- MA files from this episode (36)
- Template:Titles/The Slaver Weapon yields The Slaver Weapon (TAS 1x14)
For general discussion on this episode, visit the TAS forum at The Trek BBS.
whats the deal with Chuft Captain -- is it the normal Kzinti tradition to place the name before the rank, in this case making his name Chuft? Or is "Chuft" what he is captain of and he is an unnamed character ? -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 05:25, 4 Sep 2005 (UTC)
- According to Niven's naming conventions, which weren't explained but followed in the episode, Kzinti are only given a name as an award for great achievement. This is kind of like the Kazon to an extent. The one difference is the Kzinti are not given names when they are born. They have to take the name of their position in society. So, Chuft Captain was originally just Captain and then earned the name of Chuft. It is also Kzinti practice to pair up your name with the position, in the order it's given. So, Chuft Captain would be his full Kzinti "name." Whether or not any of this applies to Memory Alpha is up to someone (like you) higher up than me to decide. I was able to get most of this information from the Kzinti article.--Tim Thomason 06:45, 4 Sep 2005 (UTC)
- Not quite. As a captain, he has a partial name, followed by his title, which carries some rank. A fully named Kzinti of the highest rank has just a name. Think of it as serf vs thane vs nobility. The original story specifies that Chuft Captain has a "partial name."Mzmadmike 14:10, May 6, 2012 (UTC)
Non-appearance of KirkEdit
Does this episode still open with Shatner's "Space...the final frontier" monologue & is he still credited at the end? Igotbit 17:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Slaver Weapon vs Star Trek (2009)Edit
Until the movie has opened, and everything confirmed, please keep mention of it, its cast, and relevance out of this episode article. Thank you. -- sulfur 04:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- But this doesn't make any sense unless all the other articles that mention Nimoy's appearance in Star Trek XI are purged as well. Saying that Nimoy has only appeared in three productions now without Shatner is now just flat out wrong when it's well known now that Nimoy is in the new movie. I just don't see how this hurts. Maybe there's something I'm missing, can you elaborate further? leandar 04:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- I understand that, but the other articles have nothing to do with the movie other than mentioning Nimoy's appearance. What I can't understand is how this episode's article is any different from "The Cage" and "Unification II?" leandar 04:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, I think I get it. I'm going to put them back how they used to be saying something like "this is Nimoy's second of (to date) three appearances. That shouldn't be too bad, should it? leandar 06:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Everythign is automatically "to date" until the information becomes invalid.... stating "to date" is just another way of stating a spoiler to a spoiler. --Alan 06:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, I get it now. I think I'm going to go bang my head against a wall now. I'll see you later. leandar 06:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Removed the following:
"The Kzinti race once controlled the entire empire but now is bound to keep peace.
"Many Kzinti still take part in raiding Federation shipping and seek Slaver weapons to regain control of their empire."
Those are both absolutely true in Known Space, but this isn't Known Space.--Ten-pint 06:31, October 12, 2010 (UTC)
- In one scene, the weapon morphs backward--it changes from the new shape to the previous shape, then is shown in the new shape when the cut occurs.
- Removed the above comment as a nitpick. 31dot 10:51, May 6, 2012 (UTC)
- So, please explain to me how some continuity errors (seeing Hadley at navigation, then seeing Sulu) are not nitpicks, while ones like this are? Or Kirk speaking without lip movement (Cloud Minders), vs this? It's a clear reversal of order, very obvious, and would be significant since the device changes from weapon to telescope, but then is used as a weapon.Mzmadmike 14:07, May 6, 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not saying they aren't nitpicks; the nitpick policy came about relatively recently in the history of this site, and we likely haven't gotten rid of all of them yet. If you see any, feel free to suggest them for removal. A nitpick is permissible in articles if it is discussed by Trek production staff(as some are). 31dot 14:12, May 6, 2012 (UTC)
- Well, there's no way I'm going to know what the production staff discussed. I'm not into it enough to buy such things. I'm following the guidelines used on IMDB, which makes continuity errors a matter of note, as well as "errors in fact." Apparently, MA is as shoddy as the show in such regards, and happy that way. So I guess I should just not waste my time. Peace, out.Mzmadmike 14:18, May 6, 2012 (UTC)
- If you don't want to "waste your time", that's your choice, and would be unfortunate, but I would suggest following our own guidelines here, instead of those from another site which has a different scope and criteria than we do. 31dot 14:21, May 6, 2012 (UTC)