Photos+Last WordsEdit

We should get photos of Tucker when he was 4, 8, and 17.-B-101

References on recent additions needed, please. Ottens 16:50, 22 Jan 2005 (CET)

I vote to remove Sim's pictures from Trip's article. They are already implemented here. --BlueMars 15:33, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If he was born in 2125 he would have been 14 when he joined Starfleet in 2139! Wesley Crusher aside Starfleet has always been portrayed as an 18+ organization. I'm changing it to 2121. (Alphaboi867 22:47, 15 May 2005 (UTC))

Who can tell me exactly what Trip's last words were? Something along the lines of "I'll see you in hell" but I know it was a little more colorful than that. I dont have it recorded :-( and I just don't remember the exact words. Thanks --BMS 03:40, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Trip's last words on-screen were to Archer:

"Archer:Take it easy, everything's going to be all right"

Trip: Really?

Archer:We'll be right on schedule; I'll even have time to write my speech

Trip: Great news; wait'll they..."

Is he really dead? Edit

Since all of the Enterprise era footage in the series finale is being generated by a TNG era holodeck based on historical records, it is only as accurate as those records. (where as we presume that we see other events as they happen). Does that make his death as shown less certain than events from other episodes. —MJBurrage 18:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

And unless Starfleet records everyone all of the time (even when they are in private), all of the scenes that are in crew quarters would have to be TNG era speculation by the programmers of the holodeck. —MJBurrage 19:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, one of the new Pocket Books novels that is supposed to start the "ENT relaunch" makes use of the fact that all we saw in the finale was "just" a holodeck program - and claims that Trip is still alive.
While I don't think we need to cater to the "NOT.DEAD.-crowd", it's true that all we can really say about Trip is that "in the 24th century, it's common belief that he died in 2161", whether that's true or not. I think we should rephrase that last paragraph in the article accordingly, and perhaps even add a background note about this problem. -- Cid Highwind 19:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Thinking about it again, I don't know if we can even be sure about that "24th century common belief" bit. Was that made clear in the episode? -- Cid Highwind 19:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I think Troi's line "It's sad. Commander Tucker had no idea he wouldn't make it back (to Earth)" makes that reasonably clear. ;) In any case, as far as canon goes, the fact of the matter is... he's dead, Jim. --From Andoria with Love 02:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

All we know, as far as canon is concerned, is what the TNG era records say and what is commonly believed. There is no canon reason to believe Trip is alive, but also none of the specifics of what happened on Enterprise in that episode are cannon either. It is only cannon that what we saw was a TNG era "play" based on whatever information is in the Starfleet files two-hundred years later. —MJBurrage 02:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with Shran here. Although, like in a biopic, what Trip had for breakfast the day he died, or exact bits of dialogue throughout his day may be speculation, the fact that he died (and the time and cause of death) would be a matter of public record. If it turned out that, say, he really didn't die, but for some reason his death was faked, or whatever, and he turned up alive some period of days (weeks, months, etc.) later, then the official record would reflect that as well... and Troi would've said something different, like "Even though everyone thought he was dead at the time, he finally made it back to Earth", or whatever. All we know is what we see... -- Renegade54 11:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't agree. If Trip's death was faked, that fact could remain classified, designate as secret, even in 2370, exactly as "The Good That Men Do" suggests. Events seen in a holodeck program are only events seen in a holodeck program, and Troi's line doesn't prove that events are unmistakably true. I believe it's a mistake to take Trip's death for granted basing such assertion on a holodeck program. -- 19:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
As Lindley (Trek BBS moderator) says: "To all the folks claiming Trip is canonically dead, that isn't actually true.

If you're going to get all picky about what you consider "absolutely, positively real", then you should be aware that the *only* thing which TATV canonically established is that in the 24th century a holoprogram exists which depicts Trip dying.

Frankly, I find absolutely nothing wrong or contradictory with the notion that said program might be inaccurate---or at least not the whole story".

I absolutely agree. -- From Spain, no offense intended. 16:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

And what in canon is there to suggest that the holographic records are inaccurate? They are presented as an accurate account of the events, and without evidence to the contrary, should be accepted as such. --OuroborosCobra talk 14:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't prove the contrary. You can accept what you could prefer, but a holodeck program should be, at least, call into question. History have issues like that: Was Emperor Hirohito guilty or innocent of war crimes? History books dissent among themselves. Was President Kennedy killed by Lee H. Oswald? According to Warren Commission, this is true. I have my doubts, as like that with this holodeck program -- From Spain with freedom. 17:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
This wasn't a history book. This wasn't some historians interpretation. This was presented as THE EVENT, as it occurred. Anything to the contrary is speculation, nothing more. --OuroborosCobra talk 15:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
A holodeck program isn't different to a history book (or a TV documentary if you prefer that). "THE EVENT, as it occurred?" Is a holodeck program a time machine? It isn't different to a history book or a TV documentary. It's just the same. For the rest, I reaffirm my previous post. -- From Sapin, no offense intended. 17:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, once this fun discussion about history books (or TV documentaries) has finished, I reiterate my support for moderator Lindley on Trek BBS. I find those arguments really solid and convincing. -- From Spain with good mood. 18:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
A holodeck program is different when it is presented the way it was in the episode, as THE EVENTS. As I keep saying, you have NO EVIDENCE that anything occurred differently. At least when historians disagree, they have evidence to bring to the table. You have none beyond idle speculation. --OuroborosCobra talk 15:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
You haven't understood me. I didn't said that anything occurred differently. I have only said that holodeck program isn't enough for me (especially considering that episode presents inconsistences with others) and therefore could have occurred what happen on it or all the contrary. Both are equally valid for me. -- From Spain (Why are you so bad-tempered my friend? 18:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Refer to my post above: I agree that a holo-simulation is like a biopic in that details in the simulation may (and probably do) differ from those in "real life". The simulation is programmed with all known information about people and events, and as such would be reasonably accurate, but it isn't a time machine and wouldn't have information about, say, every meal the holo-characters ever ate. I'll also grant you that Trip's death may have been faked, and that information could have been kept secret forever for some unknown reason. But that's pure speculation; we don't know that. He could've been spirited away to another dimension, or any other fantasy that you might come up with. All we know is what we see on screen, and that is that he died. You could just as easily claim Kirk didn't really die, either. And who knows, they might, in some future production, come up with a (canon) way to bring him back (or bring Trip back), in which case, that would become canon. But... as of this point, in canon, they're both dead. End of discussion. ;) -- Renegade54 16:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I'm not sure why so many people seem to have such a hard time accepting Trip's death. There doesn't seem to be this continuing angst over Kirk's death, and he's much more of an iconic figure in Trek lore than is Tucker. -- Renegade54 16:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Kirk died in person, not on a holodeck recreation. You're right on the fact that we couldn't claim that a character is canoncally dead or alive until it is definitely established onscreen. But isn't the same to see a death in "real" life that a holodeck character death. The second case is more doubtful. In other words: for Kirk could bring back, he must to resurrect. For Trip could bring back, it isn't necessary. -- From Spain with good mood. 18:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC).

P.S.: In my case, at least, is not for who the character is, it's for this is an objectively doubtful case. --From Spain without asperity. 18:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I am going to say this one more time. Do you have ANY evidence that he did not die, or that the holodeck program lied about his death? Yes or no? It is really that simple, in terms of what we can accept as canon, and what we cannot. If you want to hold some personal belief, we are not stopping you, but that doesn't mean it ends up here. --OuroborosCobra talk 16:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
How many times I must say that I don't believe Trip is alive or Trip is dead? I'm saying all the time that both thoughts are valid for me. What had you missed of my words? I say this case is objectively doubtful, not that the true are he's dead or alive. Had you understood now or I must repeat it again? -- From Spain with good-mood (Calm down, my friend! It's only a science-fiction show!) 18:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I have read and understood that, but what you do not seem to understand is that your personal belief is not a factor in what is considered canon, and therefore what is going into this article. Period. Not happening. --OuroborosCobra talk
Ah! just in case: I've never edited the main article, I'm not TT2155 nor anyone similar. Are you mistaking me for the authors of those editions?. In that case, I clarify I'M NOT any of them. --From Spain with good mood. 18:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I'm tired of repeat that I'm not talking about my personal belief. I HAVE NOT personal belief in this case. I thought I have clarified this point. I'm only talking of objective facts: that episode is a holodeck program and presents some inconsistences with others, like Hoshi's bio on "In a Mirror, Darkly" and others. Therefore, it is doubtful. This is all I say and I'll repeat it all times as you want. --From Spain with good mood (Calm down, my friend! It's only a science-fiction show!) 19:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

None of which changes anything. We have one simple fact, which is evidence that he died, and no evidence that he didn't. Live with it, and take this conversation elsewhere. If you are not interested in changing the article, than this is not the place for the conversation. Talk pages are only here to discuss changing or improving the article, nothing else. Go to TrekBBS please. This conversation needs to end. --OuroborosCobra talk 17:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm saying that fact is objectively doubtful, not an evidence and it should be considered like that. If you'd talk about TATV only in "Trip's future" section it would be perfect. Are you thinking I say that it should be referenced as false? I didn't say that, because it could be true. This is the matter I'm discussing here. I guess what yo will say, because you confuse the objectives facts I pointed out with personal belief (if TATV holodeck program are true or not [I don't know that!]). And, for me, this discussions ends here, because I'm really tired of your arrogance and bad manners (your shouts [uppercase letters] or your really offensive "live with it", as I would have any pain for a TV show, for example). I've finished, unless you force me to continue. --From Spain (Calm down, my friend! It's only a science-fiction show!) 19:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
One of you says "This conversation needs to end" and the other says "this discussion ends here" so, you both agree and this discussion will end here, else the page will be protected due to constant edits. --Jörg 17:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you. Please protect it before OC appear again with new offensive words. --FS
For the record, I have been following this conversation. This discussion should've ended long ago as it has gotten to a point where it discusses about personal opinion and not the article itself. Also, there is no arrogance or 'shouting' going on. Cobra's caps were to reinforce points and, and the unneeded continuation of this discussion after Renegade said to end it shows the reason for the opinions of the members here. For future note, to everybody, please do not recreate a discussion like this. In canon, it has been shown that Charles Tucker III is dead with no proof otherwise. Thank you. - V. Adm. Enzo Aquarius 17:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Troi said Trip was dead. If we're going to start questioning the validity of canon sources in this manner, you may as well shut down memory alpha, because at that point, *EVERY* thing on this site is brought into equal question. Was Sybok really Spocks brother? Maybe they were both working for Section31, and lied for the good of the Federation. How many other characters have lied? We simply can't follow this form of logic, and its clear that the only reason its being entertained in this subject, is because people don't want trip to be dead. This site focus' on canon, and canon says he's dead. If you want him to be alive in your own "personal canon" (which is the stupidest thing I've ever heard), then so be it. Understand however, that memory alpha can not possibly respect every different version of "personal canon", and thus has to instead focus on the one... only... thing it can. The canon of "what we see on screen".Hossrex 04:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

If it is a matter of care of stories such as ST's, I think all opinions must be respected. If you think your interlocutor is wrong, you can say that to him/her without look down on his/her thoughts or feelings, without call him/her "stupid" and remembering he/she care of these characters and stories as much as you. I think both sides of the discussion are partially right, but in the other hand, neither of them are absolutely right. FS is right about the inconsistences between TATV and previous ENT episodes (isn't the same that talking about Sybok and Spock or hypothetical lies of any character). But in the other hand, Ouroboros, Renegade, Enzo or Hossrex are right about those inconsistences are poor and insufficient for change that story on canon while nothing on screen say the contrary. This is my opinion and I think this is the manner to express any opinion: with reasons, without mock, without insult.– 11:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Real world articleEdit

I think this subject warrants its own real world article. GarakxBashirKawaii 15:12, December 19, 2009 (UTC)

Besides, according to 'Canon', Archer and Trip don't even exist, except for that episode. No one except themselves have ever spoken a single world about the 'greatest explorer of 22 century', it seems far more reasonable to me that Trip doesn't exist and the entire series was all just a fun holodeck programme that Riker played for the laughs about some unusual history. Mirror Darkly were some paremetres altered for Worf to play it. Right right? And oh yes: Temporal Cold War. TRIP NEVER EXISTED, IT'S CANON. GarakxBashirKawaii 15:16, December 19, 2009 (UTC)

What subject in particular? The differences between TATV and the post-Enterprise novels? The ways that TATV changed the appearance of characters? What? -- sulfur 15:16, December 19, 2009 (UTC)

The extreme controversy regarding Trip's if-not death. Seems like a real world issue related to Star Trek. There are articles about 47 and attractions and all too. GarakxBashirKawaii 15:19, December 19, 2009 (UTC)

There is no controversy in what was shown on screen. The "controversy" comes in when novels are taken into account. On MA, Trip is dead. On MB, he's still alive. :) -- sulfur 15:28, December 19, 2009 (UTC)

"Children"? Edit

Why is "children" in "quotes"? Elizabeth was a real child. (I'm guessing it's because it at one point included that alien pregnancy he had?) Little Fuzzy Cygnet 14:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

She was not his direct offspring. He never, shall we say, "fertilized" T'Pol. Elizabeth was a binary clone. Cells that had nothing to do with reproduction were "cloned" by combining their genetic code into one new set, and then grown in a lab. --OuroborosCobra talk 15:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I guess that depends on one's definition of "direct offspring" -- Elizabeth came from his cells and had half of his genes. Calling her a "child" instead of a child sits wrong with me. :/ Little Fuzzy Cygnet 16:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
(ETA: I'm not going to push it, though.) Little Fuzzy Cygnet 16:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit protection Edit

I protected this article from anonymous editors since it was vandalized earlier today, apparently by someone who didn't want to come to terms with Trip's death. ;o) Thanks to whoever recreated it... – Michael riber jorgensen 20:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Just as a note, only administrators have the power to protect pages. The template is merely there to compliment and notify users of the protection and does nothing to protect the page itself ;) - Enzo Aquarius 21:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Ok, fair enough. I still think it should be there, though... :o)– Michael riber jorgensen 11:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • There is no need to protect an article after one vandal attack. Generally after three vandal hits we protect it, but there's no need to prevent others from editing immediately just because of one edit. --From Andoria with Love 03:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The page has now been semi-protected because of recent edits removing sections and adding non-canon data. Despite people's opinion of "These Are the Voyages...", the events within are valid under MA policy, and will be included here. -- Michael Warren | Talk 14:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I am guessing (not having read it myself) that these edits are also related to the recent release of "The Good That Men Do", which some people seem to be taking as canon. Obviously, we cannot. --OuroborosCobra talk 14:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Could the page be unprotected, so edits can be made? --Dr. Zefram Cochrane 02:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
        • I have changed the protection to recently registered and anon users. - V. Adm. Enzo Aquarius 18:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Moved from "talk:Trip"... "Trip" mergeEdit

Shouldn't this be moved into Charles Tucker III,or redirected there. Two sentences with the same information on the Charles Tucker III, this is a useless section.

Redirecting it to the character's main page would be the obvious solution, yes.– Michael riber jorgensen 20:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The name of the article is Charles Tucker III. Or did you move it before?--Windu223 20:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

It's already been moved. -- Sulfur 22:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Protected... again. Edit

This page has been protected from anonymous and newly registered users due to constant stupidity. --From Andoria with Love 09:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

This page is now protected from anonymous and newly registered users for an indefinite amount of time. The protection can be lifted when an admin feels that enough time has passed... just to let you know, one month wasn't enough. :-P But to at least avoid editing in the near future... there you go. --From Andoria with Love 19:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Notice: Memory Alpha is a CANON, repeat: CANON Star Trek wiki. That means material from TV series and films ONLY. If you want to use other materials (books etc.) please do it on Memory Beta, the wiki that uses TV, film and other materials such as books, games etc.
Watching... listening... 21:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes. We get that. It's repeated further up the page. No need to waste bits with forum-craps like this one. -- Sulfur 21:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry. Didn't check the big, long, drawn-out argument further up. Still, I think one clear notice needs to be said to get the message out once and for all.
Watching... listening... 22:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I would think the well known, and well stated canon policy should take care of that in everyone except those who either want to vandalize the site, or refuse to play by the rules.Hossrex 22:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Right. If I see one more post added to the argument above, I will add my voice to end it, and it will not be pretty. Let this be the last word on this. Moving on.
Watching... listening... 22:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Division Color Edit

Maybe it's just me, but isn't Trip the only character on ENT to be seen in two division colors, as he was in blue in "Acquisition". - Archduk3:talk 20:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

It's three, he was in gold in Twilight... 23:04, September 16, 2010 (UTC)

Age Edit

  • Is his age and/or birthdate ever canonically established at all? Aside of Trip's comment that he'd been in Starfleet for twelve years ("Unexpected") I can't find any references. While a 2121 birthdate could be implied if he joined Starfleet at the age of 18, I can't find a reference to that either, only to the fact that he didn't graduate college ("These Are The Voyages"). The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Sim-Trip's Young Actors Edit

since the young actors that portayed Sim-Trip in Similitude could we add those actors to the Charles Tucker III page as well under actors? Jkirk8907 (talk) 21:39, September 9, 2013 (UTC)

Sim is not Trip, you can tell because they have different pages, so no. - Archduk3 21:53, September 9, 2013 (UTC)

Page name policy Edit

As it seems that he is called Trip more often than Charles, does it make sense to make "Charles Tucker III" the redirect instead? (I'm going by the fact that Trip appears more often when i searched Chakoteya). --LauraCC (talk) 18:58, March 22, 2016 (UTC)

He was definitely called Trip more than "Charles". In fact, that's how he's commonly referred to in scripts, such as for dialogue, etc.; the only ENT main character to be commonly referred to by a nickname. I support renaming this page Trip Tucker. --Defiant (talk) 19:04, March 22, 2016 (UTC)

Was this naming issue already settled elsewhere? --LauraCC (talk) 19:20, March 22, 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it was. This information is not that hard to find either, and quite frankly you've been here long enough that it's expected of you to, if not know this, at least be able to find it yourself. We don't expect everyone to read the policy pages, but frequent and active editors are expected to at least be familiar with them. Oppose for obvious reasons. - Archduk3 19:51, March 22, 2016 (UTC)
Support "for obvious reasons." :) --Defiant (talk) 19:57, March 22, 2016 (UTC)
Btw, I suggest you ignore Archduk's arrogance and general bad mood, Laura. --Defiant (talk) 20:01, March 22, 2016 (UTC)

It's just that when I want to use the redirect name in the body of an article (which is often, as using Tucker's formal name seems to make him sound pretentious in a way that using Jean-Luc Picard instead of just "Picard" does not - must be the "III"), it doesn't finish the link neatly until I type almost the whole thing in, and by then I might as well finish typing. I know that makes me sound lazy, but I thought that was the purpose of links. --LauraCC (talk) 20:05, March 22, 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and Archduk3? I didn't know what the page was called. I tried searching "page naming". Didn't think of "naming conventions". --LauraCC (talk) 20:11, March 22, 2016 (UTC)

Wikia has broken many things, including the suggested link function. I'm not pointing out the policy to be a dick about this in particular, just to let you know that it seems like you aren't familiar with the relavant policies in a number of things you work on, and considering the amount of work you do, it is going to be expected that you are familiar with those policies. Consider this a friendly suggestion poorly written because I'm on a phone at work. :)
Defiant, you can't vote twice, this isn't a Chicago election. Also, if this really is the hill you want to die on, the policy page is the place, since Bones and Scotty are the very least of the other pages involved with this. - Archduk3 20:34, March 22, 2016 (UTC)

Bones seems more like a funny nickname, while Trip and Scotty seem to be shorthand, similar to calling someone BJ for Bradley James or Joe instead of Joseph. --LauraCC (talk) 20:39, March 22, 2016 (UTC)

I didn't vote twice; I voted once, which was why I didn't highlight the initial word "support" I wrote, as it wasn't meant to be a vote and I was using it in a linguistic context. Don't blame me for whoever did highlight it; that isn't fair. Anyway, thanks for explaining the issue of why renaming this page Trip Tucker is not such a good idea; I retract my vote. --Defiant (talk) 20:55, March 22, 2016 (UTC)

I bolded it, thinking you'd forgotten. Oops. --LauraCC (talk) 20:57, March 22, 2016 (UTC)

That kinda proves my point, NEVER change another person's posts. - Archduk3 21:34, March 22, 2016 (UTC)
Oppose. I am against a rename of this article. It should stay where it is. That seems correct. Tom (talk) 19:15, March 23, 2016 (UTC)

Removed Edit

I've removed this long-uncited bginfo note: "This character was named after Professor Charles Tucker III, Dean of Mechanical Engineering Department at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign." --Defiant (talk) 16:13, December 4, 2016 (UTC)