Wikia

Memory Alpha

Talk:Betty Riker

Back to page

40,422pages on
this wiki

Bio seen?Edit

Riker's bio wasn't shown in "Conundrum".--James Cody 17:48, 5 Jul 2005 (UTC)

However, there was a bio screen prepared for him in the event the director chose to use a perspective over Geordi's shoulder. I'll modify the article to reflect this. -- SmokeDetector47 // talk 21:34, 5 Jul 2005 (UTC)
And you know this how? --Alan del Beccio 11:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Why production pov? Edit

Maybe her name wasn't used, but the rest of this article seems to be from an in-universe POV. Only the note at the bottom is production. --LauraCC (talk) 16:06, August 5, 2015 (UTC)

The bio was prepared in case the directory chose to use a particular shot. It was unused in production. See the bgnote. Anything unused in production (but prepared for such/etc) is considered to be a "real world" article. -- sulfur (talk) 16:16, August 5, 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, but this isn't an article about the bio. It appears to be about all mentions of Riker's mom, whether she was named or not. So rename the page "Mrs. Riker" or something like that? --LauraCC (talk) 16:21, August 5, 2015 (UTC)

It would become part of an unnamed list. -- sulfur (talk) 16:34, August 5, 2015 (UTC)
I agree the current approach doesn't make sense; either something is real world or it's not, you can't schizophrenically mix and match aspects of both depending on what is convenient. But wouldn't the unused graphic be a valid production source, the same way we have alien species only named through background sources? That would make the article completely in-universe, only with a note stating the name was not spoken or shown on screen. -- Capricorn (talk) 06:44, August 6, 2015 (UTC)

MergeEdit

The above discussion didn't result in action, but I think the issue is real and serious. So, take 2: I've nominated this page for a merge into unnamed Humans. Since her name isn't canonically known, that seems where she belongs. -- Capricorn (talk) 09:23, February 5, 2016 (UTC)

Comment: Shouldn't this article stay separate with little content like "In an okudagram prepared for episode X Betty Riker was the name of Will Riker's mother bla bla" while all the in-universe info is moved over to the page you're suggesting a merge with? I don't see a difference between this page and all the other items only mentioned in scripts for which we have separate pages. Kennelly (talk) 16:59, February 8, 2016 (UTC)
Generally if we know which individual the name is referring to, we'd just put it in a bg note that would go under Unnamed Humans (24th century). It would say something like, "An ultimately unused okudagram prepared for "Conundrum" gave her name as Betty Riker." --LauraCC (talk) 20:43, March 1, 2016 (UTC)
Dosen't this fall under the Livingston clause? We have a valid production source for an unnamed character that isn't contradicted, so this name can be used for an article, provided we note the source. - Archduk3 04:46, March 24, 2016 (UTC)
This does, in my opinion. The whole point of that policy is to AVOID putting people on the unnamed pages with a BG note with their name. It's to have them in a separate article, have a nice day, Bob's your uncle. -- sulfur (talk) 04:48, March 24, 2016 (UTC)

The Issue I'm having with taking this under the Livingston umbrella is while the option to introduce the name was considered, you could say that it was ultimately rejected (even if just through camera choice). Someone afterwards saying that that's what Riker's mom was called (i.e. a classic Livingston case) imo is different from a situation where we discover that at one point somewhere a certain name was considered. -- Capricorn (talk) 21:04, March 24, 2016 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki