FA nominations Edit

FA nomination (20 Nov - 16 Jan 2007, Failed) Edit

Even though I addressed (in my opinion) the only opposing votes about the article's FA nomination, the opposing votes were not removed, and the FA nomination failed. What follows are the comments from the FA candidacy. Since the article is already being requested a peer review, and the lack of comments both HERE and at the FA nomination page, unless those with concerns feel like returning and re-reviewing the article in question, nothing more can be done. -Humu­humu­nuku­nuku­āpuaʻa 14:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Self-nomination. I've spent a great deal of work on this article, and it was listed as peer-reviewed for 2 weeks without any feedback. I think this would make for an excellent Featured Article, and I welcome feedback and/or thoughts. -Humu­humu­nuku­nuku­āpuaʻa 16:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Support. Well done, to all who were involved with this article. :) --From Andoria with Love 20:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Haven't read the text itself yet, but what I immediately noticed was the bad image quality. All three images (File:Thomas Riker (2369).jpg, File:Thomas Riker.jpg, File:Thomas Riker 2371.jpg) currently on the page show serious artifacts from either the bad VHS tape this was taken from, or from JPEG compression. If those exact images are to be kept, I would at least like to see them re-uploaded in better quality. Additionally, I could see one of the two similar "2369" images be removed from the sidebar and another one, perhaps showing Thomas with either Will, Deanna, or both, be added where appropriate. Regarding the sidebar in general, a possible "Featured article" might be a good start to think about what's really important to have on a character sidebar. Is "Created as duplicate" or "Affiliation:Maquis" really something we need to have on the sidebar (instead of in the text)? I'll leave another note once I read the article text itself. -- Cid Highwind 20:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Noted regarding the graphics. I'll see if I can acquire better screenshots. I'm going to copy your comment and add it to the peer review page. Any willing to assist in improving the article are advised to take the discussion there. -Humu­humu­nuku­nuku­āpuaʻa 15:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I now read the whole text and left another note one the peer review page. If those two points are addressed, I'd support this nomination. -- Cid Highwind 13:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: New versions of images have been uploaded, as has a new image of Tom and Deanna. I welcome futher comments/support. I have decided to leave both 2369 images in the sidebar, as other FA have set this precedent (Jean-Luc Picard, etc) -Humu­humu­nuku­nuku­āpuaʻa 21:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, very thorough. -- Jaz talk 02:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

FA nomination (10 Dec - 25 Dec 2007, Successful)Edit

  • I nominate Thomas Riker. The article holds a good quality in its structure. and also contains the canon information about this character. We can't ask to much of this article, as he is only a side-character that appeared in two episodes. --Rom UlanHail 22:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Thanks for nominating this again - I nominated some time ago and didn't get much support. It is now an even better article. -Rhinecanthus rectangulus 16:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Marginal support. It is a nice article, but nothing really jumps out at me to say it is a great article rather than just a good one.
*Comments: In the infobox, it says he was "created" in 2361. This assumes he is the duplicate and not Will. I think they have equally valid claims to be the "real" Riker.
*I don't like how his backstory is glossed over, saying it is the same is Will's. OTOH, I can't see duplicating Will's info here. A third option, having one page for the backstory, and then two more pages, one for William T. and one for Thomas, doesn't feel right either.
*I'd like to see info from Sole Asylum, Part One and Two incorporated into the apocrypha.
*I'd rather see a DS9-era pic of him in the infobox than a TNG one. The different way he wears his beard distinguishes him from Will better. -- Connor Cabal 20:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comments
    • I have changed it in to Transporter Duplicate & Duplication accident.
    • It is hard to tell his early history. A page which would list his early life before the accident was deleted not long after it was created, the idea was not liked. And as you say, It does not look good if we have to identical sections about the early life for both him and the "real" one.
    • I have not the possibility to read and add the information from those two books (i think it is books).
    • I have added a DS9-pic of him, and changed the sidebar so it now looks like it does for other characters that have appeared with a gap between the first and last. It now has a picture from his "earliest" and one from his "latest" apperance.-- Rom Ulan 21:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Commment: The two Sole Asylum "books" are comics. I have them both, and if I have the chance tonight, I'll doodle up a) summaries for the articles themselves, and b) doodle up some apocrypha for Tom's page. -- Sulfur 21:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Further comment: I've written summaries for the Riker story in each of those comics. If you're interested, see the links above. I also put in some notes at the end of the Apoc section. Oh, and I formatted the entire section because it was ghastly. -- Sulfur 17:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Great, how about a vote now ;-) ?´-- Rom Ulan 15:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks good. As soon as Rom's €500 arrives in my PayPal, we're good to go.  ;-) -- Connor Cabal 02:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. For the love of all that is holy, make this a featured page! My goodness, it was good enough the last time it was nominated, back before HDTV, already. --GNDN 21:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Please, one more support and it is elected.:-D-- Rom Ulan 21:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Support I don't see anything in my opinion that makes this unsuitable. Great article. --Nmajmani 02:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Featured now. -- Sulfur 14:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Lieutenant Riker's position aboard the Potemkin (from Reference Desk) Edit

I just finished watching "Second Chances", and I think I might have missed it. But on Riker's first assignment (the Pegasus) he was the helmsman, and would have worn red. He transferred to Betazed (doing who knows what) and then to the Potemkin. Then he was wearing the gold uniform, and I was wondering what his position was. I'm pretty sure in "Lower Decks", Deanna says he learned to play poker so he could be-friend the senior staff, as if he wasn't on it. Then he was on the Hood as first officer, Red shirt again. I think the real reason was so people would recognize "oh, okay, Thomas Riker's in gold, Will's in Red" and tell them apart. But, What was Riker's post on the Potemkin? - AJHalliwell 19:00, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It was never specified on screen. So there is no answer to your question. Besides it is nothing out of the ordinary to transfer between divisions. Worf was command division, transferred to operations division, then back to command -- and it would seem Riker did the same thing. --Gvsualan 19:11, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It says on his page that he developed a "tactic" involving using a planet's magnetic pole to evade enemies, and he also led an away team. I would guess he was the Security chief or at the very least a tactical officer. --Tim Thomason 14:44, 6 Jul 2005 (UTC)
As operations officer he would also be involved with tactical situations, even if peripherally, and be an away team regular. Presuming the position existed by that point. tactical or ops seem likely, so i guess that engineer might not be as likely -- engineers don't spend as much time on the bridge (but then again, it has been referenced (in "Chain of Command, Part I"(?) and "The Conscience of the King") that engineering and security can "borrow" less specialized personnel back and forth (this explains Kevin Riley and Mr. Leslies travels aboard ship)). -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk

Is there a pic of him in the blue uniform?

"Lingering Mysteries" Edit

Should there be a Memory Alpha page for unresolved plot lines, like the fate of Thomas Riker?

tom riker & miles o'brien Edit

?? what was riker's problem with o'brien ??

He likely recalled O'Brien from the Enterprise, and thought that perhaps O'Brien may've recognized him with a longer time together, and didn't want to risk that at all. -- Sulfur 11:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I have to wonder about that too. O'Brien seemed to know what Thomas Riker meant when he said "I have nothing to say to you; I think you know why". If this interpretation is accurate, then it dismisses the idea that Riker was simply concerned about being exposed. Perhaps it's something that was simply not established within the series, a sort of loose end, one of many anyways. --Hyokanoid 02:32, April 15, 2010 (UTC)

Hmm...when I saw that episode it sure seemed to me like O'Brien was confused as all heck by the remark and left in response to Kira's saying "maybe we should come back another time", figuring that whatever it was, Riker would explain it later. Indeed, the script seems to support this--it states that O'Brien was "too shocked to say anything in response". Then, when we see O'Brien come out of the airlock a moment later, he's quite confused about the whole thing. -Mdettweiler 21:06, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

Peer review Edit

I think this article has potential to be a Featured Article, so I'd like to get some help and feedback in improving it. Thanks! -Humu­humu­nuku­nuku­āpuaʻa 17:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I've spent a good deal of time today cleaning up this article, breaking it into sub-sections, etc. I think it is already greatly improved, but I invite further review. -Humu­humu­nuku­nuku­āpuaʻa 19:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
So, any peer review comments? -Humu­humu­nuku­nuku­āpuaʻa 16:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to nominate this as a Featured Article since there have been no peer review comments after 2 weeks. -Humu­humu­nuku­nuku­āpuaʻa 16:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Image Quality and Sidebar Edit

Haven't read the text itself yet, but what I immediately noticed was the bad image quality. All three images (File:Thomas Riker (2369).jpg, File:Thomas Riker.jpg, File:Thomas Riker 2371.jpg) currently on the page show serious artifacts from either the bad VHS tape this was taken from, or from JPEG compression. If those exact images are to be kept, I would at least like to see them re-uploaded in better quality. Additionally, I could see one of the two similar "2369" images be removed from the sidebar and another one, perhaps showing Thomas with either Will, Deanna, or both, be added where appropriate. Regarding the sidebar in general, a possible "Featured article" might be a good start to think about what's really important to have on a character sidebar. Is "Created as duplicate" or "Affiliation:Maquis" really something we need to have on the sidebar (instead of in the text)? I'll leave another note once I read the article text itself. -- Cid Highwind 20:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree on both issues; we need better quality images. Does anyone have the ability to get better screengrabs? I have the TNG DVD set, but not DS9, so I could eventually get new grabs from "Second Chances" but not "Defiant". As for the sidebar, let's lose the "Created as duplicate" and "Affiliation" and stick with the typical Name, Gender, Species, Born, Mom, Dad and Actor. -Humu­humu­nuku­nuku­āpuaʻa 15:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thomas replacing Will Edit

At the time of airing, there were rumours stating that the producers talked about killing off Will in favour of Thomas - Thomas would have stayed on board of the Enterprise as a Lieutenant, while Data would have been promoted to XO. These rumours still pop up from time to time.

I don't know if these rumours are true or not, but if we can find any good source for this, it might make a good addition to a background section. -- Cid Highwind 13:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I found a small note stating this on "William T. Riker", but without citing a source. It should be removed there (because it is more appropriate for this article), but only added here if a source can be found. -- Cid Highwind 20:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. The only other reference I can find to this doing a Google search is in an review of the TNG DVD sets. I'll keep digging. -Humu­humu­nuku­nuku­āpuaʻa 15:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Its from the TNG Companion. Also, Jonathan Frakes said he prefers Tom to Will in the DS9 Companion.

Opening article quote Edit

i added an opening quote and it was from "Defiant". it was removed, which is fine, but another one should be added. the user that removed it called it unsourced, i hope this does not mean they didn't know where it was from, as they are the major editor on this article and this character is only in two episodes...

I removed the quote, because I'd rather that we discuss what quote would best stand to capture Thomas Riker in a nutshell (since the article is currently under peer review and Featured Article candidate). Should he be remembered as a Maquis first? Or as a "version of Will that was never to be?" A couple possibilities:
  • "He's not Will. He is, but – you know what I mean."
- Beverly Crusher (TNG: "Second Chances")
  • "I have found that humans value their uniqueness, their sense that they are different from everyone else. The existence of a double would preclude that feeling."
-Data (TNG: "Second Chances")
  • "You're trying to be a hero... and terrorists don't get to be heroes."
- Kira Nerys (DS9: "Defiant")

-Humu­humu­nuku­nuku­āpuaʻa 22:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Post FA nomination Edit

I thought I made it pretty clear that "If those two points are addressed, I'd support this nomination.". The points were addresses, as far as I can see, which would make my comments a support vote. Sorry if that hasn't been clear. In any case, though, this would still make it just four votes on this FA nomination - which is pretty sad... -- Cid Highwind 15:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

If it is renominated, I will vote for it. I am sorry I forgot to check back at that page. --OuroborosCobra talk 15:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
No worries, and thanks for the notes, both of you. Perhaps I'll resubmit this for FA in the near future, and we'll see if we can drum up more support. -Humu­humu­nuku­nuku­āpuaʻa 20:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

It's been seven months since the last comment. Is this still up for peer review?--StarFire209 18:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The wording of this article indicates that Will is the original. That may be an invalid assumption. (I say why I think so in Talk:Thomas Riker.) This should be revised to take a neutral stance on who's the duplicate? – StarFire209 18:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)–

Who's the duplicate? Edit

"Thomas Riker was an accidental transporter duplicate of William T. Riker; in essence, Thomas was an exact clone of William with personality and memories diverging due to different life experiences from the point of the duplication."

The wording of this indicates that Will is the original. That may be an invalid assumption.

• After the initial transportation, the original William Thomas Riker is on the planet. The transporter stays where it is.
• After the transporter malfunction, one Riker is on the planet, another Riker is where the transporter is.
• If a Riker went to the planet and a Riker is still on the planet, wouldn't that Riker be the original?
• If the transporter malfunctioned and we have a Riker where the transporter is, wouldn't that Riker be the "transporter duplicate"?
• Because Will was the only Riker people knew for all those years, the assumption (in the Star Trek universe) seems to be that he is the original and Thomas is the duplicate.
• Isn't it actually more likely that Thomas is the original and Will is the transporter duplicate?

At the very least, shouldn't this be written to take a neutral stance on who's the duplicate? – StarFire209 17:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Just for the thing above: If Riker transported to the ship, wouldn't that riker be the original?. now for my own POV. Both Rikers are original. transporter malfunction created two duplicates of the original. thus, the original riker no longer exist, but rather two copies. but lets not argue about that, I want this to be written in a neutral POV. with no assumptions on who is the original.

-- Örlogskapten... My channel... 19:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

No original, hmmm. I don't see it myself but that's another alternative. I think a neutral POV is the best way to go. Anyone interested in who's the original can read the talk and here and decide for themselves. – StarFire209 21:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

As Thomas had the same early life and career as Will, it would be valid to include that here, but redundant so I just put a reference to finding it in Will's article.

To be truly objective, there should be three articles,

"William T. Riker (early life)" for Riker's life before the duplication in 2361.
William T. Riker for the duplicate Riker's life after he materialized on the Potemkin.
Thomas Riker for the other duplicate Riker's life after he materialized on Nervala IV and was later known as Thomas.

But that might be more than some could handle. – StarFire209 17:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that it would be too much. A reference is much better. Örlogskapten... My Channel... 17.10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

A matter of perspective, Commander. Most believe Thomas is the duplicate of Will. I think the available canon evidence shows that Will is the duplicate of Thomas. But since people don't like to have their assumptions challenged*, all I ask is that the duplication be a neutral issue. Present the two as equals. That's harder to do when Will gets all the press and Tom has to settle for "see Will." – StarFire209 17:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC) *It's not entirely coincidental that the first article I've written is on Heresy. ;)

No canon reference (not even the script), that I could find, speaks of Will as the original or Thomas. When this transporter error was noticed years later not even the crew of the Enterprise tries to figure that out, so why should we ? The most probable reason that people believe that Will is the original would be is that he continued in the TNG series and Thomas only appear once. (twice if you count the DS9 episode) -- Q 16:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
That's what I said. "No canon reference...speaks of Will as the original...why should we?" We shouldn't, but we do. We refer to Thomas as "the duplicate of Will". We state that he was created in 2361 as if the Will Riker we all know wasn't also created in 2361. I don't ask anyone to believe that Thomas is the original. All I ask is that we not treat Will as the original to the extent possible.--StarFire209 18:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I've been talking about your proposal with some of my friends. We concluded that the most neutral thing to do was as you proposed. Therefore, I have done it. I've created links on both Thomas's and Will's pages to the early life page. I'm also going to create a link and change the page Riker to also link to that page. Some more work is needed, but i think i have made the biggest job. (creating page, linking, writing pages.)
Live long and prosper. -- Örlogskapten... My channel... 20:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Cool. I think you've done a great job. It's a balanced approach. But you already have to defend it, Cobra already wants to delete your contribution. (He also deleted comments you made on my talk page.) – Have Heresy, Will Challenge, Write StarFire209 21:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Starfire, please don't manipulate other people's comments to benefit your own cause. You know full well Q was asking why we should figure out which Riker was the actual duplicate and not asking why we are assuming Will to be "the original." --From Andoria with Love 21:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Merde! I didn't manipulate his words. I excerpted them because I thought he was agreeing with me! The words Q used echoed what I've been saying. I have not said that MA should identify the original. I am not a mind-reader. So why would I, and why do you, think he was asking me that? I have said that the frequent references to Thomas as Will's duplicate and the fact that Thomas's page ignored his life before 2361 indicated the belief that Will was the original. I don't think there was a deliberate choice to favor Will but just the way things were. All I have asked is that statements in this regard be neutral. This has never been about solving the two-Riker dilemma. – StarFire209 22:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm... it appears, then, I misinterpreted your comment. My apologies. All the more reason for me to stay as much out of this discussion as humanly possible. ;) --From Andoria with Love 05:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
's'alright. Sometimes I wish I hadn't started this discussion. :) Perhaps it's time to let it end. The irony of it all is that this started because of information I found here on MA. I never gave it all that much thought before. (icon denoting irony, wry amusement, puzzlement, exasperation)StarFire209 12:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, why not? Thomas wasn't the one created out of whole cloth aboard a starship, WILL was. Clearly, Wm. T. Riker is a clone. Factcheck007 (talk) 09:47, September 25, 2017 (UTC)

Removed Edit

Tom Riker is one of several duplicates seen throughout the Star Trek universe not including a possible duplicate in the Alternate Universe.

Unneccesary.--31dot 20:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Move Edit

Shouldn't we move this page to "W. Thomas Riker?" The way I see it, he didn't change his name, only chose to go by his middle name, but "William" is still part of his name anyway. Thoughts, anyone? QuiGonJinnTalk 12:43, February 7, 2010 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. We usually name character articles based on the moniker that character usually goes by--for example, even though we know the main Riker's full name is "William Thomas Riker", we put him under William T. Riker. Same with "James Tiberius Kirk" > James T. Kirk. Also, we have "Leonard H. McCoy" who's under Leonard McCoy because he never uses "H." in ordinary reference. As such, since Thomas Riker usually goes by just that, I would think it would make most sense to leave him with that article name. However, the article could, like the other articles I mentioned, list his full name at the beginning of the article: "William "Thomas" Riker was a result of a transporter accident in 2361..." -Mdettweiler 16:16, February 7, 2010 (UTC)

OK, makes sense to me. I'll adjust the intro accordingly. QuiGonJinnTalk 18:23, February 7, 2010 (UTC)

Should we put his middle name in quotations, per the usual convention for someone who goes by his middle name? As it is now it's a little confusing. -Mdettweiler 02:02, February 8, 2010 (UTC)
I added the quotations. - Archduk3 02:14, February 8, 2010 (UTC)


Because the split between signals resulted in an equal distribution of Riker's transporter pattern, both of them had an equally legitimate claim to being the "real" William T. Riker; however, according to the explanation given by Lt. Commander Geordi La Forge, the original beam maintained its integrity throughout the transfer, meaning the second beam is the one that bounced down to the surface. From this, it can be argued that the "real" William T. Riker made it safely back aboard the Potemkin, while "Thomas" was created by the second beam bouncing back to the surface.

Shouldn't this be removed? I thought it was agreed that we need to adopt a neutral stand on which Riker is the original. I could swear I remember Geordi saying that no one Riker had a legitimate claim to being the original (when Riker asked "which one is real?")...Besides, it sounds like supposition to me. Blair2009 15:31, February 23, 2010 (UTC)
"It can be argued..." -- sounds like speculation to me. :-) One can argue that one either way, depending on which way you look at it: Thomas could be the original since Will would have had to been formed from "new" matter up on the ship, but then again Will could be the original since he was in the first transporter beam. At any rate, either supposition is too speculative for MA, so I've removed the section in question. -Mdettweiler 18:50, February 23, 2010 (UTC)

Beard of convenience Edit

The real-world explanation is obvious, that it would be too difficult for one actor to play two characters with different beards, but it is rather convenient in-universe that both men went from beardless to bearded sometime over the next 8 years, and the beards were sculpted the same (Rather than Thomas's running completely wild and natural). The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Apocrypha removalEdit

An anon just removed this from the Imzadi II section:

Driven by jealousy over news of Worf and Deanna's recent engagement, Thomas was forced into an assassination attempt on Klingon Chancellor Gowron and Emperor Kahless, but that was averted thanks to the actions of Worf, Riker, and Odo.

I've not read this book, so can't confirm whether that happened, but if it did, then it should stay in the article. -- sulfur 00:01, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

And I've reverted it, since the anon removed half a sentence, and left part of it. -- sulfur 00:04, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

Relationship with TroiEdit

It's been awhile since I've seen the episode, but I'm almost certain that the info about his relationship with Troi that's currently present in this article is wrong. It says he decided to leave the Enterprise after she rejected him. I know that's not true; he decided to leave the Enterprise because his being around William Riker wasn't going to work. He and Troi were still involved when he made that choice and he actually asked Troi to marry him when he told her was leaving, so he certainly hadn't been rejected by her at the time he chose to go. Similarly, the article says that he and Troi decided too much time had passed to continue their relationship. I don't remember either of them saying anything like that. Again, as I recall, the issue was simply that he felt compelled to leave the Enterprise, and her feelings for him were not yet to the point where she would be willing to drop her whole life to follow him. 22:10, April 27, 2010 (UTC)

Side note: Edit

Just a little interesting side note, I don't know if it's mentioned anywhere, but in the Aramaic language, Thomas means "a twin." maybe it can be incorporated in the background information? 22:31, May 8, 2010 (UTC)

We would need evidence that the writers of the episode or other crew members chose the name for that reason, or something else that can be cited as evidence, otherwise it is merely a coincidence.--31dot 22:41, May 8, 2010 (UTC)
Actually, it's already been noted in the background section for quite a while: "Coincidentally, the name Thomas is of Aramaic origin and means twin." -Mdettweiler 02:08, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

Thomas Riker's rank Edit

On William Riker's page it states that due to his actions during the mission to Nervala IV he was promoted. Since the promotion was based on actions taken before the split shouldn't Thomas Riker have received the same promotion upon being found? I would propose to add a mention of that to the article. I don't know if that oversight(it was obviously a negligent oversight on Starfleet's part) was mentioned during Tom's appearance on DS9, but I think it might be relevant to his personality and perhaps his joining the Maquis. Any such suggestion would be strictly conjecture and should of course be presented as such. I just wanted to put this up for discussion before altering the page, since I am new to the site. Polythenepam 02:15, July 22, 2011 (UTC)

My commentEdit

I wish Thomas could have made an appearance, at least once, in later TNG episodes. It kinda hurts to know that Tom never became the way Will was, and that he couldn't have been rescued sooner (like, 2 years instead of 8). ♚InspiredAndNatural♚Kristi (message me here) 22:16, December 4, 2014 (UTC)

Early historyEdit

Instead of just saying he and Will share a common past, link to it. --LauraCC (talk) 19:59, March 21, 2016 (UTC)

Instead of leaving this unneccessary comment here on the talk page, take the time and place the link yourself. Tom (talk) 20:07, March 21, 2016 (UTC)

Sorry. I couldn't find the earlier discussion we'd had on Jonathan Archer (alternate reality) regarding how to handle the common past of the alternate versions of people. Do we have a standard policy now? --LauraCC (talk) 20:17, March 21, 2016 (UTC)

That discussion is here. The policy remains the same, in that all information that is relavant to the subject of an article should be included. This is the only case where both articles require the same information to be complete and the information in question isn't a useable stand alone article subject, like bridge is to starship. Linking to the section(s) in question was the only way to solve this problem until relatively recently.
That said, I'm trying something that's only used for the portals right now. Let's see if it works. - Archduk3 05:28, March 22, 2016 (UTC)

Also removed Edit

Just before Thomas transported over to the Kraxon, Kira promised to return for him one day ,but it is not known whether she ever did. Removed the non-italicized portion as an unknown. --LauraCC (talk) 18:11, February 6, 2017 (UTC)

Needless redundancy Edit

I think it's highly redundant to include the same biographical information about William T. Riker. The article on Thomas Riker would be better served with a note, see other article for details. It should really be all about HIM. Where HIS life began at the moment of the transporter disruption.--Jared Paul Baratta (talk) 14:17, August 10, 2017 (UTC)