Talk:Darien Wallace

Personnel file
Here's what I could decipher from his personnel file:




 * WALLACE, DARIEN             TF - 284 -100


 * LIEUTENANT / DATE OF RANK 46220.8
 * SPEC. 3 LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEMS


 * ASSIGNED USS ENTERPRISE          47400.0
 * ASSIGNED USS SEAQUEST            47320.0
 * ASSIGNED USS BATON ROUGE         47210.4


 * STARFLEET ACADEMY BETA URSAE MINOR II
 * BORN 48991.3 ALTAIR 4 (MED FILE #MM-378-5)
 * PARENTS DENNIS AND LAUREL WALLACE


 * J. BRUCE AWARD/BIOENGINEERING           47100
 * CAMPBELL AWARD/LIFE SCIENCES            47102
 * EXTENDED TOUR RIBBON                    47102


 * AVERAGE EFFICIENCY/COOND RATING 8.3


 * SERVED AT UTOPIA PLANITIA SHIPYARDS, SOL SYSTEM
 * TEAM LEADER PRIMARY HULL FORWARD LIFE SUPPORT
 * CONTROL AND EMERGENCY SYSTEMS INSTALLATION.


 * ASSISTANT PARTS SCHEDULER. PRIMARY/SECONDARY
 * LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEMS LINKAGE SYSTEM

--Jörg 18:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * After just watching, I realized that this med file was displayed to Troi when she was in a telepathic "trance" - the same trance where she has a romantic affair with Worf and later kills him. Should any of the details from this file be considered fact?  Or should a disclaimer be put in the article?  As is, the stardates mentioned in the med file do not seem accurate (as mentioned in my comments in the FA nomination below), so the fact that the file was seen in, essentially, a dream, I see that as 2 strikes against using the info.  Thoughts? -Humu­humu­nuku­nuku­āpuaʻa 04:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

There's already a disclaimer on the page (appendices section): "The personnel file seen by Counselor Troi appeared during a dream sequence; this might explain some inaccuracies in the stardates." --Jörg 09:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ha! Obviously, I missed that.  Sorry! -Humu­humu­nuku­nuku­āpuaʻa 23:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Moved from
Another nice piece of work by Jorg. This thing really can't be missing anything. There are some short paragraphs, but this should be expected for a background character. Jaf 23:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)Jaf
 * Support: Such memorable quotes. It seems complete or near-complete to me, and it should join the ranks of other featured articles, like Guy Vardaman. Whoever added the Alternate timelines and Service record headings is a genius.--Tim Thomason 23:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Support: It's an intersting subject that is probably not very well known by most fans. I certainly didn't know Darien Wallace was such a big part. Anyway, this is the kind of cool thing that should be on the front page... not something everyone already knows about. Very nice; very complete; plus some funny. --Bp 03:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Support for the reasons stated above. We actually seem to know a fair amount about this character. I was surprised to see so much material here (pleased of course, this is one of the reasons I love Memory Alpha). I would point out that there seems to be an error that needs to be resolved. At one point in the article, it states that his only line in the series is the word "Good", yet later on it states that he also said "Aye, sir." --OuroborosCobra talk 03:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. I couldn't think of anything else to add to this page. I've been on the lookout for Wallace references in the novels or comics but wasn't able to find anything. I tweaked the sentence about his only line a little bit. The only line truely spoken by Vardaman as Wallace was "Good". The "Aye, Sir!" was dubbed in later by somebody else, not Guy, and the character is not seen uttering the words. Picard says "set a course for XXX" and we hear Wallace respond off screen. --Jörg 06:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Interesting article; I added an infobox, but I think that the birthdate as listed cannot be considered accurate, unless I am missing something. It states a birthdate of stardate 48991.3, which would have him being born AFTER he was assigned to the Enterprise.  Perhaps it is 40991.3?  Anyone with better vision care to chime in? -Humu­humu­nuku­nuku­āpuaʻa 15:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, it could also be 46991.3. It all doesn't make sense anyway because those personnel files were not meant to be seen up close and contain numerous injokes. Wallace was certainly older then 7 years or 1 year in . Evidence from the episodes clearly show that he was assigned to the Enterprise in season 1, for example, though the personnel file states he was assigned to the ship in season 7... --Jörg 17:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * What is MA policy on the dates and info taken from such places? If these screens are never really meant to be seen, should stardates, birthdates, etc. be taken at face value? Honest question. -Humu­humu­nuku­nuku­āpuaʻa 18:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment - I have my reservations about this article. It does not stand out from the crowd as most  articles tends to do. It's nothing more that a summing up of events Wallace did. (nothing wrong with that but does that make it worthy candidate ?) Yes I know, because of the lack of information about him, it is difficult to write a comprehensive article but there you go. Just my opinion. (beside that, I did not know the Ent had a serialnumber) -- Q 18:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Support: No idea what Q is talking about here. The article is well-written, comprehensive, and interesting, which is all that counts. --From Andoria with Love 06:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Nomination successful. Featured. --From Andoria with Love 14:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so regarding the above, it seems kind of premature at the moment. Did anyone actually proof read and spell check this article? I've noticed several duplicate words ("in in", "his his"), poor grammar in interpreting his actions ("in the bar" vs "at the bar"), and numerous duplicate wiki-links. Seems to me that these most basic standards would need to be covered before an article is successfully nominated. No? --Alan del Beccio 15:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, we had extensive discussions regarding what might or might not actually be good "Featured Articles" here. With the outcome that, basically "you didn't voice your concerns early enough = tough luck". This is not something I like, but for the moment, it's the way it is. :(
 * There's the Memory Alpha:Featured article criteria page, but this not referred to as a mandatory step in the current policy. I think this needs to be changed. -- Cid Highwind 13:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)