I don't really see the reason for this being an own article. It could be merged with German language, I think. Kennelly 12:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Mhh, not too sure about that. In contrast to, let's say, Wunderkind from TNG: "Evolution", doppelganger is a word that has entered the English language without their being a proper English equivalent. It's not only a word but also a concept found in many pieces of literature and additionally, we do see Picard's doppelganger in the actual episode, causing havoc on the ship. I'd say it's more than just Picard wanting to sound learned but rather a special term that we should keep here. Info about Picard's doppelganger, how he was created by the aliens in "Allegiance", what he did and what the use of it was can be added. My two cents. --Jörg 12:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Jorg. As there is a canon mention in dialog and we see an actual doppelganger in "Allegiance", I am very much for keeping this article. It is short, but we do not merge articles just becuase they are short...we expand them. -FC 14:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not really sold on your justification FC, as the exact same arguement could be made for Wunderkind. Also, it's not the matter of whether this article is too short or too long, its a matter of whether the concept is worth an encyclopedia entry. In response to Jorg, while true, doppelganger has entered the English vernacular much more than wunderkind, the episode uses three other terms to describe what this article is about: "impostor" "replica" and "copy". If you take a look at the dialog and how the kidnapping aliens describe it: "We replaced you with replicas. Our transporter replicates living matter, including where the brain stores memory." but too, it would seem that, according to the script that this "doppelganger" was also one of the aliens: "Alien #1 joins False Picard -- and False Picard METAMORPHOSES into Alien #4." Therefore, based on how you look at it, Picard's "doppelganger", in this case, was just another "abducting alien", as I'm sure the same argument could be made regarding how changelings became doppelgangers of Krajensky (Changeling), Lovok (Changeling) and Martok (Changeling). --Alan 18:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
By the very core rules of this site, if an object or thing is mentioned in dialog, it can get an article if it is base don canon. To quote the Picardster: "Well...I hope my Doppelganger didn't cause too much trouble." Direct verbal reference in an episode of a major series to an object constitutes canon pure and simple. -FC 04:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not talking about canon, I'm talking about accuracy and encyclopedic relevance, and in a sense, I think you are still missing the point. Firstly, this so-called "doppleganger" was really "Alien #4", and secondly:
* Stubbs: "In my youth, they called me a "wunderkind" . Do you understand wunderkind? "
* Wes: "It's German, isn't it?"
* Stubbs: "It means "wonder child." It is reserved for those of us who achieve early in life."
So as you can see, I too can provide a quote. :)--Alan 05:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't involved in the W-Kid discussion, so can't comment on the logic behind it. This just opens up a door where legit articles can be merged itot broader topics, such as merging every article about pieces of scientific or medical gear into one mega-article which is something we don't want to have happen. I always thought that if a person said it or we saw it, then an article could be created. Of course, in the end, if an administrator of this site chooses to merge it then that's that. On a side note, I'm taking a break until all these bot "cosmetic changes" stop. Its very hard to follow actual changes with all of this going on. Guess its like getting the house painted. -FC 16:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Since there's no consensus on whether or not to merge this or what to merge it with, I've removed the merge template. However,if I may make a few suggestions: 1.) this is dangerously close to "dictionary term" territory and thus may qualify for deletion; 2.) if it must remain, perhaps a central page for replicas/copies/doppelgangers, etc. is in order (maybe just "replica" with the others redirecting to it); or 3.) since this page is specifically about "Alien #4", maybe we should merge this with the page which describes that alien. --From Andoria with Love 05:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

New Merge discussion Edit

I've readded the merge template, as one of the suggestions given in the previous discussion was that this article could be merged with an article about the alien imposter, which now exists here. I would again propose a merge, while leaving out the dictionary aspect.--31dot 22:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I would disagree, since this should be expanded to include the others, like the Julian Bashir (Changeling). - Archduk3 23:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The word was not used to refer to any other characters, I believe.--31dot 23:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

In dialog, that would be correct; but I don't see a way to leave the dictionary aspect out. So if we have a page that covers, replacement, clones, transporter duplicates, every mirror universe character, and so on, we should merge this with that, if not, make this that. That page sounds like some good reading. - Archduk3 23:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The dictionary aspect should be left out, as that is not our purpose here. Otherwise, we would be flooded with definition-articles. We should only go by what was stated in dialog.--31dot 00:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I was suggesting something more along the lines of what Shran said in the last post above this. I would like to use this page over any others for that, if it happens, since I enjoy a bit of style in my encyclopedias, and just have replicas and so forth redirect here. In support for a page like that, Doppelgängers are a frequent plot device, to the point that three "main" characters are doppelgängers: Harry Kim, Miles O'Brien, and Naomi Wildman. - Archduk3 00:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

He also said that it could be merged as I've suggested ;) but I accept your point.--31dot 00:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

And I agree if we're not going to make a page like that, then by all means merge away! ;) - Archduk3 01:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
There seem to already be a few pages linking here, so if the merge happens, we would want to either change the links or remove them. - Archduk3 03:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Late in the game here, but this page seems to have little chance of any further expansion. Perhaps a merge would be a good idea, but it should be done carefully so as not to lose the material stated or break pre-existing links. -FC 21:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I have plans to expand this page, I've just been waiting for the merge issue to be decided before making changes. - Archduk3:talk 03:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite Edit

There are some nice changes with this article. I do need to ask, though, were any of these instances documented as a specific use of such a plot device?--31dot 21:16, October 25, 2009 (UTC)

On the surface, this looks good but is rapidly becoming a list of hologram characters. That is not really the spirt of the article, since a Doppelgänger is an actual living thing that you meet which resembles yourself. Listing all occurences where a hologram was made of an actual person is a very good idea, but doesnt really belong on this article. -FC 03:38, October 26, 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems to have gotten away from me here. I said here I was going to use this page for all the [insert name here] (hologram) articles that had popped up, but it looks like it's going to need it's own page. - Archduk3:talk 04:45, October 26, 2009 (UTC)

Removed Edit

Removed the following bgnote, as we don't state unknowns and it's uncited:

While it is unknown which of the Voyagers was the original and which one was the duplicate, the Voyager which survived is assumed to be the original for continuity's sake.

-- Compvox (talk) 09:06, January 9, 2018 (UTC)