FA status Edit

FA nomination (08 Nov - 15 Nov 2011, Failed) Edit

The article is well written and thoroughly covers the Worf of the TOS generation. I don't believe there is any other information that could be added, so I think it should be a FA. - Archduk3 06:23, November 8, 2011 (UTC)

  • Support - I think this is a nice article which concisely covers what we know about the character, in canon, background and apocrypha. –Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 07:48, November 8, 2011 (UTC)
  • Not an oppose, but after first reading I was a little confused by some of the wording in the Apocrypha section. It should be made more clear whether each "Worf" mentioned there means TOS-Worf or TNG-Worf, either by prefixing with "the younger/older" where necessary, or by other forms of rephrasing. -- Cid Highwind 10:42, November 8, 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully my last edit cleared any confusion up. - Archduk3 11:13, November 8, 2011 (UTC)

  • Support. Nicely done indeed. --31dot 11:17, November 8, 2011 (UTC)
Good job, overall. The last note in the bg info section could still do with the addition of a page number, though. --Defiant 12:35, November 8, 2011 (UTC)
I'm also wondering if that's the best image we can obtain of him. --Defiant 14:21, November 8, 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, nice terse piece...took the liberty to add a quote and source...--Sennim 15:37, November 8, 2011 (UTC)
I'm now thinking some (at the least) of the text in the fourth paragraph (the one that currently starts, "On the opportunity to play a role in the film[...]") should be edited out, as it seems much more relevant to the actor page(s) than this character one. I'd also like to suggest some more script info be added – i.e., changed premises between the character as written in the screenplay and as shown on-screen – as well as (possibly) a better picture. --Defiant 17:17, November 8, 2011 (UTC)

If there's more info to add, or a better image, we should add it. I could go either way with the bg info in question as well, as it's ostensibly about the actor while playing the character, though I think it adds some depth to the other statements about being able to play the role. - Archduk3 23:39, November 8, 2011 (UTC)

I'm currently very enthusiastic about the sense of community in editing this article – very good stuff! :) I'll try and add some more script info (if no-one else gets to it first). --Defiant 23:44, November 8, 2011 (UTC)
Checked the specials on the special edition DVD, while there was no additional info, there were some nice behind-the-scenes stills, which are duly added :)...While I see Defiant´s point concerning the BGinfo bit, the reason why I added it was that my personal feelings are that it indeed adds some depth, as Dorn´s remarks were specifically made while playing the role, but I´m also fine either way...Sennim 13:17, November 9, 2011 (UTC)
  • I find that quite funny as, obviously, Dorn's comments were made after-the-fact – they're in the past tense and he likely would have had a hard time saying them while his mouth was full of the character's lines of dialog (i.e., while he actually was "playing the part"). For the time being, I've decided to oppose this article. Not only does it need some more work, but there's clearly also an issue of stability. I also have problems with the new images Sennim's now added to the bg info, as I was under the impression that publicity stills were disallowed, and the shot of Dorn on the set doesn't seem to add anything substantial – it's just a picture of him in costume and makeup, the exact same thing that can be seen in the episode. It's a promising start, though, and I believe the article has a lot of potential. --Defiant 13:32, November 9, 2011 (UTC)

I would agree that stability has become an issue, so on those grounds alone this really isn't going to pass muster right now. That said, I would rather leave it here for the rest of time allowed before starting the PR, since hopefully we can get whatever work this needs done before it looses the spotlight as it were.

Publicity photos for the sake of publicity photos are discouraged, but they aren't flatly disallowed as far as I know. There might be a case for the image elsewhere, it is a nice shot of the script on the glove, but it does seem to just be another shot of Worf as far as this article is concerned. That said, it was suggested that a better image of Worf might be needed, which could be a reason to keep it. - Archduk3 14:05, November 9, 2011 (UTC)

I'm curious, that publicity stills are not allowed in the in-universe POV section makes sense, is the discouragement policy also applicable for the production POV sections?--Sennim 14:17, November 9, 2011 (UTC)
The problem with publicity stills is that a) they are, strictly speaking, not canon and b) often of inferior quality because they are scans of prints (which seems to be the case here, too). That doesn't mean they must not be used at all, though - I think the current use in a background section is definitely possible, it just shouldn't be put in the main content (including sidebar). -- Cid Highwind 14:20, November 9, 2011 (UTC)
I realized that, so that's exactly why I put it there:)...Sennim 14:25, November 9, 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Archduk – that, in this case, the publicity still doesn't seem to really add anything substantial to the article. This is currently the same problem with the picture of Dorn just standing on the set, though this could be given more context by possibly stating that Dorn did not wear his ceremonial cloak costume-piece for the Camp Khitomer scenes. --Defiant 14:29, November 9, 2011 (UTC)
I've now uploaded a new image for the sidebar. The design of his cranial ridges are hard to make out, though, so perhaps the publicity still could still be kept for that reason. --Defiant 15:05, November 9, 2011 (UTC)
I think that new version is worse than the one we had before. It's smaller, slightly fuzzy and has not enough contrast. -- Cid Highwind 15:11, November 9, 2011 (UTC)
I agree it's worse in those aspects, but it seems to be the best view of him in the film. Unlike the last version, his mouth isn't contorted, the image doesn't cut off a portion of his head and there's nothing extraneous in the background. I also like that it shows him square-on, with a good view of the Klingonese lettering on his costume. There may be a more agreeable image, but the last version clearly had to go. --Defiant 15:18, November 9, 2011 (UTC)
It should be noted, too, that the last version was also a bit fuzzy. --Defiant 15:22, November 9, 2011 (UTC)
I think it's either between that shot (the one from which originates the image I've uploaded) or the one where he says, "Captain Kirk has not been identified as the assassin." --Defiant 15:29, November 9, 2011 (UTC)

There really isn't a "good" shot of Worf in canon except this one, since he's either in the middle of saying something of off to the side in the shot. I've upped the quality, which should take care of the fuzziness. There really isn't anything that can be done about the rest though. - Archduk3 15:45, November 9, 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Archduk. I do agree that there are no spectacular shots of him in the movie, with the new version being about the best available. --Defiant 16:04, November 9, 2011 (UTC)
I don't think the comments about Dorn's love of TOS and TNG were relevant enough to warrant quotes (the comments were certainly not directly relevant), and neither were his remarks on Christopher Plummer and Rosana DeSoto. I've therefore tried to summarize these parts, while also attempting to make that paragraph more relevant to the character Dorn played. The removed quotes can be added to the relevant pages, giving optional context, rather than providing that context in such an inappropriate manner. --Defiant 11:45, November 11, 2011 (UTC)

FA nomination (01 Dec - 16 Dec 2011, Success) Edit

A well written article that thoroughly covers the Worf of the TOS generation, and one I still think should be a FA. - Archduk3 19:12, December 1, 2011 (UTC)

Support, as I did before.--31dot 21:38, December 1, 2011 (UTC)
Support, as did I.--Sennim 06:02, December 2, 2011 (UTC)
Support, as I. –Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 07:37, December 2, 2011 (UTC)
Support, now that the previously omitted bg info has been added and that the article has been cleaned up a bit more. --Defiant 12:31, December 2, 2011 (UTC)
Supprt. Tom 17:10, December 2, 2011 (UTC)

Worf, grandfather of WorfEdit

What exactly was established on-screen about Col. Worf's relationship to Mogh and Worf of TNG and DS9? I know that the filmmakers' intention was that Col. Worf was his namesake's grandfather (confirmed in numerous interviews), but did we ever get any on-screen confirmation of this? Was Mogh ever called "Mogh, son of Worf"? Do we know, for example, that the Colonel wasn't the maternal grandfather of the Starfleet Worf?

(Personally, I'm sure that the Colonel is the father of Mogh, but I'm wondering whether that's ever been canonically established, or if it's just taken from behind-the-scenes info — in which case, the fact probably ought to be noted on the page.) --Josiah Rowe 16:02, 24 Feb 2005 (GMT)

He was referred to as Worf but no relationship was established. The fact that he may be Worf's grandfather should be in italics at the bottom of the page-Rebelstrike2005 16:16, 24 Feb 2005 (GMT)

OK. --Josiah Rowe 18:45, 24 Feb 2005 (GMT)

Redux — can we improve the citation?Edit

It's five years later, and MA is getting a bit more strict about citations. I'm sure that the "numerous interviews" I mentioned above exist, but at the moment all I can find is the Star Trek Encyclopedia, which says that "publicity materials for Star Trek VI (and the evidence of the character name and the actor) suggest that Colonel Worf was the grandfather of Enterprise-D security officer Worf, and the father of Mogh." Does anyone know of a more specific reference, perhaps an interview with Dorn or Nimoy? —Josiah Rowe 14:54, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

Never mind — I found a YouTube video in which Dorn, talking about being cast in Star Trek VI, says (about himself) "you're playing your grandfather". That's good enough for me. —Josiah Rowe 15:45, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia reference by itself would have sufficed if the "numerous interviews" couldn't be found. Getting a bit more strict on citations is more about having any citation at all for the masses of uncited stuff over the years rather than getting multiple citations. Generally, the Encyclopedia is considered an authoritative source for these matters.– Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 08:25, August 26, 2010 (UTC)
For the record, there's also a detailed discussion about Colonel Worf and the filmakers intentions in Captains' Logs: The Unauthorized Complete Trek Voyages, p. 143. This includes a quote from co-writer Denny Martin Flinn.– Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 08:30, August 26, 2010 (UTC)
Which I decided to add since I thought the thought process was somewhat amusing. :-p– Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 08:42, August 26, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks — that is interesting. —Josiah Rowe 01:30, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

Warf Undiscovered country (from reference deskEdit

What's the deal with Warf appearing in the courtroom, is this a relative, a younger warf from TNG or a mistake in the time-line?

It's commonly believed that Colonel Worf was Worf's grandfather. It says so on Colonel Worf's page.--Tim Thomason 22:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

what happened to Warfs great grandfather? Edit


First, please do not type in all caps as it represents shouting. Very annoying. Second, it is Worf, not Warf. And third, I have no idea what you're talking about, as the only movie I've seen has a Starfleet officer (the commander-in-chief, I think?) pulling off the fake mask. It's possible, though, that it was Col. Worf who pulled off the mask in the theatrical version, but was changed for the home video release to accomodate Colonel West's restored scenes. --Shran 13:44, 9 Aug 2005 (UTC)

This Worf's look Edit

Interestingly, his look is something in-between the TOS human-like Klingons and "modern look" Klingons (flat, but ridged forehead and visible ears). After "Enterprise", it could be said he has Klingon Augment heritage... --Sybok 01:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Or Nicholas Myer wanted a more sophisticated look to the Klingons to go with their more sophisticated behaviour in this movie. The Klingons in this movie are definitely not the pointlessly aggressive one-note warrior race idiots seen in most Star Trek productions. --FFN 19:40, September 23, 2009 (UTC)

Citation needed Edit

The following note has lacked a citation for two years now:

  • Initially Spock was to make a reference to Colonel Worf being Worf's grandfather in the episode "Unification I"; however, for one reason or another, it never came to be.

Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 09:26, February 15, 2011 (UTC)

DC Comics Alternate TimelineEdit

In the 1990s DC Comics Star Trek series a multi-part story arc includes Colonel Worf as a member of the crew of Enterprise in an alternate timeline. This was the result of a (backfired) Romulan time-travel plot, in which the Romulans altered the fates of two key figures in Klingon history: the assassination of a philosophical peacemaker was prevented and a later dictator was assassinated when he originally lived. As a result, the Klingons developed into a peaceful, Federation-esque society and built close ties with the Federation itself. The Romulans then intended to take advantage of the "weak" peace-loving nature of their neighbors, but in the following war were actually exterminated THEMSELVES (except for the time-traveling crew that altered the timeline in the first place).

Worf (now a Lieutenant in Starfleet) is a major part of the efforts to set the timeline right through the Guardian of Forever by providing both his expertise on Klingon culture, and by being the one who takes on assassinating the Peacemaker when the crew fails to prevent the deaths of the historical assassins. After the rightful timeline is restored, Worf remembers that he is a defense attorney (specializing in impossible cases) and leaves Enterprise aboard Kor's ship. The implication made at the end of the arc is that one reason Worf takes Kirk and McCoy's case in Star Trek VI is because he still remembers the alternate history and his friendship with the crew while serving aboard Enterprise (due to the influence of the Guardian).

Should this have mention in the article under Apocrypha (as occurs with other events taken from the comics and novels)? The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

You could add a brief mention here. But if you want to go into detail, Memory Beta would be a better place.–Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 23:37, February 19, 2011 (UTC)

Peer review Edit

Comments for this article would be much appreciated. --Defiant 19:31, November 15, 2011 (UTC)