Wait a minute!

This character's name isn't "patahk". Worf refers to him as a "patakh" (or "p'takh") in the episode, and lacking a name, this is what he how he is referenced in the script. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Roundeyesamurai (talk • contribs).

As the citation reads, the name comes from the script. You can see for yourself here. --From Andoria with Love 01:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I got that. What I am saying is that it isn't his name. Have you ever seen scripts where characters are referred to as "Soldier #5", "Man On Bench", "Obnoxious Asian Boy", etc.? This is an example of the same. Worf calls him "a patahk" (or "p'takh") and the writers, needing something to call him in the script and not having a name for him, referred to the character as "patahk". Roundeyesamurai 02:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I rewatched {e|The Enemy}}. At no point in the episode does Worf refer to Patahk as "patakh", "p'takh" or "pahtk". (It is also not in the script). In fact, the term hadn't been coined yet, it was used by Alidar Jarok for the first time, several episodes later, in "The Defector". So Patahk is his name (though never spoken in dialogue) and the similarity to the Klingon insult is just a coincidence. --Jörg 08:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

If that is correct, then I stand corrected. Roundeyesamurai 09:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The Klingon insult, originally spelled "petaQ", was originated by Marc Okrand in 1984 for The Klingon Dictionary -- this was long before TNG. It seems extremely likely the same word finding its way into a TNG script is not a coincidence (especially since it did again, and was properly used, shortly thereafter), but I think that the reference was dropped or miscommunicated, and the word became the name, as you described. The insult version came first, but they flubbed an attempt at using it in canon. -- Captain M.K.B. 03:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Card Game Edit

"" added the following:

"The name is consistent, however, with the one used in the Star Trek CCG."

Since this is completely non-canon, I removed it.

Frankly, I wish the gamers would just dry up and blow away. Wikipedia is full of complete crap because of gamers, on-line know-it-alls, and mere idiots. Why do they have to migrate over here? Roundeyesamurai 02:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I may not be an admin, and I know I am new, but the last comment seems to have nothing to do with the article, and is just inflammatory. Does it belong here? --OuroborosCobra 02:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry if I "offended your sensibilities". Would you like to have a "discussion" about my comment? Maybe we need to have a "peer group" to determine if I actually "needed" to remove that particular line from the article? Maybe I need "anger management" because I commented (oh gosh!) that I am sick and tired of crap like that appearing on virtually every wiki I visit.

Let me guess, you're a gamer, aren't you?  ;-)

And no, you definitely are not admin. No "maybe" about it. Roundeyesamurai 03:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I've added some more information on the CCG card. -- Captain M.K.B. 17:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)