Proposal to merge article with Reginald Barclay since that article contains all the information on the hologram anyway, and other character articles seem to be written this way too. --| TrekFan Open a channel 21:03, February 17, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. This hologram isn't just a knock off of Reg, since it had a different personality, which is why we merged the rest of them with their characters, so this shouldn't be merged. - Archduk3 21:07, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
(conflict) Oppose. This hologram is not an exact duplicate of Barclay, having been altered by the Ferengi. The "X character (hologram)" articles we have merged before were one-off, brief, functionary appearances, not holograms with some significant information behind them, or even their own name(such as Spock One). Here, the altered hologram played a significant role in the story and was not merely a duplicate of Barclay filling a role in a holographic program.--31dot 21:09, February 17, 2011 (UTC)

They're both fair statements. I just brought it up as per the discussion on the FA nominations page, where Archduk3 mentioned that other holograms had been merged with their respective character articles. I just thought that the hologram deserved a brief mention on Reginald Barclay with a link here, but Archduk3 believed it shouldn just have a link. More on this here -- | TrekFan Open a channel 21:13, February 17, 2011 (UTC)

Revert Edit

This page is only about the hologram seen in "Inside Man", not the one seen in "Projections". - Archduk3 13:52, October 31, 2011 (UTC)

Why incomplete? Edit

This article looks like it has all the information it could have. Get rid of the incomplete tag? Thebilldude (talk) 02:16, November 21, 2017 (UTC)

I suppose if people actually used the pna's like they were supposed, by adding discussions to the talk page like the pna indicates, instead of slapping them on every page they come across and not explain why, then I suppose we wouldn't have this problem. With that said, if there is a pna with no corresponding talk page or talk page section, then the pna is invalid, and just remove it.--Alan del Beccio (talk) 02:21, November 21, 2017 (UTC)