I'm pretty sure, though the alien lady pronounced it funny, the actual alternate nickname for "Jack the Ripper" was "Red Jack" Redwood Elf 05:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Where does the spelling "Redjac" come from? Until I saw the Star Trek Collectible Card Game card for this character, I thought it was just "Red Jack." The ship's computer got to Jack the Ripper from "Red Jack" because that was an actual alternate name used in newspapers of the time. 11:14, September 29, 2017 (UTC)
The revised final draft script agrees with you when possessed Hengist yells it, although when Sybo says it, it's spelled as the page title does. Which takes precedence? I'd lean towards the spelling in possessed Hengist's dialog, as being inhabited by the entity in question, he ought to know. --LauraCC (talk) 15:56, September 29, 2017 (UTC)
Crap, was this revised final draft from Somehow I missed saving that one. But moving on, even beyond the Hengist primacy you propose, I think that if the script used a historical term as well as what's essentially a typo of that term, it's stands to reason that the uncorrupted term is the most correct one. Time to start considering fixing a decades old misconception and put up a rename notice. -- Capricorn (talk) 23:51, September 30, 2017 (UTC)
I oppose a rename. Since the script uses both spellings, we should use the spelling that is used in the majority of other sources. As far as I know, all other sources use the spelling "Redjac". And I don't think "Red Jack" is an actual name that was used for Jack the Ripper. I can't find any mention of the name that predates Wolf in the Fold. --NetSpiker (talk) 05:32, October 1, 2017 (UTC)
You oppose anything you didn't think of first. "Red Jack" was what was spoken by the character in question. "Redjac" was spoken by Sybo and repeated by McCoy/Spock, however, according to the computer, there is no such word in the linguistics bank, until the computer identified "Red Jack" in the banks as a proper name. This brings us back either using Sybo's interpretation of a name, as fact, over the entity itself screaming out its own name "Red Jack" over and over and a database entry under that same form. Hmm. --Alan del Beccio (talk) 01:07, October 2, 2017 (UTC)
I oppose suddenly switching to an obscure spelling that casual fans would be less familiar with. Why would I care who thought of it first? --NetSpiker (talk) 04:48, October 2, 2017 (UTC)
We're not deleting Redjac, the word will still work as a link, when used appropriately. The "casual fans" will still be able to find what they're looking for. --Alan del Beccio (talk) 14:02, October 2, 2017 (UTC)
Netspiker, do you realize that you've just revealed that your opposition shouldn't be weighted in determining what the consensus will be? Per not even just policy, but or very mission statement the article needs to have the most correct name. But you just indicated that your opposition is the result of personal preference to maintain the name as previously assumed, any attempt to look into possible mistakes of the past be damned. -- Capricorn (talk) 15:09, October 2, 2017 (UTC)
Redjac and Red Jack are alternate spellings of the same name and since they both appeared in the script, they are both equally correct. It's actually very common for scripts to use different spellings of the same name. There's Alyssa vs Alissa, Gardner vs Gardener, Madaline vs Madeline, Nechayev vs Necheyev, Noonian vs Noonien, Taar vs Tarr and Zefram vs Zephram. In all these examples the most common spellings are used for the article titles.
People seem to be hung up on which character uses which spelling in the script, and I don't think that's important. --NetSpiker (talk) 09:10, October 3, 2017 (UTC)
That's irrelevant. This was clearly a deliberate shift from "Redjac" to "Red Jack". It wasn't until it was recognized as "Red Jack" that the whole case opened up. As for what the rest of use "seem to be hung up on", the character source of the information is absolutely important, and has always taken precedence. Everyone here agrees, and at this point, your opinion is noted, but it is hardly the voice of reason. --Alan del Beccio (talk) 12:08, October 3, 2017 (UTC)
An Argellian trying to interpret what a non-corporeal lifeform said or is saying is as different from the lifeform itself speaking through another, as a person preparing closed captioning for a live TV broadcast is from the person speaking. --LauraCC (talk) 15:53, October 3, 2017 (UTC)
Nevermind the closed captioning. This is all from the script. --Alan del Beccio (talk) 15:55, October 3, 2017 (UTC)
Indeed. I'm saying how the characters spell something in their mind, if we're talking about in-universe here, differs between the one who perceives it secondhand and the one who knows it themselves. Sybo's spelling is hearsay, the entity's is firsthand testimony. --LauraCC (talk) 16:25, October 3, 2017 (UTC)

Eugenics WarsEdit

Should his appearance in The Eugenics Wars be mentioned? 14:19, October 8, 2013 (UTC)

Where was it said that he was present during the Eugenics Wars? 31dot (talk) 15:10, October 8, 2013 (UTC)
Apoc: The Rise and Fall of Khan Noonien Singh, Volume One. -- sulfur (talk) 15:13, October 8, 2013 (UTC)