Vic Perrin or Walker Edmiston? Both are credited on their respected pages. - Archduk3 06:27, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

The Star Trek Compendium says Perrin. – Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 08:18, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I think this was addressed here - Talk:Vic Perrin#Corbomite Maneuver.– Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 08:22, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that. The question is, which source is right? - Archduk3 09:20, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

Split suggestion Edit

I'd like to recommend this page be split into "Balok" (about the childlike man), and "Balok (puppet)". I think there's enough info to cover 2 pages. --Defiant (talk) 11:28, August 9, 2016 (UTC)

Disagree. That'd be like splitting the giant head and the little man in the Wizard of Oz. They are one and the same... just a "disguise". -- sulfur (talk) 12:01, August 9, 2016 (UTC)

Ermm... they're actually not one and the same. If you actually watch the episode, you'll find that out (it's made quite clear in the installment). --Defiant (talk) 12:11, August 9, 2016 (UTC)

One is a thing being manipulated by a person, the other is that person. --LauraCC (talk) 14:58, August 9, 2016 (UTC)
Same as the Wizard of Oz btw... :) -- sulfur (talk) 14:59, August 9, 2016 (UTC)
I guess so. It'd be like having a separate page for bluffing Kirk and good Kirk from the same episode. --LauraCC (talk) 15:01, August 9, 2016 (UTC)

Not really. It would be like that if both the childlike man and the puppet were usually one and the same person who was around for an entire series (and more), but just happened to be split for only a single episode. This Balok case is, iirc, also different from the Wizard in The Wizard of Oz; his disguise was basically all smoke and mirrors, and couldn't be touched. The puppet Balok could be touched and therefore actually has a physical presence itself, very different from that of its operator. Please correct me if I'm mistaken about The Wizard of Oz, though; it's been ages since I watched it. --Defiant (talk) 16:14, August 9, 2016 (UTC)

Would this be handled like when a specific stuffed toy or doll is given a name of its own? Because we could expand the note at puppet...--LauraCC (talk) 16:31, August 9, 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that's probably preferable, since the puppet wasn't actually named. Good thinking, Laura. :) --Defiant (talk) 16:35, August 9, 2016 (UTC)

While I've no preference either way, "Balok effigy" seems to be a nice choise for this one...--Sennim (talk) 16:46, August 9, 2016 (UTC)
Never called that. Besides, it's neither said to be a representation of an actual individual who really looks somewhat like that or a voodoo doll. --LauraCC (talk) 16:48, August 9, 2016 (UTC)

It's just that this article isn't written from the right perspective. If it's about the childlike man Balok, then it should be from his point of view, not the puppet's, Kirk's nor the Enterprise's. --Defiant (talk) 17:01, August 9, 2016 (UTC)

So can the split tag be removed now? --LauraCC (talk) 16:42, September 10, 2016 (UTC)

Clearly not; the split's still to be done. --Defiant (talk) 16:46, September 10, 2016 (UTC)

I thought we'd decided that it didn't have to be done after all. --LauraCC (talk) 16:51, September 10, 2016 (UTC)

You may have decided that. I wouldn't have agreed to it, though. --Defiant (talk) 16:53, September 10, 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, that was dictatorish of me. I meant I thought the fix was adding more to the "puppet" page. I suppose you could call the new page "Balok's puppet". --LauraCC (talk) 16:55, September 10, 2016 (UTC)

I've now made the necessary changes. --Defiant (talk) 18:18, September 10, 2016 (UTC)