pna-cite, the "references" section needs to be integrated into the article and removed. --Alan del Beccio 21:05, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I agree with integration but I disagree with removal. I don't like having to go to other websites in order to find a list of species appearences or references and it can be very annoying trying to pick them out of the article. Jaf 22:09, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)Jaf
Perhaps we should do it like an actual encyclopedia and have inline citations with a bibliography/works cited (i always confuse the two) at the end. Roar 22:18, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I said nothing about removing the "appearances" section, just the "appearances" section. It is painfully redundant to have a list at the end of a page that rehashes every episode the word "Kazon" was uttered when that much was already established and cited in the main context of the article. Besides is already common practice among on the pages of most all the other major species. --Alan del Beccio 00:41, 6 Dec 2005 (UTC)

While I agree that it looks cumbersome and that it can be seen as redundant, the fact is there are times I am looking for a reference list and I think MA should be able to provide me with one. Perhaps the solution is to have species references listed on a seperate page the way recurring character appearences are listed? Jaf 01:44, 6 Dec 2005 (UTC)Jaf

You have your reference list: it is scattered throughout the article, included with the paragraph or sentence that information the episode is cited from. The only reason why we would need a "reference" is if there are yet unused references to those episodes that need to be added to the article, i.e. Christmas tree. --Alan del Beccio 03:30, 6 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see your point. You're saying that a list of species references which I (and perhaps other users?) feel is useful should not be available on MA, but I don't understand why you feel this way. Jaf 04:00, 6 Dec 2005 (UTC)Jaf


This article mentions the Sari sect. I've it mentioned in the Star Trek Fact File magazine, but were they ever actually mentioned on the show or in any of the novel? I don't remember hearing it anywhere else. – 00:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


I removed the following:

  • The Kazon were originally called the "Gazon" in early drafts of the Voyager pilot episode "Caretaker".
  • The Kazon were originally meant to be a social commentary on gangs in the United States of America.

Neither were cited or supported. --Alan del Beccio 06:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I found a citation for the second note, so it has been returned in expanded form.– Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 01:35, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

Kazon and the Borg Edit

I had thought that the Kazon not being assimilated was an in-joke referring to the fact that the show creators recognized that the Kazon weren't as great an alein species as they were meant to be. Maybe they could add a line like "While this is the in-universe explanation provided it could be interpreted as an out-of-universe critque of the Kazon." I dunno. Does that trip anybody's triggers? The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

While interesting, we try to minimise speculation here as much as possible. That's one possibility, but there are certainly others. :-) If there was a reliable source which said that, it would be notable though.– Cleanse 07:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
The kazon had huge heads, too big for borg to assimilate. that is the in universe canon reason. No borg ever had such huge heads. Jacky
At least now you are spelling it right (part of the reason I removed your comment before). There is nothing "canon" about your explanation. Nothing has ever indicated a max size "head" that can be assimilated, and certainly "resistance is futile" and "we will adapt" would indicate that something as minor as head size would not be a hindrance. There is only one in universe and canon explanation, and that, "Their biological and technological distinctiveness was unremarkable; they were unworthy of assimilation." That is it. --OuroborosCobra talk 05:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
they sid that about the kazon? Jacky
Oh for pete's sake, it is in this very article! --OuroborosCobra talk 05:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
And leave Sid out of this. ;) --From Andoria with Love 08:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


The following references are missing from this article:

--Alan 05:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

You don't mean the in-page references are missing, do you? That was a list of references to the Kazon during the show, as noted (and challenged) earlier on this page. - Caswin 02:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Exactly what is the problem? The way I've seen it done here, references are traditionally given by naming the episode that revealed a particular fact. Here, the episodes are already named by default. What's missing? The exact context of the lines? At least one user (hi, Jaf) has already agreed that the list is useful, but I don't think anybody has called for that level of detail. - Caswin 22:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Things have changed in those three years. Simply put, this is an encyclopedia. If there is a reference, we shouldn't simply list the episode (indirectly suggesting to the reader that if they want to know more "watch the episode and figure out on your own") but rather "spell out" that reference in the context stated in particular episode. Pretty cut and dry. --Alan 23:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Resemblance to Oompa Loompas?Edit

I know they're taller, but ever since Voyager's premiere, I've thought they looked a bit like the Oompa Loompa things. It wouldn't be their wierdest inspiration. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).