- Russell was transferred into the command division and promoted to the rank of lieutenant.
- Tom's note when he made the edit said this information came directly from Carl David Burks. The actor saying he is the same character is a bit different from the Joe Carey situation, where it's being retroactively speculated that he might be the same character. - Bridge 21:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
It's going to be retroactive no matter who says it, and yes, other than the fact that the "actor said it", the situation is exactly the same. --Alan 21:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Mr. Burks wrote to me in an early e-mail that he played Russell in The Next Generation and Voyager. And there is no "in-universe" timeline problem with that information. And as you've mentioned, the only difference is that the actor gave this information. We also have several other "behind the scenes" information on Memory Alpha, for example Youngblood. I think the case of "Joe Carey" is different. His character was not introduced as a named background character who continued in another Star Trek series and we don't have background information from Josh Clark, did we? – Tom 22:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- I wrote this before I saw Tom's reply, but my point is pretty much the same as his. In response to Alan: I disagree that the situation is "exactly the same." Are you saying that information provided by the actors (rather than some random user) is invalid? If that's the case, then why do we accept names like Jae and Youngblood? Hypothetically speaking, what if Tracee Lee Cocco were the actor in question here, and she had on her Web site that she played the same character on two separate series? That would be accepted as a valid production resource. What's the difference? - Bridge 22:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Did M. Piller, M. Sussman, or C. Bole tell Mr. Burks that they were calling him specifically for the Russell character, or, was the character's identity ever discussed at all between any of them? If so, there you have it. If not, I doubt it was intended. TribbleFurSuit 22:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Re:Bridge -- I made no such implication, and to argue that I've ever stated otherwise might need to be reassessed. Simply put, my raising of this issue is in effort to find some consistency in like-situations. If we are accepting crossover actors along with their characters (regardless who it is that says person B is really person A), then we need to establish a better criteria describing why. Clearly there is a new variable introduced in this scenario, while retaining the aforementioned variables. Jones is another example of someone who made the transition over to DS9 from TNG, yet is described by the name given to the character in the latter series. They win and tactical officer/Carey loses. --Alan 22:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Alan, perhaps I misunderstood. I thought "Huh? That didn't fly ..." meant you were advocating that Russell shouldn't be regarded as Russell in his Voyager appearances. I think Tom may have interpreted it the same way. But it seems as though you're saying instead that if we do this for Russell (and for Jones), then why not for Carey as well? Or that at the very least, it shouldn't be one way for one character and another way for another, unless we come up with a method of determining why it's one way or the other. If that's the case, then I'm sorry for misinterpreting your remarks. Turns out we may be closer to agreeing than I previously thought. To TribbleFurSuit: Most of the minor characters on the site may not have been "intended." Did the producers of TOS "intend" Ron Veto to be Harrison? Was Lorine Mendell Diana Giddings before "The Outrageous Okona"? Did the aforementioned Tracee Lee Cocco make up the name Jae or did it come from discussions with the creators? The vast majority of the background characters were named one time out of all their appearances, yet we list them as the same people, even when they changed uniform colors and rank. - Bridge 23:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Background note about Russell's death Edit
Sulfur, why do you insist on moving my background note to the bottom of the article and deleting the last sentence? There are many other background notes that are placed in the middle of an article, so I don't understand why you have a problem with this one. Since the note relates to the episode Best of Both Worlds, I thought the best place for it is right below the events of the episode. That way, readers who accept the novels as part of their personal canon will know that everything below this note doesn't apply to Russell.
You say "We don't deal with the speculation of novels", but Memory Alpha does include info from the novels in the form of background notes, background info sections and apocrypha sections. We don't know if Carl Burks was playing Russell or some other character after TNG Season 3 because he was never credited. --NetSpiker (talk) 13:09, November 30, 2016 (UTC)
- Sulfur has worded the note correctly. We have apocryphal information from novels, but not assumptions or speculation. 31dot (talk) 13:37, November 30, 2016 (UTC)
- Apocrypha isn't, or shouldn't be, the same as background information, especially when considering a wholly unrelated novel. "Personal canon" is irrelevant on this site. Regarding Burks' continued character revival, that is noted by Tom in the above section of this talk page.--Alan del Beccio (talk) 15:02, November 30, 2016 (UTC)
Named after Edit
I have removed the following note, which has been tagged as needing citation for over a year. It can be restored if a valid source can be found.