Muiltiple appearancesEdit

Well, this is just a beginning, because I have a question concerning those aliens: They appeared in a number of DS9 episodes. But I remember reading ages ago, in a Star trek magazine, that Michael Westmore actually created the make-up for this species for a Star Trek computer game, and that those aliens had a name in the game. Does anybody know these aliens? I'd really like to know, if they really appared in a game and what they were called. --Jörg 14:24, 22 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I can't help with your question, but Durg's species could also be mentioned here. Tough Little Ship 14:27, 22 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Durg's species is known, he's a Markalian, just like Asoth and the little criminal friend of Nog's from the DS9 pilot. I have to go now, but I should be back later tonight, then I'll elaborate on the whole Tarkalean/Markalian business. --Jörg 14:41, 22 Sep 2005 (UTC)

At this stage, "unknown aliens" seems to be used to represent both unknown alien individuals and unknown alien species -- should we disambiguate into two articles or just set up that hierarchy here -- after all, many individuals of an unnamed species that are also unnamed individuals are usually the only member of their species seen. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 15:25, 22 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • In a way, they have to be one in the same. Pages for 'known species, unknown individuals' gives us things like Unnamed Bolians and pages for 'known individuals, unknown species' get their own place, ie Redjac. This seems to be a place where we lack both.... i think. Maybe we should use tables to make better use of space? Jaf 16:42, 22 Sep 2005 (UTC)Jaf
    • If we only meet one member of an unknown species, it is alright if that species doesn't get a special page, but what about cases, where we've met more than one meber of a race, we don't know the name of, like Zar, Dala and Mobar, or Emis's race, (a member of the same race was bidding at Quark's auction in "In the Cards" and another one was seen on the holodeck together with a Bolian female in "Someone to Watch Over Me" or Pardshays/Rotcivs race.

And then there's also the problem of naming the entries. When I watched DS9, I made Screenshots of all the promenade background aliens. There are some, that appear in 10-20 episodes and their species never gets a name, we never meet a member of their race and they are generally just seen in the background of a scene. Some of them got semi-official names by Michael Westmore, like tailheads, or Rotciv, but most of them remain unnamed. In order to classify them and be able to find out, which alien appeared in which episode, I gave them long names that describe their appearance, like "Alien with blue skin, no hair, bushy eyebrows and a horizontal crevice on the forehead, In the cards.jpg or whatever. I guess, that wouldn't really be a suitable name for memory alpha... ;-) --Jörg 17:50, 22 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Well, I finally wrote the article about Durg's and Regana Tosh's species, you can find them at Markalian. --Jörg 12:56, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC)

This page, is going to be very long, and I hope does not get disorganized. Should it be moved to "Unnamed Aliens", as that's how most of our other pages have it; ie: "Unnamed Bolians, Unnamed Vulcans, Unnamed Klingons" Capital letter and Unnamed. - AJHalliwell 13:21, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Also, who are they alien to -- maybe this choice of words is too human-centric, the way the page is linked from People is "unnamed nonhumans" -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 13:24, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • Well are humans reading this afterall, and it seems to go well with the parent list: Individuals, just like Vulcans is to Unnamed Vulcans. It also is the simpliest way to go about listing it rather than coming up with some complicated tongue twister like whats written below. --Alan del Beccio 03:46, 26 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Unnamed humanoid species? Jaf 14:22, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC)Jaf

Unnamed humanoids with production nicknamesEdit

I wonder, to help alleviate a potentially long list, if we should create a separate page to list those aliens that have specific nicknames given to them by the makeup artists/production staff, to separate them from the "made up" names we are giving them here? I have 10 listed on my computer that were specifically named by the makeup/production staff by a nickname, but never given an offical name, or even an offical background name (Efrosians). The aliens in question are those from Nimbus III, shown in makeup screen tests from STV SE, and a few from DS9 Season 1 background info. It might be worth exploring as an intermediary between..."official", "background offical", "backgound nickname", and then the names we've given them on this page. --Alan del Beccio 19:26, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC)

  • That would be best, otherwise this list is going to be huge. You could also make special pages for "Star Trek V-Background Aliens", Deep Space Nine-Promenade-Background Aliens, Non-speaking background-Aliens in General and then we need pages for the aliens that have important roles, but never got a racial name, like the ALiens from "Time and Again", "The Communicator" etc.

Sorry if I'm asking, but are the FASA-derived Star Trek IV Federation Council Aliens names considered canon here? Otherwise, they'd also have to get their own list. --Jörg 19:42, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC)

    • Well, I wonder how much that was influenced by the makeup artists, because I have all those alien images and articles ready to go on my hard drive, I just haven't had an opportunity, like this to bring it up -- and again, it really really really would help cut down on our overall population of "unnamed humanoids", something I'm going to continue to emphasize. I think, like we might be able to, if we clearly NOTE the source, as we did with those TMP aliens of similar circumstance, such as the Zaranites. In fact, I nearly forgot, but we already have an article, Bzzit Khaht, and I couldn't be happier! :) --Alan del Beccio 21:56, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • I think we can make an exception for these particular FASA names. It's so much easier to be able to give a name to these species, and the FASA names are widely known among fans, and not contradicted by any other source, as far as I know. -- Harry 10:50, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC)

As warned, this page is going to be very long Edit

...perhaps it would be ideal to separate it (if not now, eventually) into "Alpha/Beta Quadrant" and "Delta Quadrant". Also, I think this page (or one page) should specifically focus on aliens with more then one appearance (ie: ST6 "Rura Penthe" inhabitants) and another page for aliens with only one, or something.

On another note, so this doesn't become a pic gallery, maybe for aliens with more then one appearance, we don't have to have a pic of every appearance, just one or two. - AJHalliwell 22:53, 29 Sep 2005 (UTC)

PERSON's speciesEdit

I think, similar to the PERSON's ship pages (like Harrad-Sar's ship), that info on an unnamed species which has at least one person who has been given a name on-screen should have a separate article, at PERSON's species or PERSON's people, where PERSON is the name of the lead or only member of the species seen. This would create articles at Dax's species/people, Kago-Darr's species/people, Sargon's species/people and the like. The heirarchy would be like this:

  • If the species name is known than that is where the page is regardless of any other info, obviously
  • If the species name is unknown, but the planet is known, then species info goes at [[PLANET native]]
  • If the species and planet name is unknown, but a person's name is known, then species info goes at [[PERSON's species]] or [[PERSON's people]]
  • If species, planet, and individual people's names are unknown, then the info goes on the Unnamed humanoids page.

Anyways, that is just my opinion and I'm just seeing if that should be implemented or not (I can think of reasons for it and against it, and it seems everything I come up with is a bad idea).--Tim Thomason 12:14, 2 Nov 2005 (UTC)

I think this is a very good idea. The list at this page can get very long very quickly, so any chance to move paragraphs to their own page is a good idea. It also allows these particular species easier to find in the Species category. -- Harry Talk 11:48, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Who's this?Edit

I'm not sure what to look up for, to find this person, or which species he is. Anyone have any idea? Zsingaya Talk 22:48, 6 Nov 2005 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the actor is Michael Berryman (he played the "Starfleet display officer"), I'm not sure if the FASA sourcebook has any info on the species though.--Tim Thomason 23:09, 6 Nov 2005 (UTC)
This is what the FASA STIV sourcebook calls an Arkenite, from Arken II. -- Harry t 10:04, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Worene Edit

Aliens with gold face-plates...Edit

...are called Xelatians (from Xelata), according to the FASA book. -- Harry t 11:50, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Is there much other information about this species? I know there was enough for the Worene page, but is there enough information for this species to have its own page? Zsingaya Talk 22:03, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC)

How to break this up? Edit

This is really turning out to be a HUGE article. How can we split this up into sizable parts? I think the only way we can really split them up is by series. However, the article titles would break with our POV. But I can't really think of any other way to separate these. Grouping by quadrant does not solve the problem, since only VOY showed us aliens from the DQ, and all the other ones will still end up in Alpha and Beta Quadrants. Another solution would be an arbitrary split-up in numbered articles, but this would make searching less than obvious. -- Harry t 17:13, 10 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps if we split them up by when they were first encountered. There are 25 "entries" currently, 2 "first" encountered in the 22nd century (ENT), 13 encountered in the 23rd century (TOS, TOS movies), and 10 encountered in the 24th century (TNG, DS9, TNG movies, VOY). That's better than the 23 encountered solely in the Alpha/Beta Quadrant and 1 encountered solely in the Delta Quadrant.--Tim Thomason 18:05, 10 Nov 2005 (UTC)
That's not a bad idea. It certainly clears up the problem of 'crossover' aliens. -- Harry t 12:48, 11 Nov 2005 (UTC)

unnamed species articles with one known member Edit

Recently, several "X's species" articles have been created, where X is the only known individual of said species (only one example of many: "Fraddock's species"), and looking at the list here, many more are supposed to follow.

Do these articles make any sense? They follow a circumstantial naming scheme (because we don't know proper names) and are necessarily stubs (because we don't know anything about the species, really - just that some member of it exists and has a name). With only one member existing, they can only be linked from that member's page and this "unnamed species by individual" listing.

That would better be handled by just having whatever information we have about the "species" (which, basically, is the appearance of the member, of which we can't even be sure it's the average appearance of the whole species) described on the member article itself. No link necessary, and with that, no species page, either. -- Cid Highwind 16:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. If there are two or more members of an unnamed species, then it makes sense to have a page for the species. Otherwise, it's really pointless. Like you say, all the information can go on the one named individual's page - why split it up? -- Renegade54 17:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Suits me. --Alan del Beccio 17:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I also agree. 31dot 18:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. -- Connor Cabal 21:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
How do we handle the articles of that nature that exist? Submit each of them for deletion/merging? Can we discuss a blanket deletion/merging of them? 31dot 21:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree. The XXX's species articles were originally created to shorten these pages. Of course, the suggestion doesn't change that any, as I'm sure you can list them as "Worene's species" or "Worene's species" or something.
I disagree with the fact that they are "necessarily stubs" due to supposed lack of information. The species article should be differentiated from the individual article in much the same way as ship types are from individual ships (not a good example though). The individual articles should have all biographical info, and other info unique to the individual on it. The species article should have all biological traits not believed to be unique to the individual. A good example of a non-stub 1-member species article is Lansor's species. A bad example would be Larell's species (which could possibly be expanded mentioning their appearance, connection to Luria, a criminal element, etc.).
31dot, as for blanket deletion: They should be handled one at a time possibly. Some like Fantome's species, Krit's species, Pomet's species are a little tricky if you stick to the 1-member rule. Sometimes, an individual mentions his/her species. We should cover it in those cases, IMO.--Tim Thomason 22:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Key phrase here would be "believed to be". If we don't know whether what we see is "unique" (individual only) or "generic" (species), why spread out that information to two pages? Especially if, even if we assumed that some trait is generic, only one individual exists to link to the species page? And even more so, if even the assumptions don't give us more than one or two sentences of text.

Please note, I'm not advocating the removal of all such articles - but if there's neither content nor at least some amount of incoming links, why keep it separate instead of making the short description part of the individual's page? I don't see the real necessity of that. -- Cid Highwind 07:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Unnamed species by individualEdit

I'd like to suggest that we collect all of these individual pages such as "X's species" (where 'X' is an individual) and begin compiling them into 'Unnamed species (nn century)' pages, similar to how we deal with planets, individuals, etc. The century would be the century in which they were encountered on screen. This would eliminate all of these sub pages which are fairly poorly organized and quite inconsistent. Only species with more than one member would end up with entries on that list. Thoughts? -- sulfur (talk) 14:46, March 11, 2015 (UTC)

I really like it. But I have a concern: I think it could get pretty confusing if there's both a page on "unnamed humanoids" and one on "unnamed species", one effectively featuring species of which only one member was seen and the other for species of which multiple members were seen. Try to figure all that out just from the page names, I certainly can't. And it will often be impossible to know to which of the two pages you need to go if you want to know about a certain background species. Except if you're suggesting the new page should only have species with at least one named member and "unnamed humanoids" the rest; which seems an even more arbitrary way to organise info...
Plus, while the scope of Unnamed humanoids is supposed to be a list of individuals of which the species isn't known, it already heavily blurs the line with being like the proposed "Unnamed species" page. Take the recent recent merges of shroomies and Unnamed imagination aliens for example: both were entries on species, prime candidates for the future "Unnamed species" pages, but instead they were deemed suitable for merging into "Unnamed humanoids". Very very confusing. One solution I can think of is to combine both the future "unnamed species" and the current "unnamed humanoids" (plus "unnamed non-humanoids" which in practice is already more like the proposed "unnamed species" then the "unnamed humanoids" pages) into one list, though as for the question how such page could be defined and organised, I have no idea. -- Capricorn (talk) 19:21, March 11, 2015 (UTC)

My idea there is to put that list at the top of this page, essentially remove the "species by individual section", and attempt to make it clear that these are ones that we cannot name otherwise. Even if that means having some (un)written policy about the practice... much as we do now. :)

For the two merges you mention, those would likely bounce over to the species page rather than the humanoids page... I'd think. Humanoids page would be more for "unnamed individuals", species for "collectives". -- sulfur (talk) 19:31, March 11, 2015 (UTC)

I think it would be good to have an unnamed species page for all unnamed alien species that appear in more than one episode, no matter if we got to know the name of no, one or more than one individual. At the bottom of this page, there could be links to individuals that were named but whose species only appeared once. This way we could get rid of all those "XXXX's species" articles and just link to the individual in question. For easy reference, this section could (but not necessarily needs to) include a gallery of those individuals, with direct links to their articles. As to the aliens that are unnamed and only appear in one episode: We already have articles like Xhosa personnel, Norkova personnel etc. We could also have articles like "Nekrit Expanse station personnel" or "Markonian outpost personnel" (personnel being replaced by some other qualifier, if that sounds to starship-like). Those pages would list all individuals, that are members of unnamed species, seen at those locations. The individuals seen at those locations that are members of named species would be linked on those pages "for the Rigelians on the Markonian outpost, see Unnamed Rigelians". If someone wants to find out about that one strange alien at the Nekrit Expanse station, he would either search at the article for that station or for "Fair Trade". On the "Nekrit Expanse station personnel" page, he'd find the alien in question or be further linked to the "Unnamed Rigelians/Markonians" etc page, if the species was named or the "Unnamed species" page, if more than one member of the species is seen in several episodes. --Jörg (talk) 19:46, March 11, 2015 (UTC)
Wouldn't that make the "Unnamed Humanoids (nn century)" series of lists completely obsolete? (not that I have anything against that) Any section that is about a species would be moved to an Unnamed species list, while any location-based section would get its own page. -- Capricorn (talk) 20:40, March 11, 2015 (UTC)
Exactly, for that is what these pages originally were supposed to be and actually were during the first years of their existence. A list of unnamed species (not individuals or humanoids) seen more than once. --Jörg (talk) 20:51, March 11, 2015 (UTC)
I'm going to admit that I'm having a hard time following the hierarchy logic here. What does the number of episodes a species was seen in matter? I know we have named species that were only seen, or just mentioned, in one episode where we have less information and/or members than we do on some unnamed ones. Obviously having a name makes it easier to file and categorize, and that is the problem here, right? An issue with categorization, not the actual unnamed species category, but how to name the pages in that category.
We do need to remember the category in any restructuring though, since it seems to me that in Jörg's proposal we would be placing articles on individuals into the category, unless we keep the "X's species" pages as redirects, which IMO we definitely should. I also think if we're going to create location based lists, they should be complete, as in all individuals should be listed there, with incoming links to that page placed in other appropriate lists. For example, an unnamed Vulcan at Starbase X and an unnamed individual whose species is unknown at Starbase X would both be listed at Starbase X personal. A link to that page would be included at Unnamed Vulcans and Unnamed species.
I also don't think we can really get around the Humanoid/Non-Humanoid thing here, since I don't think we want to break up Unnamed plants, and generally Humanoid is the next easiest thing to break a very long list down by. That said, having a Unnamed animals page and, based on the text at sentience, several "Unnamed sapient species (XX century)" pages might be easier to do, since simply regarding all unknown species to be non-sapient, unless context suggests otherwise, is IMO easier to judge, though I know Dark Mirror has has talking "dolphins", so who really knows. I went with "sapient" since the definition of "sentient" seems to go back and forth in-universe. - Archduk3 23:33, March 11, 2015 (UTC)
The number of episodes the species was seen in is relevant because it gives us some more information about the species in question. If, for example, the same species was seen in the Delta quadrant in a Voyager episode and in the 22nd century on Enterprise, that is relevant because we learn they have been active in space travel for 200 years and are found in a vast expanse of space in the Milky Way. This information would be lost, if that alien would only appear on the Nekrit Expanse station page and the Rigel X trading outpost page. It is also interesting to see how, for example, the skin color changes between appearances or wether exclusively female or male members of the species are seen. Again, this can only be learned when all appearances are listed at the same location. --Jörg (talk) 06:59, March 12, 2015 (UTC)
Sulfur, can you give examples to help me understand your idea? Do you mean that unnamed species with 2 members will have a separate page and unnamed species with only 1 member will get merged? Or do you mean the opposite? NetSpiker (talk) 08:54, March 12, 2015 (UTC)
I think the better way to put that Jörg is that where and when these species were seen in-universe tells us more about them, since we have one episode species that are seen in multiple timeframes and places. What I'm suggesting, and I think sulfur is too, is that unnamed species with more than one instance should have the species info covered on an "unnamed species" page, even if the individuals of that species are covered elsewhere. Species that only have one instance should be covered where ever the individual is covered, most likely here (or in sulfur's suggestion a Humanoid page?), but not necessarily, though in that case there would be a link from here. That seems pretty similar to what you were suggesting as well, I think. Maybe some temp pages wouldn't be remiss here.- Archduk3 22:01, March 12, 2015 (UTC)