Backhanded wife reference[]
Since Maques is only mentioned to be a widower, without saying something like "My wife was ___" or "Her mother was___", should this kind of backhanded reference get a listing, or only a background note? --LauraCC (talk) 17:07, May 7, 2018 (UTC)
That's how I handled it for Simon Tarses's father (see bg note). --LauraCC (talk) 17:09, May 7, 2018 (UTC)
- I want to stress that this is just my personal opinion, but I think the better approach is to not give these backhanded references entries. (the Tarses bg note seems ok though) Anything that's actually referenced, even if very vaguely, should be ok for a thorough encyclopedia. But this spouse isn't referenced, not really, it's just that we can logically interfere their existence - and that I think is a step too far. Mention of a bridge should't lead us to postulate a river that was never mentioned, mention of a second officer shouldn't lead us to have an unnamed starfleet personel entry for a captain that was never mentioned, mention of rain shouldn't result in info being added to cloud, and also it's already firmly established that mention of Balderdash VII shouldn't automatically lead to an article on the Balderdash system. As long as they were in some small way referenced it's ok, but if they're only theoretical, it's just a step too far.
- Also, I wouldn't be so confident that his deceased spouse was a woman. post-Star Trek Beyond there's definitely enough reasonable doubt. -- Capricorn (talk) 16:03, May 8, 2018 (UTC)
Some specificity: Lwaxana said: "And lonely. Poor man. A widower, raising a child alone." Before that Maques to Deanna, "You need a husband. I need a wife." So there are really two backhanded references.
Also, adding resonable doubt is not a reasonable way of doing anything except adding doubt... Trek has a way of doing that for us, we don't need to do it ourselves. --Alan (talk) 16:13, May 8, 2018 (UTC)