Rank Edit

I know the name here is questionable, but where does his rank of Fleet Admiral come from? He was an Admiral, yes, but the where does his title of chief of staff originate? He said in the dialog (and the script) that he was calling as a representative of Starfleet Operations. --Alan del Beccio 06:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, so his rank can be seen on his uniform, the end credits establish his "Chief of staff" position and his work for Starfleet Operations is from dialogue.
Are we going to continue using his non-canon last name? -- Captain M.K. Barteltalk 15:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with the name, as long as the non-canon source (the Encyclopedia, is clearly noted, which it is. This is allowed for the same reason things like United States of Africa is allowed, per the "Restricted Validity Resources" section of our canon policy.--Tim Thomason 21:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, its a different case than that. We aren't using United States of Africa because it was in the Encyclopedia or - those are secondary sources that we are trying not to honor -- we are using United States of Africa because it was in a TOS writer's guide - a primary source we do honor. (i'm not sure how this fits into an "RVR", i'm not even sure what that is defined as)... The name Bennett wasn't used behind the scenes, wasn't used in a writer's guide, script, credits or any other reference we could find. This is how it doesn't make the cut, in my opinion, as "behind the scenes" production info. its a name derived after the fact. -- Captain M.K. Barteltalk 02:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Was he explicitly stated to be chief of Starfleet Operations, or just that he was working for them? Kennelly 18:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Rename Edit

So if we rename Denevan neural parasite, we should rename this page too. He is called Robert Bennett in the Encyclopedia (3rd ed, p.41). Since this is not a contradiction to the movie name "Bob" (like with Bela Okmyx), but an expansion I see no problem in renaming it. Kennelly (talk) 12:19, March 13, 2016 (UTC)

But there exists a canon name here. Supplementary material names are only adopted when no canon name is available. They're only allowed as placeholders so you don't have to throw the character on the unnamed characters heap. -- Capricorn (talk) 20:01, March 13, 2016 (UTC)

See Talk:Jonathan Archer/alternate reality. Only "Admiral Archer" was spoken, but due to comments from production sources we assume it is indeed Jonathan Archer and don't have the page under Archer (admiral). Same here, only "Bob" was spoken, but production sources tell us his full name was Robert Bennett. Kennelly (talk) 22:16, March 13, 2016 (UTC)

Using that name was just a side effect of a discussion deciding that the production source linking him to a canon character could be followed, it was not directly about adopting a name from a production source. Once it was decided that the character was the one we know to be named Jonathan Archer, of course we named him that. But here, there's no need to resort to using a production source, and that's what would have to be the case for us to be allowed to use that name. The encyclopedia is not a book with additional canon facts. I keep having to link to the canon policy lately, but I think this time I will just directly quote it: the only acceptable reason to use a supplementary material name is "To name items or people that were seen on-screen but not referred to by name. [...] The primary reason for this is to avoid creating a large number of "unnamed" subject pages when an official name already exists." -- Capricorn (talk) 00:17, March 14, 2016 (UTC)

Again I disagree with you and see no substantial difference between the Archer case and this case. And again I would like input from someone else. Kennelly (talk) 16:25, March 14, 2016 (UTC)

Oppose a rename. The STE is not a direct production source. "Neural parasite" and "Denevan neural parasite" are both descriptive terms, not proper names, and I have half a mind to move that page back since the renaming guideline wasn't followed. "Johnathan Archer" in the alternate reality and "Leonard McCoy" on the Enterprise-D are about using direct production sources to present the writers intent and meet reader expectations. "Admiral Archer" and that old guy walking with Data are both expected to be the obvious reference to thier characters that they are and there is citable intent from the writers for them to be those characters too. In this case, there is no "Robert Bennett" that "Bob" could be referencing back to, and that isn't the name used in the script either. For the sake of covering all the bases here, I will say the closest this comes to any sort of precedent is Maximilian Forrest as opposed to Maxwell Forrest, since "Maximilian" goes against reader expectation, but was the name used in the script. Still no direct prodction reference here though. - Archduk3 18:24, March 14, 2016 (UTC)