfunctioning holodeck. Therefor, everything he said is false. Furthermore, there was no mentioning of that the things he said was true by the (non-holographick)Voyager crue. if you are to change this back, please note that under my talk
 * (I didn't have time to write this before you changed. + i forgot summary) --LtCmdr-Vulcan 19:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * So we are going to totally ignore the events of that episode based on assumption of malfunction? Clearly there was a reason why Barclay was chosen to appear, the most likely one being that he was involved in the system design at one point. --Alan 19:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, we are. Barclay *lied* during the episode. we have no prof that he is telling the thruth here. a reason he may have been used was for his likeness for the holodeck and holograms. therefor it would have been possible for that he said to happen. but it wasn't confirmed by any other person than him.--LtCmdr-Vulcan 19:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I don't agree with it, nor am I talking about what he said, only the fact that, as I said, clearly there was a reason why Barclay was chosen to appear, the most likely one being that he was involved in the system design at one point. --Alan 19:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess I should have read this before reverting the change. Anyway, Kes specifically states in the episode:
 * Barclay was part of the original engineering team that designed your program. He was in charge of testing your interpersonal skills.
 * Yes, this part was still in the Doctor's "fantasy", but we have no reason to believe it's false. Why else would the Doctor envision Barclay in his delusion? --From Andoria with Love 20:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Genesis
Just a question - if Barclay's human, then why in does he turn into a spider instead of an ape when he de-evolves?&mdash; Darthtyler  http://images.wikia.com/swfanon/images/1/18/Scuba_Diver.gif Talk 16:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * See the first discussion on this page ("Alien?"). – Cleanse 04:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, sorry.&mdash; Darthtyler http://images.wikia.com/swfanon/images/1/18/Scuba_Diver.gif Talk 02:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Appearances
Was Lt. Barclay really only in 5 TNG episodes? I seem to recall him being much more common. Was in in other episodes in extremely brief appearences, rather than playing a part in the story, and so is not listed, or is my memory just way off? – Lazerlike42 20:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * He was also in Voyager, and thus it would seem to someone who followed both series' that he had been around a lot longer.

Removed

 * ''It has been speculated that many of his personality traits are indicative of or perhaps more mildly.

Self explanatory. --Alan 00:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was wondering about that too. -FC 01:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a thought
Reg is one of the universally panned characters. If someone can scrape together some sources, you might want to include some critical dislike for the character.
 * We don't really worry about what people think about the characters ... or anything, really ... we just present the facts. Opinions are irrelevant in an encyclopedia. Besides, Barclay doesn't seem to have anywhere near the "pan" cult following of Wesley Crusher or Neelix, and really, fan opinions shouldn't be on either of those pages, either. IMO, anyway. Thanks for the suggestion, though. --From Andoria with Love 06:17, September 15, 2009 (UTC)

Fear of spiders?
There is a mention in the description of the episode of "Genesis" where it says he de-evolved into a spider and that it was ironic from his fear of spiders. Does it say somewhere that he is afraid of spiders? In "Realm of Fear" when O'Brien is giving him that pep talk about getting over his fear of spiders, Barclay says that they don't bother him. Is this a goof or did they retcon that? KnightCrusader 02:19, December 30, 2009 (UTC)


 * I took it out. It was O'Brien who was afraid of spiders. Blair2009 22:08, February 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Contrary to what Barclay said in "Realm of Fear", his reaction to Christina, documented in the script and on screen, would suggest otherwise. --Alan 22:29, February 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess that's a good point. If someone wants to revert the change I won't complain. Blair2009 23:56, February 13, 2010 (UTC)

A-Team removed

 * In the movie The A-Team Reginald Barclay is one of the actors staring in the 3-D movie played during Murdoch's escape from the mental ward. Dwight Schultz has a cameo as one of Murdoch's doctors after the credits.

I have removed the above comment four times, twice by the user TemporalParadox and twice by IPs, which I presume to be the same user as the comment is posted almost verbatim each time. I have also asked that the user post the comment at Star Trek parodies and pop culture references (film), which is where the reference should go as it is a non-Star Trek property referencing Star Trek, but my requests have gotten no response. As such, I have protected this page for a week or until a response is given by the user.--31dot 22:47, June 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * Why not just protect it for over a year or so like some people do? --64.12.117.72 03:39, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Because the protection should be the minimum necessary to accomplish the objective. If it continues afterwards or gets no response, then a longer one might be warranted.--31dot 10:47, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Promotion Date?
in the text it states: "Following Barclay's success in communicating with Voyager he was rewarded with a promotion to full Lieutenant; he also began forming social relations, specifically with his superior's sister-in-law Hope, who also had an affection for cats. (VOY: "Pathfinder")" However, if you watch that episode of Voyager, he has full Lieutenant pips during the entire episode, before and after contact. 98.183.151.237 04:11, July 18, 2010 (UTC)

General
Due to the comments made in the recent FA nomination, I feel it is necessary to open up a peer review for this article. I have personally worked on a lot of this article and aim to re-nominate it once the two week time period is up, however to avoid a repeat performance, I would like to ask everyone to comment on it here and suggest (and preferably make) any relevant changes needed to ensure FA status. Thanks. --| TrekFan Open a channel 04:45, February 25, 2011 (UTC)
 * I've put some work into such things as correcting spelling errors, cutting down on the amount of repeated info and removal of info from inappropriate sections, etc. But I still definitely feel the article needs more work on the latter of these two aspects. There's just too many repeated points, as far as I can see! Having said that, the "Starfleet career" section is now generally looking quite good and to-the-point, though I wasn't sure where the note about Barclay's assistance with Alexander's holoprogram should go and some of the info from VOY is not as to-the-point as it could be. I'm sure someone with a better grasp of those Voyager episodes could do a better job on that bit than me! --Defiant 18:27, February 25, 2011 (UTC)

No, you did a great job. It looks a lot more streamlined. It's good that you've worked on it. I'll try and do some more work on the Voyager sections so they flow better with yours. Plus, I've added the episode reference talking about Spot, it's. --| TrekFan Open a channel 18:37, February 25, 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone have any comments on how it looks now? --| TrekFan Open a channel 18:26, March 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. As I've said, the article has too many repeated points. Another issue I've raised above but hasn't been suitably addressed yet is the irrelevance of some of the Voyager info. --Defiant 20:01, March 8, 2011 (UTC)

I know, I'm just trying to encourage more input from others into the whole process. --| TrekFan Open a channel 21:49, March 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * Then maybe it would have been more appropriate if you had put "Does anyone else...", as "anyone" includes me; I'm not no-one! --Defiant 23:39, March 8, 2011 (UTC)

OK... --| TrekFan Open a channel 09:29, March 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * Are there any more comments to be had for this article? 

I don't think the article repeats to much now. It reads fine in my opinion. Are there specific instances that you believe are repetitive? --| TrekFan Open a channel 11:27, March 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. I've cited some examples of the problems I have in the "Pathfinder Project" subsection. I also have some qualms about some of the info in the "Holo-addiction" subsection; I'll watch the episode and try & do some more work on it. --Defiant 15:10, March 9, 2011 (UTC)

I have reworded the Pathfinder section. What do you think of it now? --| TrekFan Open a channel 19:21, March 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * I personally think it's a lot better now. Having said that, though, I removed the following statement, as I didn't see its relevance to the section about Barclay's career and thought it more suitable for the section on Holo-addiction, if anywhere at all: "[Harkins] feared that Barclay had suffered a relapse of his holo-addiction." This is already stated in the holo-addiction subsection (as far as I can tell), so there's no need to repeat it. The "Pathfinder Project" subsection still needs some more work, though, as (the only qualm I didn't note in the article itself) the paragraphs containing info from and  need to be made more relevant to Barclay himself. --Defiant 22:24, March 14, 2011 (UTC)

OK, give me a minute and I'll have a look at it and see what I can do. --| TrekFan Open a channel 22:26, March 14, 2011 (UTC)

I've edited the "Life Line" section slightly to be more Barclay-centric. I don't know how to change the "Inside Man" section though. It currently describes the Ferengi plan and that Barclay fooled them. I don't know what else to say about that. --| TrekFan Open a channel 22:35, March 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * I've made that "Life Line" paragraph even more Barclay-centric, though I can't really help with the "Inside Man" info (at least, not yet), as I'm slowly working my way through the series run of Star Trek: Voyager and I'm only up to Season 4, so I wish to avoid "spoilers" as much as possible! --Defiant 23:05, March 14, 2011 (UTC)

Oh right OK! Call yourself a Trekkie, man! haha :P I'll have a think about how to word it and see if I can improve it. Is that the only thing you think needs sorting or is there anything else you have noticed? --| TrekFan Open a channel 23:08, March 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, there's lots more ways the article could be improved. After re-watching and  a few days ago, I discovered that loads of info could be added to the article. The problem of duplicated info already in the article still remains, and hasn't been dealt with in any kind of satisfactory way. Also, the info about the non-holographic crew members in the "holo-addiction" section (or, at least, most of that info) should, I feel, be instead separated into the "career" and "relationships" sections (but obviously as appropriate!). --Defiant 00:50, March 15, 2011 (UTC)

I've moved some of the holo-addiction info to the relationships section. To be honest, I think the article is fine now. There's bound to be some overlaps in the descriptions but I don't think it uselessly repeats information. --| TrekFan Open a channel 15:35, March 15, 2011 (UTC)

Participation
Hi

TrekFan invited me to participate, and I'd like to, for the article contains many "little" things – grammar, links, inconsistencies (e.g., "LaForge" and "La Forge"), MoS stuff, etc. I don't know if I'm supposed to "jump in" and fix those or discuss them here. (I've never done a PR before.)

There are a few structural issues that'd I'd leave up to you guys, though I'd weigh-in. Please advise: I don't want to ruin this, especially if the goal is getting it to FA status! (I know one criterion is stability, so I hesitate to make a bunch of prose fixes/edits.)

And by the way: the article otherwise looks pretty good, IMO. Kudos to whoever put together the detail, etc.  16:26, March 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you sure you're looking at the current version of the page, Cepstrum? I can't find any examples of the erroneous "LaForge" in the article! The page is far from complete, IMO, so feel free to edit it to your heart's content, basically. --Defiant 16:32, March 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, ditto on what Defiant said. In addition, feel free to jump in and edit any aspects of the article you see fit. Just put a note here once you have so we can keep track of it and discuss any additions we need to. This is the editing stage so anything goes, really (within reason, of course!). Hopefully, we can build this up to FA status! --| TrekFan Open a channel 22:50, March 16, 2011 (UTC)

Sure, ok. (Re "La Forge": it was there at around the time I posted the above...). It's always easier to copy-edit someone else's work, as I've experienced in co-authoring journal articles! (I still can't believe each time I let a few errors get published after my co-authors looked at it again, as well as the second or third round of peer review! I always find plenty of errors in my colleagues' work, and vice-versa. :-/ Glad to help in any way possible.  13:23, March 18, 2011 (UTC)


 * After seeing Cepstrum's original comments about "LaForge" v "La Forge", I did a general cleanup sitewide of those. Again. -- sulfur 13:36, March 18, 2011 (UTC)


 * RE, Cepstrum: Well, any help you can provide would be great. That's what peer review is about, after all! Just keep in mind to post any changes you make here so we can keep a record of who has done what. :) --| TrekFan Open a channel 13:50, March 18, 2011 (UTC)

I did a little copy-editing, linking, grammar, linking, MoS, etc., up until before the Pathfinder Project. Change anything you don't like. (My style of writing is a little more formal.) Don't know when I'll be able to do more (but I hope to). Good luck! :)

15:28, March 18, 2011 (UTC)

Note: I'd like to go through the whole article and adjust/"tweak" the prose while you guys are focusing on structure, etc. And, of course, change anything of mine you don't like or isn't proper. The only thing is, I'd have to do it in stages over a few days (as I did with the stuff up to up to Pathfinder today). I think I'll wait to see if you receive my "tweaks" well or dislike them before continuing. If it's the latter case, then I could just add my thoughts/comments here – I know not everyone likes my writing style, and I'm bound to make errors (as I've found myself doing even today!). 19:05, March 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * Not at all. For this particular article, I think a formal writing style is required. I believe it's episode articles, for example, that require more of an entertaining approach, since the summary should be entertaining to the reader. Unless Defiant has any objections, then by all means continue to edit away! We can always change or discuss anything that's been added so it's the end of the world. It's nice to see another user taking an active role in a peer review. :) --| TrekFan Open a channel 19:11, March 18, 2011 (UTC)


 * I tightened up the overall wording, as it tended to had tense problems, use a lot of unnecessary words, and rambled off topic a bit. It's by no means perfect, and there's still some bloat with unnecessary friendship sections, but this is much better than the article that was up for FA a bit prematurely. - 22:40, March 18, 2011 (UTC)

"New" look
Thanks, Archduk3 (et. al), for fixing many issues; I think the structure is far better. I would not yet support it, however, for several prose problems exist (grammar bugs, repetitious diction/filler "buzzwords", case/voice/tense switches, a couple typos, and worst, some missing introductory links and inconsistent naming, as per the MoS).

Otherwise, the wording, structure, format, etc., look (IMO) pretty good. (I didn't mean to come across as an overly harsh critic; it does in fact look a good deal better.) Also: it's much easier for me to comment here than to make edits via an iPod! :-/

Perhaps a couple more rounds of a few of us copy-editing each other's work would suffice – actually, I'm sure of it. (I touched-up only the very beginning before.) There isn't that much to "correct", despite my foregoing list of misgivings.

I don't know when I could get to this, but it probably wouldn't happen before early next week. And the more I consider it, I probably would support this, once someone corrects the typos and linking/naming issues.

Just my thoughts! 16:28, March 19, 2011 (UTC)


 * I've had to make quite a lot of tweaks to the article; its uses of grammar and punctuation were appallingly abysmal! --Defiant 04:08, March 20, 2011 (UTC)
 * I've removed two of the relationship sections, as the info within is far better served in other, more appropriate locations.
 * I'm also pretty sure the "–" is now being way over used. It's far more visually distracting then a simple comma, and it's use is placing far to much emphasis on text that's generally unnecessary to the point of a sentence. - 23:40, March 20, 2011 (UTC)

Agreed (about the endash). In my latest revision (saved locally), I'd removed several superfluous ones.

With so many people working on this now, I hesitate to jump back in and make prose changes. When is a good/proper time for that? I don't mean to impose my style. Regardless, I think this should stay in PR mode for a while until it's stable: we'll end up making a bunch of edits, causing it fail a key criterion.

Is there a systematic way we could go about this, for those interested in cleaning up the styling of the entire article? It seems an ideal approach would be to make a new section here, list the people who plan to go through the text, and then do it in a cyclical, orderly fashion until a quiescent point arises. It'd take a little longer that way, but then it'd be easier to know, e.g., when it's my "turn" (as well as make it clearer to see who did what and revert/discuss, if necessary).

? Thoughts ?

13:00, March 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need to set up a schedule. I would suggest just editing when you can, while using inuse and this page if you need some time with it. - 13:15, March 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it doesn't matter if the article changes during peer review since that's the whole purpose. As long as the article is in a state we can all agree upon by the end of it, then that's fine. Go ahead and make any changes you see fit, Cepstrum, and like Archduk3 said; if it's going to take you a little while use the inuse template. --| TrekFan Open a channel 14:17, March 21, 2011 (UTC)


 * @Archduk3; there's a surprise! The nitpicks you have about the article are edits I've made to it! --Defiant 14:40, March 21, 2011 (UTC)


 * Well Defiant, if you're going to start the conversation believing that my objections are somehow personally directed at you and are inconsequential anyway, it seems that trying to change your mind would be a pointless endeavor. That said, I personally am not a fan of dashes within sentences, or parenthesis for that matter, since in most cases the information itself either doesn't actually need to be in the sentence, or a simple comma would do just as well. I also believe I said as much already, without any subtext involving nefarious motives. - 15:49, March 21, 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I appreciate your point about the "ndash"s, and even partly agree with it; I've always thought it should be kept to a minimum of only one in any single paragraph. Having said that, I'm also wary (as I think we should be, collectively) of using too many commas. We can break them up with brackets and the occasional dash. The personal problem I had with you nitpicking my edits seems to have originated from a misunderstanding on my part, I now find. You have my sincerest apologies for that. By all means, go right ahead with commenting on any other edits I have made/will make; I don't mind, and it'd probably be more constructive than anything else. Sorry for the confusion caused. --Defiant 16:40, March 21, 2011 (UTC)


 * While I agree with the Playmates image been on the Playmates page, I don't think it needs to be removed from this article. It's there to compliment the bg info and is entirely relevant. I wanted to discuss it here before making any changes, just in case I inadvertantly started an edit war. --| TrekFan Open a channel 16:43, March 21, 2011 (UTC)


 * The reason I removed the image of the toy is that it's the size of the entire section, even with the text squeezed by it being there. I simply felt the section isn't big enough to support a image that doesn't need to be there, in that the image is usable elsewhere. - 12:57, March 22, 2011 (UTC)


 * I thought it was fine to have one image for the background section (the toy) and another for the apocrypha (the screenshot). It didn't seem to clutter it up. --| TrekFan Open a channel 13:32, March 22, 2011 (UTC)


 * I have moved the info on Barclay's Protomorphosis Syndrome to the main Enterprise-D section since it isn't really a "condition" Barclay had per se, since the rest of the crew suffered from it aswell. It was just a one off event, unlike his holo-addiction. I have also added an image of his "devolved" self and some bginfo about the makeup from Star Trek: Aliens & Artifacts. --| TrekFan Open a channel 21:25, March 23, 2011 (UTC)


 * I am satisfied with the way the article currently looks and there hasn't been an edit (other than myself) in the past 7 days, so does this mean everyone else is happy with it too, or have we all given up? :p --| TrekFan Open a channel 00:06, March 30, 2011 (UTC)


 * If we don't get any further comments in the next week, I'm going to assume that we have done all necessary edits to this article and archive the Peer Review. Anyone....? --| TrekFan Open a channel 11:26, April 5, 2011 (UTC)

Big search engine problem?
I typed "Barclay" into MA's search engine and found myself on this page (interesting coincidence that the user's a biomedical engineer...but I digress). I don't know whether it's a bug in MediaWiki, a Wikia problem, or an intentional redirect. Regardless, I think a user should be able to type "Barclay" and get to the character, not the user – or at least a "search results" page.

Does anyone else have this problem, or is it just on my end? 15:31, March 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikia has been buggy forever, but I have occasionally ended up on some random page that was not at all what I entered into the search box, but I've never been able to reproduce the problem. - 16:41, March 19, 2011 (UTC)


 * That's an issue with the search engine default settings. It should only search in the MA namespace and the main namespace (not in that order).  It's also been finding stuff on talk pages of late too.  I'll report it. -- sulfur 16:54, March 19, 2011 (UTC)

Missing history: the Prof. Moriarty affair
I was going through the article, attempting to alleviate some of its (as Defiant noted, egregious grammar/prose) but realized something more(?) important: His involvement with the Professor James Moriarty "fiasco" is absent (as far as I could tell). IMO, the article, aside from the much-needed prose cleanup, should be complete and reference the events in before we consider it worthy of FA status. ? Thoughts ? 17:07, March 20, 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right, of course. I hadn't even realized that was missing - good catch! I'll have a watch of the episode when I can and see wha I can do about adding in the relevant information, that is, unless someone beats me to it. Good catch, Cepstrum! --| TrekFan Open a channel 17:08, March 20, 2011 (UTC)


 * I've added the information from "Ship in a Bottle", along with an image, but feel free to change/correct anything as you see fit. --| TrekFan Open a channel 23:52, March 20, 2011 (UTC)


 * The newly added info seems a bit rambling and irrelevant. Sentences that do not start with Barclay as the subject tend to seem that way; saying "Moriarty did this.." or "Picard did that...", for example, is clearly off-topic, as the subject of the article is (and should be) neither Moriarty nor Picard but Barclay. --Defiant 14:34, March 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * I did think about that when I wrote it, but sometimes what Barclay did was a result of what Picard/Moriarty said or did (or vice versa) which I think is worth mentioning. Perhaps a slight rewording would be in order so that it reflects this? --| TrekFan Open a channel 14:38, March 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting that we exclude info about Picard or Moriarty from the article, or anything like that, but Barclay is kept as the topic if not-entirely-related stuff is kept behind or kind of in front of the start of each sentence, like, "Due to Picard doing such-and-such, Barclay did this..." or "Barclay did that, because Picard did such-and-such...", etc. --Defiant 20:15, March 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I understand what you're saying, but don't forget the episode was not Barclay-centric so a lot of the stuff he does in it is as a result of other people's actions. But have a crack a rewording it if you like. I do get what you're saying. --| TrekFan Open a channel 20:18, March 21, 2011 (UTC)

Archived
I have now archived the above peer review after a considerable amount of time of inactivity. --| TrekFan Open a channel 12:51, April 12, 2011 (UTC)

Enterprise-D template link
When I click on the link to the Enterprise-D in the opening paragraph ( USS Enterprise (NCC-1701)), it goes to the original series Enterprise not the Galaxy-class one. Is this happening for anyone else? Is it a problem with the template? --| TrekFan Open a channel 18:48, March 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a problem with the call. Needed to be:  USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-D)
 * I fixed it. -- sulfur 19:11, March 15, 2011 (UTC)

Ah, OK... --| TrekFan Open a channel 20:03, March 15, 2011 (UTC)

Is this complete now?
Personally, I think this article is now complete. It mentions everything about Barclay with some nice bg info and apocrypha at the end. In addition, it has been stable for quite a while now, indicating there's no further points of controversy. Anyone else agree/disagree? --| TrekFan Open a channel 21:52, August 20, 2011 (UTC)

Removed bg note
Due to not knowing the source of the following note of background information, I've removed it:


 * In an interview with Star Trek Monthly, Dwight Schultz said of the character, "Barclay had problems, he wasn't perfect; he was someone that the fans I think could identify with. He had a good heart, but he didn't quite fit in all of the time, and I think it brought a unique perspective for the show and for fans. It was a great idea. They finally put an ordinary person on the bridge, and it struck a chord. Barclay sees things that he is not a part of and desperately wants to be there, just as I did for so many years, wanting to be an actor! He desperately wants to be things that he's not, and will never be - he will probably always be a lieutenant, but he has a great heart. I think he recognises that it's very important to fulfill your place, more so than it is to move beyond it, and he was given this very, very sweet disposition by the writers; and I think that sums him up. A great heart, and recognises his place, but he's a Walter Mitty dreamer. It's one of those things that I have been thinking about for a long time. I think Barclay would desperately like to be promoted, yet he has good understanding as to why he would not be. He would be in electronic research of some kind. No question. The computer nerd of the future is what he would be, without doubt! He would be buried in quantum fields and the study of particle accelerators and attempting to divine super warp drives, that sort of thing. It lets you realize first of all, this is all fantasy anyway I that there is a place for everyone in the future, even this idealized future that Star Trek represents as opposed to the darker future that Babylon 5 presented. It's very good for the fans to have an ordinary person there, just a regular guy who sometimes is going to make mistakes."

I'm planning to go through the resources shortly, so may re-add this then. In the meantime, does anyone know where it's from? --Defiant (talk) 11:07, July 28, 2013 (UTC)