Pterodactyl Edit

If the "pterodactyl" in the picture is the image on the right page, then why does it look like a butterfly (well, at least one from Earth)? I hope that it's intended to do so.

Edit for above: the Ba'ku butterfly and pterodactyl are the same species? Huh? --User:

Bottom image in the left image column. --Alan 04:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


Not to sound annoying or anal, but is the following note really necessary?

The Ba'ku goat was played by an uncredited Earth goat.

For one thing, we have countless animal appearances without knowing the specific name of the animal performer. Take the iguana that played spot, or the chicken in "Up The Long Ladder", etc. We don't have notes like this for them. In addition, this isn't even an article about that goat, it is an article about an entire species. --OuroborosCobra talk 23:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, someone made a funny. How clever. I might suggest loosening up the belt there once and a while, kiddo. You might pop, or worse yet, a hair might fall out of place. --Alan 12:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Cobra, you are so frickin' annoying and anal! But yeah, as Alan alluded to, this is an example of the inform and entertain policy... which you yourself have advocated in the past (see?). So, that said, I don't really see anything wrong with it. --From Andoria with Love 07:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

You know, I am really starting to resent personal attacks from two admins. I didn't catch the joke, it just did not occurr to me that there was a joke here. I did not see a joke. Instead of attacking me for pointing out what I thought was an inconsistencies, you both could have politely told me of the joke. Fuck off guys. --OuroborosCobra talk 07:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I was polite! Well, except for the jokey "annoying and anal" bit which I forgot to put a winky-face after, but hey... better late than never! ;) Or not... :/ But, yeah, the bit was meant to be humorous. --From Andoria with Love 08:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Well it wasn't, and you know from the IRC discussion that I already took Alan's response as a near personal attack, and that I simply had not found this to be funny. Once Alan informed me (suchas his method was), I dropped the whole thing here, then two days later you respond with this. No, sorry, not amused anymore, and the lack of care doesn't amuse me either. Admins should be better than the rest of us at following policies, not flaunt them whenever they want, but more and more I am seeing the latter here. --OuroborosCobra talk 08:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, yeah, it was the conversation at IRC that brought me here. I just thought I'd add what I thought was a funny comment in reply to your line at the top "Not to sound annoying or anal, but is the following note really necessary?" and then show you a time when you implemented the policy, because I was under the impression you were against the line's inclusion. That was it. No attack was intended. --From Andoria with Love 08:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

uncredited earth llamasEdit

do we really need to say that? is it not obvious to everyone that all the animals in Star Trek are either puppets, CGI, modells, or played by earth animals?--Rom UlanHail 16:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It's intended to be tongue-in-cheek humor. ;) -- Renegade54 17:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

-_- i know, but still, was not very funny.well, I'll leave it. :P some people seems to like it ;P--Rom UlanHail 17:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

To take this far too seriously for a moment... most of the animals seen in Trek are actually credited. The Llamas were not. :) -- Sulfur 17:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Errr... okay... to take this a little too far further... or whatever... if they were never credited as Llamas, should we be calling them Llamas? Not only do we not usually entertain assumptions on MA... but it would be unreasonable to assume these animals have any similarities, other then superficial, with the Earth Llama. Are we allowing this under the guise of Hodgkin's Law of Parallel Planetary Development? Not that I really give a darn about an alien llama article... but I'd have rather seen them titled "Ba'ku pack animal", or "Ba'ku beast of burden". Again... I realize how entirely too seriously I sound here... so... yeah... please understand that my tongue is firmly planted in my oral cavity.  :P -- Hossrex 22:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


Same type of case as Organian goat. Who knows what the Ba'ku called it? The other Ba'ku animals should be merged as well with Unnamed non-humanoids (24th century).

--LauraCC (talk) 17:03, December 14, 2016 (UTC)

If they're going to be merged, an "unnamed Ba'ku animals" would be far better, -- sulfur (talk) 20:05, December 14, 2016 (UTC)

That's fine. I figured that would just be the heading of that section, the way we have "People in San Francisco" on Unnamed Humans (20th century). --LauraCC (talk) 20:06, December 14, 2016 (UTC)

Also relevant to this are Ba'ku pterodactyl, Ba'ku turtle, and Ba'ku hummingbird. I agree they shouldn't be pages of their own, btw, though I personally lean towards just having them at unnamed nonhumanoids. Note that a bunch of the animals are just one of a group of animal pictures in a book. Figuring out what earth animal they look like and then having a long page with sections for each with the single line "a Ba'ku x was seen in a book" seems like overkill. -- Capricorn (talk) 09:32, December 16, 2016 (UTC)


This page was conceived as a solution to us having a bunch of unnamed animals. However, now the Rhyl was assimilated into it also, which I don't think fits with the original intention. The Rhyl can be linked from here, but we have a name for it and so it should have an article of its own. -- Capricorn (talk) 10:51, January 30, 2017 (UTC)

I forgot that thing existed when I made this page, or I would have linked to it. - Archduk3 15:54, January 30, 2017 (UTC)
Related to that, where's the name of the "Kolibri" come from... It strikes me as a named one also. -- sulfur (talk) 16:06, January 30, 2017 (UTC)
If you switch the "K" to a "C", it is a real genus of hummingbird, according to Wikipedia. I'm not sure where the name came from, but it was listed with the rest. - Archduk3 16:17, January 30, 2017 (UTC)
Looked up the K spelling and it appears to be a type of gun and cartridge, also named after the bird. --LauraCC (talk) 16:18, January 30, 2017 (UTC)

The background section is well-cited, if the word kolibri comes from a background source then that's probably where to look. Regarding the Rhyl, do we all agree it should be split of again? -- Capricorn (talk) 14:53, January 31, 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, though it already has been. --LauraCC (talk) 16:15, January 31, 2017 (UTC)
As the one who integrated the Rhyl into the page – unsuccesfully apparently – , I kinda disagree to a split, as I truly think that the page as it now stands (namely "Ba'ku Animals"' without the "unnamed" specifier), is as it was intended to be...I do like the notion of the "named" species subordination as it is in concordance with other MA articles...but these are just my thoughts...As for the "Kolibri" business, please refer to the (hummingbird) reference source as quoted.--Sennim (talk) 22:27, January 31, 2017 (UTC)

That's a bit of a fluke: the article was proposed to be named "Unnamed Ba'ku animals", but it became "Ba'ku animals" instead. Still, that doesn't preclude it from being a list of all animals, with the named ones just being a link.
Incindently, I see that Rhyl has been split off again already, so there's that...-- Capricorn (talk) 00:05, February 1, 2017 (UTC)

True, as I've implied I'm impartial to either option (even though rhyl isn't canon), so I'm cool...--Sennim (talk) 00:13, February 1, 2017 (UTC)
Sennim: Named things go onto their own pages, that's always the practice. So, a named item would not go onto the list, merely a link of such.
I've read over the quoted material a couple of times, but I'm still unclear as to where the name itself came from. Was it written in one of those two sources from the production staff, or was it a typo and should have simply been "colibri" to suggest that it was simply a "hummingbird"? If it was explicitly stated to be "kolibri" by production staff, then perhaps it belongs on its own page too. If it was a typo, then it's something that we should likely point out the CORRECT spelling/etc. -- sulfur (talk) 01:27, February 1, 2017 (UTC)
@Sulfur.I do have the book and mag, but I'm not at my place right now... If I remember correctly the term "k(c)olibri" has not been used, only "hummingbird"...I'll verify when I get back and let you know....--Sennim (talk) 01:41, February 1, 2017 (UTC)

Since those sources didn't pan out, maybe it's time to offer my own (absolutely completely unproven) theory on what happened. Hummingbirds are known as kolibris in German and a bunch of allied languages. My native language is Dutch, and I'd like to think my English is pretty good, but reading this discussion I was totally surprised to learn that c/kolibri wasn't a term for that species in English. There's not that many Dutch speakers on this wiki, but there's quite a few very active German speaking ones, and I wonder if they put in kolibri for a species obviously looking like a hummingbird, not knowing that wasn't a proper English term just like I didn't. -- Capricorn (talk) 02:04, February 1, 2017 (UTC)

Why not ask @ Trekbbs? Maybe someone there will have an idea. --LauraCC (talk) 16:03, February 1, 2017 (UTC)
K(c)olibri follow-up; As we started to suspect, the moniker K(c)olibri appears to have been adopted on personal title by an original MA editor. I've checked my sources, the Cinefex (pp. 79, 87) and American Cinematographer (pp. 44-45) mag issues only talk about a "hummingbird", as does The Secrets of Star Trek: Insurrection (pp.158-159). The final script too only refers to the animal as "hummingbird"...It appears a renaming is in order--Sennim (talk) 12:48, February 2, 2017 (UTC)