Additional aliensEdit

This link mentions a few additional aliens.--StAkAr Karnak 02:13, 28 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Removed sectionEdit

I have removed the following as it is not a humanoid life form:

Multi-eyed Alien

<image removed>
A painting with a member of this species with many small black eyes underneath two large eyes hung in Dr. Leonard McCoy's sickbay aboard the USS Enterprise for some time. (TOS: "That Which Survives")

A space-borne lifeform vaguely resembling this painting was encountered by the crew of the Enterprise 1701 in the first issue of the non-canon comic Star Trek: Early Voyages. The resemblance was probably coincidental.

While this is an unnamed alien, it simply is not humanoid. Same deal as 24th century ones, this belongs in an article like "Unnamed non-humanoid aliens". --OuroborosCobra talk 20:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Purple Aliens Edit

The Axanar, which were mentioned later in "Whom Gods Destroy", and seen on Enterprise, may have been based on these aliens.

Uh, I was thinking about removing this, but there may be some explanation, so I'm asking about it do they at all look like the Axanar? The Axanar aren't even purple...-- 21:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

You're 100% right, doesn't make sense, I removed it. --Jörg 22:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Split Edit

Split this page by prime and alternate realities? --LauraCC (talk) 15:29, September 9, 2016 (UTC)

No need. They're already off on their own pages, and this simply references those pages. -- sulfur (talk) 15:49, September 9, 2016 (UTC)

The one in contention in the thread above would appear not to be on its own page. We don't have "Port of San Francisco bar visitors". --LauraCC (talk) 15:57, September 9, 2016 (UTC)

Split for one item? No. -- sulfur (talk) 16:01, September 9, 2016 (UTC)

We also have these fine folks. --LauraCC (talk) 16:05, September 9, 2016 (UTC)

Do you mean splitting the 23rd Century Aliens page itself or the talk page? The talk page might make sense considering people come to this page to discuss information on specific species and splitting the talk page might help with that, but the main page itself wouldn't be a good idea IMO since the aliens in the 23rd century in the alternate reality would very likely have been around in the prime reality, and vice-versa. TrekkieCub314 (talk) 08:19, September 12, 2016 (UTC)

I meant the page itself. And not necessarily. We don't know how old they are, whether they were born in both realities of not. Plus the ones I'm referring to were all present at the same bar and we have other pages that group aliens of unknown origin and those whose species are known by the location they're found in, especially if they are seen nowhere else. We can keep a redirect link to that new page here, though. --LauraCC (talk) 16:48, September 12, 2016 (UTC)

Khitomer attendees Edit

I like what Gvsualan did with Babel Conference attendees and would now suggest the same be done for aliens who went to the Khitomer Conference. Four and maybe more of those listed here attended it. Maybe also for Federation council members? --LauraCC (talk) 17:15, December 9, 2016 (UTC)

already working on it.--Alan del Beccio (talk) 17:35, December 9, 2016 (UTC)

The former and the latter? Awesome. --LauraCC (talk) 17:36, December 9, 2016 (UTC)

I am not a fan of ripping and splitting off these pages and wish that would have been discussed before. Just my opinion. Tom (talk) 17:44, December 9, 2016 (UTC)

The entries that mention people who weren't in any of these groups still stand. I gather your problem is that many of these people could be one and the same (despite appearing multiple places) but given their alien appearances, who knows? Maybe this page could become Unnamed humanoid species (23rd century) to better reflect that...--LauraCC (talk) 17:50, December 9, 2016 (UTC)

I agree it should have been discussed before, but as it stands I love the idea. -- Capricorn (talk) 07:13, December 10, 2016 (UTC)
It's really no different that what Tom has been doing already with various groupings for years (examples can be provided. This here now is all being done in the same fashion in retrospect. --Alan (talk) 17:51, April 10, 2018 (UTC)