FA Status Edit

Nomination (01 Feb - 09 Feb 2005, Success) Edit

M-113 creature: It's got everything and it makes for a good read. Tyrant 02:40, 1 Feb 2005 (CET)Tyrant

  • Supported. --BlueMars 22:18, Feb 2, 2005 (CET)
  • Supported. Ottens 19:46, 3 Feb 2005 (CET)
  • Supported. | THOR 05:14, 5 Feb 2005 (CET)

Reconfirmation (05 Dec - 24 Dec 2011, Failed) Edit

This one was originally featured in early 2005, and has seen several edits since then. I just copyedited it again today, some other contributors joined that attempt. While I'm not totally happy with small bits, like the name of the "Enterprise encounter" section or the wording of the remaining bgnote, I still think it's in a better shape than before. FA blurb has been created (Template:FA/M-113 creature), this diff shows the changes since first featuring the article. I'm not voting myself. -- Cid Highwind 13:19, December 5, 2011 (UTC)

  • I'm going to oppose for now, since as Cid mentioned it still needs some more work, that bgnote needs something done to it, and based on the amount of changes in the last few days we might want to go "full nomination" on this one. - Archduk3 14:42, December 5, 2011 (UTC)
  • Changing to a tentative support after I removed the bgnote. It does look like another pair of eyes on this wouldn't be remiss though. - Archduk3 21:49, December 7, 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, looks up to specs to my (untrained) in-universe eye--Sennim 13:21, December 9, 2011 (UTC)
  • Support – I think the recent edits have been a good community effort, and I think the article is now up to modern FA standards.–Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 00:23, December 10, 2011 (UTC)
Comment: I personally think the in-universe info about the M-113 carcass in Trelane's mansion should be carefully moved from the bg info section to the "history" one. --Defiant 01:01, December 10, 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose, after extensively analyzing this article, I've come to the opinion that it's basically deeply flawed. The page, as it currently stands, seems unsure whether it's an article about the last individual specimen of a species or the entire species. It's also quite wordy, with too many repetitions of some points, and the individual sections are not separated enough for my liking (such as historical info appearing in the lead-in, rather than in the "historical" section, etc.) I'd also opt for the info in the historical section being arranged in a more historical/chronological order than it currently is. --Defiant 02:27, December 10, 2011 (UTC)
If you want to try and save it Defiant, make changes as you see fit, though the article is about both the individual creature and the species. - Archduk3 22:02, December 19, 2011 (UTC)

Check: Barnhart Edit

This article shows Barnhart being killed on the surface of M-113, and then again on Deck 9.

I removed the first reference, and kept the one of him having died on Deck 9, as the picture on his page clearly shows. --Gvsualan 03:42, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Removed Edit

  • An alternative, more scientific designation for this creature would be "salivore," from the Latin meaning "salt-eater."
Doesn't seem to be from the Star Fleet Medical Reference Manual or something like that that's at least semi-official, so removed as fan speculation. -- Capricorn 04:28, February 3, 2011 (UTC)

I just removed the following two bgnotes:

This is the description of the single observed specimen and may not apply to all members of the species.
The presence of a mouth is evidence that salt may not have been this creature's sole means of sustenance. It may also have eaten food with its mouth but evolved a mechanism to directly absorb salt, perhaps because salt was (or became) scarce in its native environment or because it had a high biological (possibly metabolic) need of salt.

The text was rewritten to make the first one unnecessary. The second one seems to be speculation - the creature was seen to absorb salt through its mouth, so that may as well have been the function of the mouth. -- Cid Highwind 11:41, December 5, 2011 (UTC)

The sole surviving creature encountered by the Enterprise crew may not be a good example of the behaviors of the rest of its race. The creature was intelligent and was able to recognize intelligence in other species. It was also able to form emotional attachments to other intelligent beings. On top of all this, it had a food source available that did not involve preying on other beings; yet it began to, despite how it seemed to understand (as McCoy stated during the briefing) that killing was wrong. It could be theorized that this particular creature was a sociopath, possibly due to its long isolation.
I've removed this since despite the fact that there is some good material in there, it's mostly speculation and stating unknowns. - Archduk3 21:44, December 7, 2011 (UTC)
I've removed the following, regarding the surviving creature's view of Humans as food: "As there was no opportunity to question it, it is unclear if this attitude arose from desperation or if it was the natural outlook of the species." Firstly, we don't state what is unknown. Secondly, it seems pretty clear to me that the creature's hunger for Humans is due to desperation, owing to its need for salt. --Defiant (talk) 08:24, September 19, 2016 (UTC)


Well, first time using this particular feature of Memory Alpha.

Who was the actor inside the suit? I have seen one picture today that suggested that it was Sharon Gimpel. I cannot find anyone with that name in the IMDB. Can someone give a good name? Thanks!

Ray 02:02, January 18, 2015 (UTC)

She is under the name Sandra Lee Gimpel in IMDB --Pseudohuman (talk) 02:55, January 18, 2015 (UTC)

Two individualsEdit

As there are two examples of this creature - the one McCoy killed and the one Trelane has (dead) (unless he made a model of it, not the real thing, which is likely, so would it be illusory?), should it not have a "List of M-113 creatures" page? Make this the species page once and for all and have individuals elsewhere? --LauraCC (talk) 15:33, September 9, 2016 (UTC)

If it's a model, it may not even be illusory. -- sulfur (talk) 15:48, September 9, 2016 (UTC)

True. But in that it doesn't exist as a once-live creature. --LauraCC (talk) 15:57, September 9, 2016 (UTC)