Comparisons to Scotty Edit
- Maybe Argyle and Scotty comes from the same area in Scotland? Or Argyle just is the "Standard Scottish Engineer":D
--The Picard 19:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I like Argyle, even compared to La forge. i am going to write several blogs about Star trek. and also the errors of the first season (incomplete crew for example) and I think that Star Trek TNG crossed the line by using the TOS klaxons. So why not have an engineer resembling Scotty? What is the officiall reason why Argyle disappeared?! Why hasn't Biff Yeager explained this...and why hasn't he appeared in any other Star Trek even as a different character?! It is dumb that he got killed of in all that literature.
I have a better explanation of why Argyle left...He appeared in Where No One Has Gone Before, Datalore, was mentioned on Lonely Among Us, and didn't he speak over the intercom on Hide And Q ???? Anyways, since all these episodes aired before 11001001, he probably transferred off of The Enterprise on Starbase 74.
I second that. I am going to delete the fan reactions. This is unsourced information. And earlier I added the similarities between TOS & TNG, since both started off with an incomplete staff. It got deleted. So I guess until somebody from the production staff explains more about Argyle, we must stick to the obvious facts.
In-Correct 02:13, December 20, 2009 (UTC)
- As suggested in 2007, it should be removed as unsourced, as you said.--31dot 02:22, December 20, 2009 (UTC)
- Here is the removed passage:
Argyle's appearance and vocal pattern resembled that of Montgomery Scott's in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, Star Trek III: The Search for Spock, and Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home which fueled the fire of critics who claimed that The Next Generation was (again, as there were many such accusations made in the early days of the series) ripping off the classic Star Trek series.--31dot 02:23, December 20, 2009 (UTC)
Um, who says he has a 'slight Northern English accent'? New England, maybe... 220.127.116.11 20:35, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
I think it is more of a slight Canadian accent. In Correct 23:10, April 9, 2012 (UTC)
I have no idea what the background note is supposed to mean -- "the character of Argyle was under consideration by producers to become a permanent chief engineer for the Enterprise until they began receiving letters campaigning for Argyle, referencing one of his episodes before it had aired, and fans began complaining that they had been spammed via mail which asked them to write in"
so.. the fans complained they had been spammed (not even a word in 1987) to mail the producers about an unreleased episode, supporting reappearance of a character who was already reappearing? what is this? -- Captain MKB 16:44, May 2, 2015 (UTC)
I agree and see no point in this note. So I removed it to the talk page here. Unfortunatly the original review seems no longer be online and cannot be checked for re-reading. Tom (talk) 16:59, May 2, 2015 (UTC)
- In a review of "Where No One Has Gone Before" for TV Squad, Wil Wheaton suggested (with the caveat that this was based on his memories of 20-years past, and that he was only 14 years old at the time), that the character of Argyle was under consideration by producers to become a permanent chief engineer for the Enterprise until they began receiving letters campaigning for Argyle, referencing one of his episodes before it had aired, and fans began complaining that they had been spammed via mail which asked them to write in on behalf of Yeager. 
- Huh? The note is both lucid and relevant: The guy had been recurring, was considered for permanently filling the slot, and then letters in support of the character started coming in in a way that was indicative of astroturfing, so the producers got pissed and changed their mind. What is confusing about that, and how is that not a noteworthy anecdote? -- Capricorn (talk) 17:38, May 2, 2015 (UTC)
- I agree, it is entirely relevant. It just needs a bit of tweaking - the "referencing one of his episodes" is an unfortunate misreading of what was said: the letters came in before WNMHGB aired, not any subsequent episode. The review is now part of Memories of the Future, Volume 1, so can be cited to that instead. -- Michael Warren | Talk 17:43, May 2, 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for the new link, Michael. With your explanation, Capricorn, it is understandable. The current wording of the note is really confusing. Maybe you'll rewrite the note and re-add it to the article? Thank you. Tom (talk) 17:50, May 2, 2015 (UTC)
After upgrades to the subspace phase coils, Sarah MacDougal, a duty engineer and a third shift supervisor, noted in her final analysis a minor phase variation. Argyle recommended the continued use of test instrumentation for monitoring phase shifts. (TNG: "Galaxy's Child") It makes absolutely no sense. I thought that all they did was add his name to an Okudagram. In Correct (talk) 04:10, January 15, 2016 (UTC)
- I really want to see this very detailed Okudagram. And even if that really happened, then there are two problems:
- 1. That paragraph is badly written. I want to rewrite it. But first I want to see this Okudagram.
- 2. Saying that Argyle was apparently replaced by Logan makes no sense with the information in this Okudagram. Either he was replaced, or he wasn't!
- In Correct (talk) 14:36, January 15, 2016 (UTC)
- He was unpopular with authors, as he had been killed in several books.
- I am going to re-add that, but this time without any "original research". Saying that Argyle was replaced by Logan is ALSO original research / analysis, yet somebody readded it. In Correct (talk) 14:33, January 15, 2016 (UTC)
I see you haven't re-added it just yet, but let me just assure you that making any statement about his popularity with authors would absolutely not be ok without official statements backing that up. Re the Argyle->Logan thing, note that it doesn't intend to say the Enteprise made a crew change, but merely that the writers stopped using a character and introduced a new character who filled the same function. (In my editing the paragraph, I noticed this wasn't super evident and tried subtly to make it more so, but I guess I'll just have to take the sledgehammer approach to make it clear). -- Capricorn (talk) 05:46, January 16, 2016 (UTC)