General Edit

I'm not sure about Alfa 177 canine being listed here, it seems better at Animals. I assume this page means intelligent non-humanoid life. Perhaps it should be moved to a better title? Jaf 02:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)Jaf

Well, I was about to remove it agreeing with your argument - but Unnamed non-humanoids (24th century) features non-sentient animals of the evolutionary chain, and I don't see any indication of any of the species on these pages being intelligent (especially the "pumpkin head" thing on this page) so what is the intention of this page? Intelligent only? That should probably be specified. - AJ Halliwell 02:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. Yeah, I think they should either be moved or deleted. If we just list all non-humanoids, I don't see how it will differ from Animals. Jaf 02:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)Jaf

This page, and the 24th century counterpart, were created because their items were being put in unnamed humanoids, where they obviously don't belong. I proposed the creation of these new pages. I am not sure that it needs to be intelligent. Neither page has anything that we can for certain call intelligent, at least not in the same league as other true humanoids we have seen. It can't be simply deleted, or we will loose these creatures. Not all of tghe 24th century ones can be listed in animals, as microbes the microbes are not animals. -- OuroborosCobra talk 02:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

We need to either move these to "Unnamed animals" or move Animals to "Non-humanoids". As for microbes, they have their own page - microbe. Jaf 02:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)Jaf

Microbe lists named microbes, which these are not. I have no problem with creating "unnamed animals", perhaps we should do the same and create "unnamed microbes"? -- OuroborosCobra talk 03:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I think this page started out as "unnamed aliens" and then we changed it to "unnamed humanoids", back late last year, can't exactly remember why, but I guess "alien" would be less problematic then "humanoid" in this case. Another thing, and I might not completely get what you mean with microbes, but there are no microbes on the Unnamed non-humanoids (24th century) page. The image on top is a cell sample and the image on the bottom is a footprint of the same species, so these are images of 5 species, every species being represented by two images each. No need to move those to a microbes page then. ;-) -- Jörg 09:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Nibiran animals Edit

I agree that it should be merged. Really it is just a stub article and I don't see much we can expand it with. --BorgKnight (talk) 08:56, January 8, 2014 (UTC)

[edit conflict] - While this animal is already covered at the target, I figure there might be a reason there is a link to this page on the article for the film. - Archduk3 08:58, January 8, 2014 (UTC)

That's odd consider this article was only created this morning. Why I think it should be merged is either we create an article for each of the unknown animals, which each article will just be a stub, or merge this with the one in Unnamed non-humanoids (23rd century) and keep the rest the same as well. --BorgKnight (talk) 11:28, January 8, 2014 (UTC)

Pretty much. Besides, we see three Nibiran animals during the film's opening. -- 15:21, January 8, 2014 (UTC)
I don't see the point for this article. We already have covered all three Nibiran animals at the right location. Tom (talk) 18:00, January 8, 2014 (UTC)

Nibiran horse Edit

I was trying to add that Alfonso De La Torre posted concept art for the Nibiran gorilla on Facebook revealing it was originally scripted as an alien horse, but for some reason it won't appear in the bginfo template. -- Alientraveller (talk) 12:25, June 16, 2014 (UTC)

Wrap the "=" sign in that link inside template markers, such as {{=}}. -- sulfur (talk) 02:55, June 20, 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Alientraveller (talk) 13:20, June 20, 2014 (UTC)

From Talk:Trelane's alligator Edit

The "alligator" hanging above Spock looks almost like a Gorn... -- Great Bear 18:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge Edit

Okay, I'm thinking these creatures would be a better merge with Unnamed non-humanoids (23rd century). Unlike the Alfa 177 canine, they only have a background role as a wall decoration. -- LauraCC (talk) 16:32, June 20, 2016 (UTC)

Support. Kennelly (talk) 13:08, June 27, 2016 (UTC)
Support. The page isn't even about a single "alligator", it's about two different alligator-like species. --- Capricorn (talk) 19:47, July 4, 2016 (UTC)

Alfa 177 canine nameEdit

Just wondering where this species' page name came from? (like what script). Or does it belong in "unnamed species"? --LauraCC (talk) 19:37, March 1, 2016 (UTC)

It's highly probably that it's a made up name. There's a bunch of those still around, it just used to be the way things were done in the early days, before unnamed species style lists took off. I've been meaning to make a list and put it up on the forum for merge for years now, but somehow I never get around to it. The whole thing is further complicated by the fact that these kinds of entries are as likely to be put on the page of their Earth counterpart as on the unnamed nonhumanoids page.-- Capricorn (talk) 05:05, March 2, 2016 (UTC)

What does the Star Trek Encyclopedia call it? --LauraCC (talk) 15:55, March 2, 2016 (UTC)

My third edition has no entry under either "Alfa 177 canine" or "Canis Alfa", plus checked under Alpha too just in case. Not sure under what else to look, maybe someone can do some clever search magic on at google books or something, iirc they have the encyclopedia. Also checked worlds of the federation since I happened to have it closeby and it might had have info, but alas it does not include Alfa 117. Best bet for a marginally official name would probably be the Star Trek Concordance - which I sadly don't have. I've just noticed that there's a note on the page saying it didn't get a name in the script. so if it's not in the script or episode, that makes it close to certain that there's no canon name. -- Capricorn (talk) 17:20, March 2, 2016 (UTC)

I've added a rename tag. To what, I don't know. --LauraCC (talk) 19:20, March 8, 2016 (UTC)

A merge into unnamed nonhumanoids, maybe? -- Capricorn (talk) 19:35, March 8, 2016 (UTC)

Unnamed non-humanoids (23rd century). I would agree with that. --LauraCC (talk) 19:40, March 8, 2016 (UTC) No objections after over a month. --LauraCC (talk) 16:25, April 22, 2016 (UTC)

I say leave it as it is. If we delete this page, how soon before El-Adrel IV lifeform and Tarchannen III species end up on the chopping block? NetSpiker (talk) 14:12, May 3, 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps we could give it a section of its own under Canine, in the same manner that unnamed individuals has a section for unnamed members of unknown species? --LauraCC (talk) 19:28, May 16, 2016 (UTC)

That has been done in the past, just adding what's clearly a pimped up up real animal in the article on the Earth animals (see for examples the Nimbus "Horse"). Personally I dislike that approach bc 1) it requires a judgement call which animal it mostly resembles, and 2) it makes them hard to discover for someone interested in alien animals. -- Capricorn (talk) 12:56, May 17, 2016 (UTC)
At least in this case, the creature's similarity to a dog is clear from the script, which repeatedly calls it a "dog-like" animal. Nonetheless, I support the earlier suggestion of merging this into an unnamed species page. --Defiant (talk) 13:36, May 17, 2016 (UTC)

We could keep the page name "Alfa 177 canine" as a redirect and also list it in unnamed non-humanoids with a "see ____" link. That way it could be found no matter how you searched for it. --LauraCC (talk) 14:52, May 17, 2016 (UTC)

I think pages like "Unnamed non-humanoids (23rd century)" should be reserved for background aliens only. If a species has a major role in an episode, it should have its own page. NetSpiker (talk) 13:18, May 24, 2016 (UTC)

I see your point, Netspiker. Combine that with its appearance as a head on Trelane's wall (and therefore a second appearance as a unique species). But what do you mean by a major role? A character only mentioned in dialog or seen in the background may have a major role as the motivation for a character's decisions (see here for an example).--LauraCC (talk) 18:11, June 14, 2016 (UTC)

A "major role" means that it is seen in an episode and serves as an important part of the plot. The canine being duplicated was how they realized that the transporter was malfunctioning and its death during re-integration raised the possibility that Kirk might die as well. NetSpiker (talk) 13:32, June 16, 2016 (UTC)

Granted. I no longer think this should be moved to unnamed non-humanoids. Are there any other creatures whose pages have a similar problem as this one? --LauraCC (talk) 14:28, June 17, 2016 (UTC)

The symbiotic lifeform comes to mind as another creature that by this logic ought to be split of, unnamed but the whole episode was centered around it. However I'm not in favor of this cherry picking which unnamed creatures should get their own page or not based on prominence, the idea is much more arbitrary then it might look. The argument for keeping this canine where it is while also keeping the inquisitor where he is seems like rationalization of a preexisting preference rather then strong logic to me. But forget the idea of giving unnamed prominent Cardassians their own name, what about unnamed planets who's role was more then being a setting in an episode? There's plenty of those. Or what about unnamed nonhumanoids sister page of unnamed humanoids: do the members of these get pages if they were featured prominently enough? I think what's proposed here will lead to fragmentisation, it being hard to predict where to find an alien. And with little upside, unnamed humanoids is a perfectly good destination for this little critter. -- Capricorn (talk) 22:20, June 17, 2016 (UTC)


Is it too soon to split this page by prime and alternate realities? --LauraCC (talk) 19:30, September 7, 2016 (UTC)

Organian goat merge Edit

Since we don't know what the Organians called these creatures, merge them as Alfa 177 canine has been. --LauraCC (talk) 18:16, November 15, 2016 (UTC)


CHEKOV: Sir, some creatures can generate and control energy with no harm to themselves. The electric eel on Earth, the giant dry worm of Antos Four, the fluffy-

Would the "fluffy-whatever Chekov was going to say" go here, or at fluffy? Unlike the Sisko's mystery sliced food, "fluffy" would appear to be a part of its name as an adjective. --LauraCC (talk) 20:15, November 18, 2016 (UTC)

I'm unsure. It's not mentioned in the script. --Defiant (talk) 20:32, November 18, 2016 (UTC)

Koenig improvised? --LauraCC (talk) 20:33, November 18, 2016 (UTC)

No way to know for sure, but that might be. --Defiant (talk) 20:42, November 18, 2016 (UTC)

Like he'd remember that if we asked him. But whatever it was, it was Russian. ;) Now, what to do with it? --LauraCC (talk) 20:44, November 18, 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, it should be put here, the logical header being "Fluffy creature". The fact that we have part of a name doesn't change the fact that we don't know its name. Think of it this way; if Chekov stopped at "Flu-...", it would be absurd to have an article called "Flu-". -- Capricorn (talk) 01:34, November 19, 2016 (UTC)