|Past and special-purpose discussions related to this article can be found on the following subpages:|
For general discussion on this subject, visit the forums at The Trek BBS.
Changing the infobox image Edit
How about putting e.g. the image of L'Rell instead of Sirella in the infobox so that we have the two most extreme versions of the Klingon design represented in the infobox (including the most current design)? JagoAndLitefoot (talk) 17:06, September 28, 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think a replacement would be the best idea. Sirella (or STIII thru VOY era) represents, quite literally, the most common form of Klingon, that form should be most prominent. As with L'Rell, there are also the Star Trek: The Motion Picture Klingons, and the Star Trek Into Darkness Klingons, and oddities inbetween, totaling more variations than there is room in the sidebar. But I'm sure there are other possibilities on how to address that. --Alan del Beccio (talk) 17:38, September 28, 2017 (UTC)
Why is the page written in paste tense?
Unless within the fiction the subject or people being spoken of have been killed off or no longer exist, articles written about them are usually in the present tense. "The Klingons are" rather than "the Klingons were".--18.104.22.168 17:15, October 13, 2017 (UTC)
- The whole wiki is written in past tense, partly because we have various shows all set in different time periods. JagoAndLitefoot (talk) 17:30, October 13, 2017 (UTC)
Too much detail? Edit
I think some of the recent edits on Klingons biology, especially by User:Baggins have gone into too much nitpicky detail. E.g. I think that the previous version, with a short note about some Klingons having hair and some being bald was enough, we don't need big paragraphs on how augments had short hair, TNG-style Klingons having long hair (with exceptions), Discovery Klingons not having hair. Especially that in-universe there's no indication whether the lack of hair is biological or cultural. JagoAndLitefoot (talk) 02:01, November 11, 2017 (UTC)
- Not trying to nitpick, however there are plenty of details given in the series about Klingon biology (and explanations) for all versions of the series, that all disserve being referenced. Perhaps quite a bit of it could be moved to entire page devoted to Klingon biology and physiology?Baggins (talk) 13:00, November 12, 2017 (UTC)
- However all we can do is show how biological differences between each 'version' of Klingons exist. These are interesting details. Even if they are not yet 'explained' except between the more 'human' varieties as of yet. There are even episodes that go into the details of the biological differences between the augments and non-augments.Baggins (talk) 13:02, November 12, 2017 (UTC)
- I have removed the following commentary on whether the mention of eyelashes should be included. Discussion on whether something is appropriate or correct should not be carried out in the article. That is the purpose of a talk page. It seems to me that an awful lot of supposition and speculation has been inserted in recent edits (any time you include a sentence with "this may be because" or similar, stop and think whether that has actually been established in-universe), and there is an excessive amount of detail (for example, we do not need to state all of the colours of skin we have seen to date). -- Michael Warren | Talk 13:51, November 12, 2017 (UTC)
- While I appreciate that there is an effort being made to update this page, there should be, among other things, significantly less comparison to Humans made in this article. The sections would really be better represented if we looked at each variety of Klingon on an individual basis, and instead of comparing them to Humans, compare the "pointy head" and "augment" Klingons to the "common" TNG/ENT Klingon type. There is also far too much original research in this article for MA tastes. --Alan del Beccio (talk) 13:08, November 13, 2017 (UTC)
- Hardly seems like sufficient cause for use as encyclopedic nomenclature. –Alan del Beccio (talk) 15:06, November 13, 2017 (UTC)
Mudd's comment likely referred simply to their forehead ridges being "pointy" and not to the elongated heads of Discovery Klingons.
I don't think there is sufficient in-universe info to treat them as totally separate from the movie/TNG-era Klingons, from a production point of view this is likely simply a visual reboot. I think they are simply a spectrum, from the very light ridges of The Undiscovered Country, through the more pronounced ones of TNG era, the Kelvin-timeline ones that are somewhat between TNG and Discovery Klingons and the ones on Discovery. There likely won't be any in-universe explanation for how they differ, just like there was no explanation for why general Chang and others in TUC had less pronounced features than in other movies and TNG/DS9.
We don't really get into the details of how the TNG and DS9 trills are different subspecies, not to mention e.g. the difference between TOS and ENT Tellarites or Andorians. I think this level of speculation we have here is better suited for sites like Ex Astris Scientia than Memory Alpha. JagoAndLitefoot (talk) 17:32, November 13, 2017 (UTC)
- I think the current edit from the recent editor did a great job of splitting the information and putting it into an easier to follow order... But simply going with the 'visual reboot' argument would throw out years of commentary and quotes from past series themselves on 'hair, beards, teeth, physical descirption's etc'. Are you to say the old material is 'no-longer' canon due to the existence of the new look? At the same time are you saying the new material should be ignored entirely and imagine they biologically look like the old series? Either way would require 'throwing' out or 'ignoring total aspects of on-screen data. As far as I know this wiki comments on the two kinds of Trill as well. I don't see much of a physical difference between Andorians and Tellerites, except Andorians antenna move on enterprise. But over all skin shape and design remains largely consistent. I figure they might not explain everything entirely but I have a feeling that they may give us even more biological 'facts' about these new Klingon designs as the series goes... Especially if its true of the rumors of there is a genetically-altered spy on board the Discovery. Now that they have a Klingon prisoner in custody we might learn more about their biology as well.Baggins (talk) 18:21, November 13, 2017 (UTC)
- BTW, I believe Ex Astris Scientia agrees with you that its a 'reboot'. But he goes as far to consider the series outside of the previous series entirely, beause for the new design to 'replace' everything would mean literally throwing out multiple hours of details given in previous shows to explain why they appear they did in those previous shows, and movies.Baggins (talk) 18:27, November 13, 2017 (UTC)
- Meanwhile, the secondary 'licensed' material (non-canon) is going with the idea that its just a third previously unseen subspecies of Klingon. See Star Trek Timelines, and supposedly they will introduce the new Klingon design as an option Star Trek Online in the future.Baggins (talk) 18:29, November 13, 2017 (UTC)
No, I don't think we should discard all the previous info, but I also don't think we should delve too deeply into it. Previous Klingons also differed in terms of teeth (some had sharpened teeth, some didn't), hair (there were bald Klingons in the past, this might simply be the fashion in the 2250s), them having beards or not can also be easily a matter of culture. Sure, they're different in some ways, but not really beyond the previously shown spectrum in the others (or somewhat beyond what was shown previously, but so were the TUC designs for Chang and Azetbur, in that they went the other way beyond what was previously shown, with much slighter ridges than before. I would not assume that they're a third subspecies but that this is the rebooted look of the non-augmented Klingons and that we can simply consider them part of the spectrum of what non-augmented Klingons look like (with the Into Darkness version as a bridging point between Discovery and TNG versions).
The rumors on altered spy are irrelevant here, since we already know of klingons altered to look human from before.
As for Trill, notice that that article doesn't go into the details of the TNG Trills in the physiology section. As for Tellarites, the ones on ENT are much more alien-looking than the overtly pig-like ones from TOS. JagoAndLitefoot (talk) 18:49, November 13, 2017 (UTC)
- I notice it says "most trills appear with spots, not 'all trills"... and there are fare more physiological differences than simply another range of what we previously seen, in particular the hands as a good example which have more bird like/reptilian talons, vs finger nails. Humans of the same species don't even show that much divergence.Baggins (talk) 18:56, November 13, 2017 (UTC)
Some species do show this much variety even on Earth. And we already had previous Klingons with human-like teeth and non-human like teeth before Discovery, which is a similar difference. And we had Tellarite with hoof-like hands and human-like ones, but note that on Tellarite most of the discussion on the design differences is relegated to the background section. JagoAndLitefoot (talk) 19:15, November 13, 2017 (UTC)
- I've fleshed out the article quite a bit, and attempted to present it in a more logical order. I removed a lot of duplication that was being bounced all over the anatomy section. I think the best to express the differences between the TNG and DIS Klingons by stating that their features "range from", rather than stating "pointed-head" this and "non-augmented whatever" that. Speaking of which, I also detached the augmented Klingon stuff to it's own section, because that is, in essence more a shared deformity caused by a disease with "Human"-like end results that were eventually reverted, than a stage in the evolutionary process. This also eliminated the desire to compare and contrast their Human qualities with the rest of the Klingon race. With that said, I hopefully removed all references to Klingon augments from the main portion of the article, and as well, all Klingon comparisons to Humans, whereas they should be compared to each other, when possible, and not just Humans (though if required, they should be compared to "humanoids" as a whole, not just a single species). I also removed a lot of the excessive and overly in-depth nuance stuff that is rather insignificant, or belonging to difference sections (such as culture). I also separated the more truly physiological ideas to its own dedicated section (which still requires an overhaul with a logical presentation of that information). I'm still not sold on all the images, and not being familiar with DIS (as I am presently abstaining from watching that series) I can't give the "new" Klingons the attention or clarification they may require. Hopefully this is a step in the right direction. --Alan del Beccio (talk) 14:31, November 14, 2017 (UTC)
In TOS they looked most human, TNG made them look more distinct, DS9 referenced this in a time travel ep but Worf wouldn't explain it, Enterprise finally did explain it...
But what remains unexplained is how in Discovery (10 years before TNG) you had Klingons who looked even more distinctive/inhuman than the ones in Enterprise.
Were the ones we see so angry at the human-looking hybrids who predominated TOS a decade later that they were selectively breeding those with the most predominantly Klingon/inhuman traits? talk2ty 16:10, March 20, 2018 (UTC)
- There is no canon explanation. Even though the writers of Discovery consider themselves Star Trek fans and have stated that the show takes place in the Prime universe, they have completely changed things for the sake of change. Not just the look of the Klingons but their ships, Starfleet uniforms, visual effects, even the Enterprise. It's just a production decision rather than anything that can be explained. They have just decided to reboot everything you see. You can find out more here. --| TrekFan Open a channel 08:11, March 21, 2018 (UTC)
- At the time of TNG Gene Roddenberry stated that the Klingons in Star Trek: The Motion Picture and TNG were how he always wanted them to look, but did not have the money to do on TOS. That's why no explanation was provided at that time. DS9 started to screw that up in "Trials and Tribble-ations" with Worf hinting at an explanation, which was finally given in "Affliction" and "Divergence" on ENT. I don't believe an explanation is going to be provided for the difference between DIS and TNG Klingons(nor the difference in how the Enterprise appears). 31dot (talk) 08:26, March 21, 2018 (UTC)