FANDOM


FA status Edit

Nomination (03 Jan - 14 Feb 2018, Failed) Edit

I have been working on this article off and on. I think it's pretty comprehensive now. --LauraCC (talk) 20:49, January 3, 2018 (UTC)

I looked in the history, but at first glance, I couldn't find who initially added that reference to the name meaning. If I just removed that uncited info pending citation, would the rest of the article be acceptable otherwise? --LauraCC (talk) 17:07, January 9, 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose: Almost all of the text is lacking sources and the narrative itself for me just doesn't seem to flow very well by repeating names and phrases that were used earlier. There is also something about the layout/formatting that just appears a little haphazard and messy though I can't seem to put my finger on what exactly. I don't think this article compares to similar FAs covering minor characters but with a little work there is nothing stopping it from becoming featured in the future. --| TrekFan Open a channel 13:49, January 23, 2018 (UTC)
Comment: I have just added a bit more background information to the article which I have found in other sources. I think this alone indicates the article is incomplete. I just think more work needs to be done to it before it can be promoted as an example of MA's best work. --| TrekFan Open a channel 08:12, February 5, 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the lack of sources; most of the in-universe article's subject matter is from the same episode. Unless you mean sources for behind the scenes info. Is there anything else I can do? --LauraCC (talk) 17:08, January 23, 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose. The article seems quite complete but somehow I don't believe this article could show some of the community's best work. Tom (talk) 18:11, January 27, 2018 (UTC)

Disambig?Edit

This page needs to be disambiguated to accomodate the Vian Lal from "The Empath", however, I am not sure to go the route of the Star Trek Omnipedia and call it "Lal (TOS)" and "Lal (TNG)" or the alternate Lal (Vian) and Lal?? Thoughts? --Gvsualan 05:16, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There seem to be quite a few links to the Lal android article using just Lal; I think we should just leave this article where it is and insert an "you may also be looking for..." notice at the top of the page to disambiguate to Lal (Vian). -- SmokeDetector47 // talk 05:54, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
In MA/de we were originally also going with a disambguation. But because Lal is much more known than Lal (Vian) we decided to create a disambiguation type II that means with de:Lal staying as the main entry and a header pointing to de:Lal (Vianer). (As already done with Phlox and Kes) -- Kobi - (Talk) 09:10, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cascade failureEdit

I don't agree that Lal's cascade failure was a cause of her feeling emotions, but I think that was rather a consequence. --87.16.186.162 20:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

"Android" issue (moved from article) Edit

There seems to be an issue as to whether Lal should be called an android. For some reason, it is being "discussed" in the article, rather than on the talk page. I am moving the discussion here:

  • Lal is not an android in the strictest sense of the word. The term "Android" is used to describe a robotic construct made to resemble a Human male. Lal, then, would be a Gynoid, a robot made to resemble a Human female. Of course, her original appearance was rather androgynous, so it is uncertain which term would apply at that point.
  • Actually the Greek term 'Andros' can mean 'man' in the sense of mankind or our species - human. Whilst it may seem sexist in the political arena, these days, Lal belongs to mankind and is an android. A Gynoid - if anything - is a contrived term, based on a poor understanding of the unisexual term, to denote a specifically female android.

It should probably be settled here before going back to the article. --OuroborosCobra 02:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not male or female, Lal is an android. Juliana Tainer was female and was never referred to as a gynoid. The same rule applies to Lal. Besides, the term gynoid is sexist. Sexism has been overcome in the 24th century. Are my arguments correct? SPQR (talk) 19:10, July 16, 2012 (UTC)
Yes, although the above issue hasn't been commented on since 2006. 31dot (talk) 20:29, July 16, 2012 (UTC)

Peer review Edit

I think this article might eventually be a good candidate for a featured character article. If anyone can help, I've been adding section headings and quotes. I've tried to make it focus on her and not sound like an episode recap. --LauraCC (talk) 16:56, March 9, 2017 (UTC)

I have expanded the in-universe section somewhat and added some quotes to the article since this episode was full of good ones. I've also scoured through some background sources for information which I have also added, along with some info from apocryphal sources. I will continue to look for further information to add to it in due course but I think it's coming along nicely now and will soon be complete. I have no doubt that this could become featured at some stage. --| TrekFan Open a channel 17:51, March 10, 2018 (UTC)

RemovedEdit

Uncited Edit

I removed the following uncited note and I really don't see a reason why it should stay on the article.

Although stated in the episode (TNG: "The Offspring") that Lal means 'beloved' in Hindi (a derivative word of Persian and Urdu), it is not the only definition. Lal means 'red', in the Indo-Iranian context, while in the Indian context, it means 'child' or 'beloved'.

- Tom (talk) 18:09, January 27, 2018 (UTC)

Removed quoteEdit

"She is capable of running over sixty trillion calculations per second, and you have her working as a cocktail waitress."
- Haftel, on the perceived misuse of Lal

I have removed the above from the quotes section as it wasn't said by the character. --| TrekFan Open a channel 12:48, February 6, 2018 (UTC)

Human male actorEdit

An unnamed user has identified the performer who played the holographic "Human male" iteration of Lal as Andy Wiley. Can this be confirmed somehow? I always get the impression that these unidentified folks who pop in to change one little thing and then leave do so because either they know the person or they are the person. Really wish they wouldn't do that without explaining on what basis they made the change. --LauraCC (talk) 20:24, August 15, 2017 (UTC)

As many times before, the only source seems to be IMDb. Tom (talk) 19:11, August 21, 2017 (UTC)
Do we accept this given that we can't really confirm the information? I'm inclined to remove it from the article pending a better source. --| TrekFan Open a channel 14:48, February 6, 2018 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and removed it pending an appropriate source. --| TrekFan Open a channel 17:54, March 10, 2018 (UTC)