Ad blocker interference detected!
Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers
Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.
On Ferenginar, we learn about the Continuum while we still have our first set of earsEdit
Hey, I'm wondering what we should make of Nog's line in "Treachery, Faith and the Great River" he says on Ferenginar we learn about the Great Material Continuum before we get our first set of ears. I know it sounds like it might be something like Human teeth, but what do we really know from this statement? --Tyrant 23:09, 31 Jan 2005 (CET)
- Seems to me that he is referring to puberty, or the Ferengi equivalent. The fact that they shed their ears like antlers seems a bit "out there", if I am getting what you are implying. --Gvsualan 01:42, 1 Feb 2005 (CET)
I misquoted that. It was; On Ferenginar, we learn about the Continuum while we still have our first set of ears Not sure if we can guess it is puberty, but it seems we should be able to assume they have at least two sets of ears in a lifetime. --Tyrant 01:47, 1 Feb 2005 (CET)
- Without taking things too literally, when they should be taken figuratively, if you consider the amount of sexual identification the Ferengi associate with their ears, this very much sounds like, in their terminology, the definition of pre-pubescence. --Gvsualan 19:27, 1 Feb 2005 (CET)
I disagree. I didn't take anything sexual from the statement, to me it sounded very much like the way we would reference teeth. And I worry that if we start applying figurative or symbolic meaning to statements we risk trying to create canon and not simply recording it. I think both of us have made our positions known, anyone else have a take on this? --Tyrant 19:36, 1 Feb 2005 (CET)Tyrant
- Sigh Correct me if I am wrong, but at what point exactly did I say the statement was sexual? --Gvsualan 23:25, 1 Feb 2005 (CET)
Ease up on the paranoia, puberty usually means a state of sexual development. I thought you were saying that Nog's statement was referring to puberty, now I have no idea what you mean. And I know the concept of their ears falling off may seem a little alien, but this is science fiction, and it is no more 'out there' then people aging backwards or devolving into spiders. Tyrant 23:32, 1 Feb 2005 (CET)
- Hmmm, it can obviously be interpreted in the two aforementioned ways.. Yet, I believe that is is more realistic to assume that Nog is referring to phases of development.. But why would he then refer to it as the "first set"? We shouldn't infer what we can not possibly know, but this is still a good reference as long as it is used with caution... --Toddas 23:38, 1 Feb 2005 (CET)
- Wouldn't taking this anyway but literally be an application of our own assumptions? --Jaf 13:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Come to think of it, I think this might be a case of "archivist's assessment of the trustworthiness of the character who is the source of the resource"? --Jaf 23:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
This article has been rejected for FA status twice now. The first time I think deservedly so, the second time I really don't know why. Most of the objections were vague at best (if not inaccurately claiming info was missing) about wanting to see more about Ferengi culture. I've expanded those areas a little since then but I'm at a loss as to what else needs to be added. If there's something missing, I'm not sure what it could be, hence this page. This species page is far more complete, expansive, and (IMO) informative than several others that have been FAs so I'd like to find out what we can do to clear that last hurdle. --Logan 5 02:18, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)
- The references section is missing at least "The Battle" and "Rascals" as important episodes, maybe some more. There's surely some information from those episodes that could be added to the article.
- Some of the images could be moved, perhaps Ishka to the subsection "Role of Women", perhaps there are one or two images that could be reused on this page?
- The (sub-)sections "Language", "People" and "Planets" just consist of one link each. Either add a short paragraph to each section, or remove the sections and move all links to a "Related topics" section at the end. -- Cid Highwind 10:37, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, some questions: Is it normally the style to put the list of people as related topics? I've followed the same format here as on the Andorian page which has only a link. Admittedly Bolians, Vulcans, and others have two links -one for named and one for unnamed- but none of them have any intro sentences. For planets, is it normal to just link to the list of planets or should I just put their names in since there are only 4 of them? I might prefer that to just moving it to related topics. I recently watched "Rascals" though, and other than a reference to the Ferengi Salvage Code there wasn't any real Ferengi material there, but I'll look to see if it can be included. And I'm meaning to check out "The Battle" as well. --Logan 5 14:00, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)
- Moving the list of planets is a good idea if there are only four of them. I see that the list didn't even exist as a separate page (in that case I would have suggested a redirect from there). There might be a better solution for the list of people, for example linking to it directly from the text... -- Cid Highwind 14:13, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)
- Added the names of the planets, did that before I read your response which I'm not sure I understand as being for or against just listing them so hopefully this works. The other thing I thought about is the images and there is definitely a lack of those here. I don't have screen capture ability so except for images already in other articles I don't have anything to add. But personally I think some images of the Divine Treasury would be great, as would a shot of one of the vacuum-dessication discs for the Death Ritual section.
- Religion could be expanded, I remember Quark putting coins in a little gold head while praying at one point, and perhaps the death ritual should be worked into that section. Rituals and religion are usually related. --Jaf 14:48, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)Jaf
I remember that too, and saw it recently, but I can't remember what episode or what his prayer was for...anyone know that? As for rituals, I personally think it works where it is as in this case most of them aren't related to religion at all but are about greetings and cultural ceremonies, but perhaps the Death Ritual should go there near the Divine Treasury, etc. Do others have an opinion on that?
I'd still like to get some more pictures as well. And if the Death Ritual moves even if we get a picture of a disc and/or the divine treasury that will leave other areas with lots of text. --Logan 5 14:56, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)
- There is also a certain ethnocentric edge to this that I feel should be removed. Their way of doing things shouldn't be made to sound bad or unenlightened. I suggest we approach this with relativism. --Jaf 15:31, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC)Jaf
Well, I'd have to let someone else take a crack at that, I think, since I wrote a good deal of what's there and didn't consider it to sound bad or unenlightened. It was meant to contrast with other species, but not be judging in doing so. However, I do think that you might have some trouble not making them sound somewhat petty when we are talking about a people who value material wealth above all else. It's a bit like saying we should try to not make the Borg sound aggressive because they're just pursuing their cultural goals. --Logan 5 00:20, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC)
- It's a subjective thing. There was an episode of DS9 where Quark makes a reference something along the lines of putting other people before your own investments is a Human action that he described as selfish. I thought it was interesting. It's that style of thought that I think sums them up. Their understanding of greed seems to be very different from our own. --Jaf 21:08, 27 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Rom as NagusEdit
There's been mention that we should include something about the changes to Ferengi culture after Rom took over as Nagus, but I'm having a hard time finding anything concrete on that. What did Ishka and Zek say, and how did Rom respond, on his promotion to Nagus? Was it stated what sort of reforms they expected him to enact or are we just speculating? --Logan 5 22:47, 21 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- IIRC, Zek had already initiated reforms on Ferenginar. If you will remember, Quark and Brunt are complaining about taxes on Ferenginar. --Willie 09:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Zek's reforms were discussed in conversations between Quark & Brunt and between Quark & Rom. Zek instituted a balance of powers into the Ferengi government via a Congress, rendering the Ferengi government a Democracy. Rom would not be as powerful as Zek had been due to new checks and balances. In addition, children were no longer taught the Rules of Acquisition. Business operators could no longer demand sexual favors from their employees. Monopolies were made illegal. New income taxes paid for wage subsidies for the poor and retirement benefits for the elderly. Zek introduced legislation to stop the dumping of industrial waste, and encouraged the preservation of animals and the natural habitat. Some sort of health care was hinted at but never fully discussed on-screen.
- There was also a shift in Ferengi beliefs. Over 40% of the population no longer believed they had to buy their way into the Divine Treasury. This all came from DS9: "The Dogs of War"
- Rom didn't really do anything as Nagus in canon except return Quark's Bar to him.
- --Suck My Wake 03:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Ferengi philosophy Edit
This page was deleted recently (though it still has some links to it) and I was thinking of re-adding it but wanted to post here first since it was deleted once already.
I've been re-watching a lot of Ferengi episodes lately and while the last article was a one-sentence summary (and I was one of the ones who voted to delete), I do feel there is enough to expand the article and make it worth having its own page. There's enough material on Ferengi ethics, business practices, and social philosophy that doesn't easily fit into any other page but currently lacks reference in most Ferengi areas.
Like I said, a head's up more than anything but since it was deleted once I thought I should mention it. --Logan 5 20:59, 3 Aug 2005 (UTC)
- A compromise: Create Ferengi philosophy as a redirect to Ferengi and start a section Ferengi philosophy there. We can always move the content if it is enough to deserve its own article. -- Cid Highwind 21:10, 3 Aug 2005 (UTC)
- I wholeheartedly agree with Mr. Highwind. The Ferengi article covers religious beliefs, but is a bit light on temporal beliefs and practices. A philosophy section should be erected at once! --Werideatdusk 08:18, 7 Aug 2005 (UTC)
- I agree make it a re-direct and reate the section in the Ferengi article at least for now. --Kahless 18:44, 11 Aug 2005 (UTC)
That's a nice bit of info, but I just watched that episode the other night and there wasn't a reference there. Did it come from script or on-screen? If the former maybe it belongs as a background note in that section? --Logan 5 14:43, 11 Aug 2005 (UTC)
I couldn't help but notice that Logan 5 has removed all of the references from the article and placed them at the bottom of the page so I can no longer figure out which material comes from where, nor can I see if it is all canon at a glance. I'm wondering which is correct, the list of references at the bottom or the material sited within the article itself. Personally I think it should have both, as a user could be looking for a list of references or be wondering where a certain fact comes from. --Jaf 13:40, 11 Aug 2005 (UTC)
- Most of these can be put back by looking at the history page, I just felt it got distracting as you were reading through a paragraph that might have 3-4 different references. --Logan 5 14:43, 11 Aug 2005 (UTC)
- Please do. Since it is important to have a reference for each bit of information, it is most convenient to have those in the main text, not as a list below. -- Cid Highwind 14:55, 11 Aug 2005 (UTC)
This seems to have been removed again somewhere along the way. Once again I came here looking to see how many episodes the Ferengi were cited in and once again the list has gone. --Jaf 22:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I just grabbed an old reference list from the history. But, at a glance I think it needs work as it has a couple of appearances in it. The reference section should not be a repeat of the appearances section. --Jaf 22:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Why anti-Jewish? --zsingaya 08:18, 4 Sep 2005 (UTC)
- The link someone posted there specifically says Jewish, not Semites. --BajoranBrouhaha
But... you posted it! Where in either Canon Star Trek, or in production notes, or even in the Star Trek community, does it say specifically "anti-jewish"? Maybe when you get back from being banned, you can answer this :) zsingaya 22:16, 4 Sep 2005 (UTC)
- I was wondering the same thing. It's either an interpretation of a very, very small group of people or a joke. There's the stereotypical "Jewish are good with money" thing, and I guess somebody decided to compare the profit-seeking Ferengi to the Jewish and then saw it as an attack against Jews. It's stupid, if you ask me, and I personally don't think it belongs here, regardless of whether it's an honest interpretation or someone's bad idea of a joke. --From Andoria with Love 00:02, 5 Sep 2005 (UTC)
- Remove it. The person who posted it was a self-admitted member of Wikipedia:GNAA, and many of his posts were "soft-vandalism". He repeated posted at N* just so it would show up repeatedly on the Recent Changes page, and posted something about Pretzels with George Bush and Star Trke. Despite that, I wouldn't say its a Large minority that believe this, I know I've never even heard of it. And reading the article on that page, it can't be taken seriously. (PS: The Ferengi were suspected of Cannibalism!?) --AJHalliwell 00:13, 5 Sep 2005 (UTC)
- Agreed. It has been removed. --From Andoria with Love 00:29, 5 Sep 2005 (UTC)
- I ran into this 'Ferengi as Jewish stereotype idea again since seeing it here. Anyone know if there is an academic basis to this assertion? If so it should be noted on the Judaism page. If it turns out lack any legitimate source we should leave it out as it would not only be hearsay, but probably be more trouble then it can possibly be worth. --Jaf 01:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- I really doubt that Gene Roddenberry or Rick Berman, both born Jewish would try to put in such a hurtful slur, especially considering the Ferengi were originally conceived to be the new enemy to replace the klingons - only to be deemed not scary enough and replaced by the borg. --Jaz talk | novels 03:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, I had originally dismissed it, but when it popped up again I got to wondering where it was coming from and if it could hold water. Jaf 03:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)Jaf
- I personally seem them more as a jab at American capitalism. --184.108.40.206 02:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- RE:Jaz - I really doubt that Gene Roddenberry was born Jewish, religiously or ethnically. What's the evidence? He was raised as a Southern Baptist, as Wikipedia states.Toddsschneider 15:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Error in canon Edit
i have an issue about ferengi physiology. on this page it is stated as fact that betazoids cannot read ferengi. (ds9: the forsaken) but i have contradictory evidence from an earlier source... the episode (tng: the battle) has troi reading daimon bok when they first make visual contact, she goes so far as to make them cut the transmission to alert picard to this fact. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.127.116.11 (talk).
- But according to TNG the Trill are also... well, I think we all know THAT story. :) --Broik 23:45, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC)
- The ip user's observation is legitimate and we must account for the inconsistency. Jaf 13:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- A simple background note would suffice, I think, as is done on the Trill page. Logan 5 01:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I took out this last line, which is completely ad libbed by whoever wrote it in reference to Wall St: "who routinely visit Earth to make pilgrimages to the 'holy site' of commerce and business". There is no cannon evidence I know of to support this. The only reference to Wall St and Ferengi is a toss away line by Janeway that makes no mention of this so far as I know. If I'm wrong, please feel free to repost with the dialogue or script reference posted here. -- Logan 5 01:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Comparison to the Dominion? Edit
As much as the Ferengi were supposed to be a nasty badguy, with an economic driven society, and a definite war capacity (how else could they be regarded as dangerous; I think Picard said they take no prisoners in "Farpoint"), am I the only one that thinks the Dominion was developed more as "This is what we originally had in mind as the Ferengi bad guy"?
Equally, having just recently rewatched the first Ferengi episode ("Tkon"), it looks like the first half (on the spaceships) had a very different approach to the Ferengi than the second half (on planet, where even Riker did not regard them as a serious threat). I saw from the episode info that there is only one director, but it really seems like that episode was done by two different people. --Keybounce 10:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- If so, then what they changed was the Ferengi's mercenary direction (at best) when they fight to the Nazistic, "new order of the master race" tenancies of the Dominion. The latter, as nearly always, the more disturbing and effective. -- ChrisK 00:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- The writers originally intended the Ferengi to be the "big enemy" of TNG, like the Klingons had been in TOS, but the audience just didn't find it believable (for example, their behavior in "The Last Outpost", or even "The Battle", was hardly terrifying). When this failed, they had to invent new enemies, like the Borg, or being back old ones, like the Romulans, or eventually in DS9, the Dominion.
- I am also not sure I would compare the Founders to the "master race" philosophy of the Nazis. The goal of the Founders was to bring order to the universe, and rule other races only to protect themselves from them. They did not have a goal of killing everything they felt to be below them, just bringing order to it. The Nazis, on the other hand, felt that everything lower needed to eventually be exterminated. It was not about bringing order, it was closer to eugenics (although not the same as eugenics). --OuroborosCobra talk 01:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Head thingies Edit
I skimmed the article looking for info on the thing they wrap behind their heads. 1) Did I miss the info? 2) If not, does anyone know anything about these (what they are called, their purpose if any, why Nog was allowed to wear it when he joined Starfleet). Thanks! --DannyBoy7783 01:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I think they are called headdresses, I don't know if that's cannon. Nog is allowed to wear one for the same reason Worf is allowed to wear his baldric. This all begs the question of why Riker and Picard jump on Ro and Tuvok jumps on Gerron about their earrings. It seems to me that Nog's headdress and Worf's baldric are both cultural items, not normally found on your average Starfleet officer. If this is true, then why would Bajorans not be allowed to wear something that is culturally significant to them. Just my two slips. P.S. Will post on Bajoran's page as well. --Willie 09:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Name Origin Edit
I removed this note from the first paragraph:
- It should be noted that the word "Ferengi" is actually a Mughal-era Indian slur applied to British and other European colonists during the 18th century, meaning essentially "greedy, cultureless foreigner."
Similar information is already in the background section, but this comment is a bit more extensive. Is it worth expanding the background note a bit to use some of this text perhaps? -- Sulfur 00:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- I believe it originates from the Amharic 'ferengi'. There are lots of parangs, barangs, ferengis, farangs, faranjis, frangos, etc. so it gets easy to lose track. What does support my assertion is the fact that the title of Grand Nagus is an obvious corruption of Amharic 'negus' (king). Put 2 and 2 together. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 18.104.22.168 (talk).
- Very well, name another language which a) has a variant of the word 'farang', and b) has a word for king or ruler that resembles 'negus'. You'll be hard-pressed to do so. So why isn't the title of 'Grand Nagus' something like 'Grand Rex/Raja/Khun' instead? (Especially given that Khun would actually be a more apt description of the rank of their office.) – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 22.214.171.124 (talk).
- Morn isn't a Ferengi. He is a Lurian. That article already talks about the mutliple hearts. --OuroborosCobra talk 03:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Ferengi living a century Edit
- Even if she isn't, that is not evidence of Ferengi living longer than Humans. Humans live a long time in Trek. Dr. McCoy was 137 the last time we saw him. Let's say Ishka was 137. Her ears may not have been that firm since she was 37, yet she still would be no older than Humans. --OuroborosCobra talk 06:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- Hello. First, I was the previous editor of that bit. I've re-edited the post to reflect the somewhat ambiguous nature of Ishka's comment. However, regarding the possibility of her exaggerating, while it may be possible, there's no reason to believe that she wasn't being literal. Besides, it seems like a stretch that someone would exaggerate their age in that context, especially someone that just received cosmetic treatment to seem younger. I could swear that there's more evidence of a longer Ferengi lifespan, so if I do find it I'll update then. -- Wolff359 07:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone remember the joke about the Ferengi in the monkey suit from Farpoint? Should that joke be referenced somewhere? Does anyone know how the joke concludes? Federation 01:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- The joke isn't in the ep- the movie made it up. (It would be surprising if it was in the ep, since the Ferengi were new to the Federation when they later appeared in "The Last Outpost".) 9er 01:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict- wow, we think alike) Actually, the Ferengi Alliance was known to the Federation as a major power in "Encounter at Farpoint", although it's obvious that none were seen until "The Last Outpost," so a joke about an unseen quasi-legendary galactic power wearing a monkey suit seems odd. --Tim Thomason 02:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone know what the name of the head-dress that wraps around the back of Ferengis heads (all TNG Ferengi had them I think) which Quark does not wear? What is it purpose? Is it mentioned in this article? -- Federation 20:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think it was ever named, but the word 'head-dress' best sums it up, as you mentioned. The purpose was never stated, but it's probably a Ferengi custom to wear, just as the Bajoran earring is to the Bajorans. -- Enzo Aquarius 20:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Do you think it should be in this article somewhere? -- Federation 20:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Simply put, yes ;) -- Enzo Aquarius 20:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, I added a clothing section to the culture section which is more or less a stub, but it references the head-dress. Feel free to improve it. Obviously I'm no expert on Ferengi head-dress. -- Federation 02:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- I seem to recall hearing somewhere that the Headdress was a cheat by the makeup artists to hide the demarcation between the end of the prosthetics and the neck, because it took a long time to do. They put the time in for Quark though. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 126.96.36.199 (talk).
Troi reading mindsEdit
The article says that there are several episodes where troi reads ferengi minds. i don't doubt this, but the episodes should be listed. right now it kind of reminds me of the line "studies say... – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 188.8.131.52 (talk).
- "Studies say that people on memory alpha should learn to put ~~ at the end of their posts. LOL. I totally agree the article needs improvement here. -- Federation 08:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I just watched "The Drumhead" and I didn't see a single Ferengi in it. The whole episode takes place on the Enterprise so it's not as if there was an alien bar scene where one could've been seen in the background or something. I'm going to delete it for now, but if someone does know where a Ferengi is in the episode, by all means add it back in. Please post in here where it was you saw one. -- Hurley 00:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- I don't remember any Ferengi in it. If they were in, it would most likely be a casual mention of their name in a line. – Fadm tyler 18:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I was watching Star Trek; Enterprise today and they made brief mention of the ferengi in the episode call Dear Doctor episode 12. In that episode a newly discovered race mentioned having been visited by the feringi. Neither humans nor vulcans were aware of the race. That is the only mention. You may want to say something about it in the article. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 184.108.40.206 (talk).
- It's already there, under the "history" section. ;) --From Andoria with Love 04:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
"Crossdressing" redirection Edit
I'm confused by your closure of the debate Memory Alpha:Pages for deletion/Crossdressing. The results of the discussion were inconclusive: 1 against, 1 for, 1 neutral. One of the reasons you gave for merger — that it "was something we never really saw" — cannot be supported by viewing DS9: "Rules of Acquisition", "Profit and Lace". As the discussion and article made clear, it was depicted in great detail in these episodes. Then, you merged into an article that was never discussed as a possible new home. The debate suggested it should go to Ferengi history; you redirected to Ferengi. If we had to merge at all, Ferengi history would certainly have been more appropriate than Ferengi, because its relevance is as an historical milestone, rather than a cultural trait.
Moreover, your closure here seems at odds with your decision on the very similar Memory Alpha:Pages for deletion/Bible (Omega IV) debate. Bible (Omega IV) is another thing not mentioned specifically by a script, the debate which followed reached no clear consensus, but there, you closed as "keep".
I quite understand that the deletion process isn't a democratic process, but am naturally curious as to why two similar situations produced quite opposite results. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 07:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- I second his curiosity. The entire point of having the debates over the possibility of deletion, or merging is to find a consensus. I'm not saying any decision was wrong, but it would seem strange to prematurely end discussion. --Hossrex 10:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Since this is not really a personal discussion about Sulfur, I'm sure he will move this to a more appropriate place later - meanwhile, a point to consider is that the outcome of that deletion discussion was that no deletion actually occured. If, for whatever possible reasons that I really don't want to think about, someone is going to search for "crossdressing" on a Star Trek wiki, he will still be taken to some info about it. Another point is that, among the bazillion of articles that exist and sometimes get deleted, the one initially created by an identified troublemaker is still used to make more trouble... food for thought. -- Cid Highwind 10:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- In quick response (brief because I'm sick as a dog right now):
- 1) Crossdressing was originally created by a sock puppet that had a history of causing trouble. The Omega IV bible was not.
- 2) The new text in the crossdressing page had merit. But at "crossdressing"? Not really... because that's not what it was strictly speaking. Ferengi women did not wear clothes at all, so it wasn't "crossdressing". It was "dressing". Period.
- 3) I chose this article (Ferengi) over the history one because the history one is a list of dates with brief notes on each date. This article had a segment that was much better suited to the amount of text in question (~2 paragraphs or so), and it really fit well into the section in question ("the role of women in Ferengi society").
- Sometimes you hare to make arbitrary situations. I looked at the history page, and there was no way that such a detailed amount of text was going to go there. If it were moved there, the 2+ paragraphs would've been boiled down to a sentence or two.
- Also, neither discussion was prematurely ended. Both had been going on for quite a length of time, and both had gotten into the "I say yes", "I say no". Neither side was going to convince the other, and with delays that long, nobody else was going to stick their noses in and disturb the status quo. As such, we would've either left them sitting there in the PfD queue forever, or arbitrarily ended the discussions in both cases.
- I know that these answers won't make everyone happy, but sometimes that's not the most important thing. Hope that this helps. -- Sulfur 11:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Sounds reasonable. :) (edited because I didn't realize my computer mysteriously logged me out). --Hossrex 12:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your response, especially considering it sounds as if it was delivered under difficult circumstances. I certainly can better appreciate why this text is now at this article rather than Ferengi history. Still, the "troublesome sock puppet created, so therefore it's not a reasonable topic" explanation for why this article failed to stand on its own seems tenuous to me. Even sock puppets occasionally share kernels of truth. More importantly, I do think people were so willing to distance themselves from the "disagreeable" topic (or possibly simply have a disdain for Ferengi episodes) that they didn't really stop to examine what information was being given to them onscreen. This business of "crossdressing being impossible in a society where women don't wear clothes" really holds little weight in the context of the episodes. In ROA, the female Pel is dressing as a man, who do wear clothes, so that's clearly cross-dressing in the most literal sense of the term. In PAL, "Lumba" was dressing legally, under Zek's new reforms. He believed himself the leader of a government-in-exile, and "Lumba" was enjoying the protection of that government. Therefore, the very narrowest sense of cross-dressing was allowed in this episode as it was in ROA.
Of course, the bigger point is that cross-dressing doesn't just refer to clothing, but the broader attempt to impersonate the opposite gender. Thus, the changing of physical appearance and mannerisms is an act of cross-dressing as much as a man wearing a dress or a woman wearing a tie.
As for why someone on MA might search for the term "cross-dressing", I suppose I can only offer IDIC as a reasonable rationale. Star Trek has always attracted a diverse fan base. I suppose I worry that if someone is genuinely looking for cross-dressing in Star Trek, they'll be redirected to the top of an article that apparently has nothing to do with cross-dressing. Neither it, nor the proposed one to Ferengi history, make for a particularly user-friendly redirect.
The way I see it, cross-dressing is a milestone to one of the key races of the Alpha Quadrant, and deserves the same consideration as other un-named-in-production articles like First Battle of Deep Space 9, Federation-Dominion Cold War, and the absolutely mis-named article, Raid on San Francisco—much less the myriad articles which are based solely on a production graphic and do little more than say that the subject in question was present on the production graphic (Death in Arizona to name but one).
Again, I know the deletion process isn't a democracy, and I also know that you were acting in good faith. I hope you don't take offense to my efforts to vigorously defend a little article I would never have considered creating. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 09:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Present Tense Edit
Almost this entire article is written in the present tense. I've noticed several other articles are written in the past tense (which seems to make more sense to me). Does anyone know if there are any rules about this? --Suck My Wake 03:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)