Grand ProxyEdit

Does the Grand Proxy really count as another Ethan Phillips role? Surely he is in fact still playing the role of Neelix, just in somewhat different make-up. Am I wrong? --Jayunderscorezero 23:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC) Well, nobody responded, so I went ahead and deleted it. I stand by my initial assertion that the Grand Proxy was not a character played by Phillips. He was, in a sense, a character played by Neelix who was in turn played by Phillips, which is too indirect for a mention here, really. --Jayunderscorezero 23:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I hereby voice my support for these actions; Phillips played Neelix, even though he wore a Ferengi costume. This is easily evidenced by the fact that Neelix's performance was in the end unable to convince the two Ferengi. --Fraek 10:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
If "Neelix-as-Ferengi" is removed, then shouldn't the "Neelix-as-Klingon" be removed under the same conditions? I'm not sure. I understand why they're they're, and why they're not.--Tim Thomason 17:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I would say because it wasn't a separate character but the same character playing someone else. As for the Klingon Neelix it's a separate character because it wasn't Neelix playing it but the holodeck using Neelix to play that character...not sure if this makes sense to anyone else... :) — Morder 17:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
If Neelix as the Grand Proxy does not count, then you cannot acknowledge all of the holographic representations of Neelix. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).
Neelix didn't play a holographic character. — Morder 19:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
The Grand Proxy impersonation by Neelix does not count, because that is not a seperate role. That's Ethan Phillips playing Neelix playing a Ferengi. If we ever saw a hologram of Neelix(sounds familiar, but I can't place it) that is a seperate role, because Neelix cannot impersonate a hologram.--31dot 19:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
There was the episode with the holographic maquis story of them taking over the ship. — Morder 19:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

There is precedent for acknowledging Neelix posing as the Grand Proxy & it being credited here. 0n the page for Rene Auberjonois, you show Commander West and Klingon assassin. They were not separate characters. The Klingon assassin was West in disguise. So, if you people are going to count West and the assassin as separate roles, then Neelix posing as the Grand Proxy has earned a place here. Now if you will excuse me, I am going to restore the image.

Precedent doesn't mean it's right. There are lots of speculation still on pages but that doesn't mean we don't get rid of them when we see it. — Morder 18:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
In addition, as you were told at Talk:Tony Todd, your precedence does not even exist. The assassin has not gotten a separate picture on that page in months. --OuroborosCobra talk 03:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

11 Neelixes Edit

This may be a crazy question, and I'm sure someone will complain that it's not the right place to ask it, but why is it necessary to list 10 "other" characters that are all clearly Neelix, and all pretty conclusively covered by saying "Ethan Phillips played Neelix in all episodes of Voyager"?-- 03:09, November 6, 2010 (UTC)

It is the right place to ask, since the question deals with an aspect of the article itself.
To answer, the other appearances are not Neelix, they are either holograms of Neelix or recreations of Neelix. That is not the same thing as portraying Neelix himself. We do this quite consistently throughout the site with other characters. --31dot 08:38, November 6, 2010 (UTC)
But it's still the same actor wearing the same makeup, and in most cases, still referred to by the same name. In some instances, it's a pretty big exaggeration to say it's another character. In The Killing Game, it's still Neelix, just in funny clothes and with altered memories. It's the same thing with Cathexis. Being possessed by a spirit for a grand total of 30 seconds isn't really the same thing as not being Neelix for 30 seconds. Also, it's kinda redundant to count each time Neelix appears on the holodeck as separate character. In most cases, it's the same holodeck and the same computer running the simulation. It's as much the same character as every appearance of the Doctor is. Besides, the way I see it, the holodeck is fiction within fiction. It's still an actor playing a character, and the character is still Neelix. I really don't think anyone is going to need this article to find out if the same actor played Neelix and "hologram Neelix".
I know it's done all over the wiki, and it's just as annoying everywhere else.-- 22:53, November 7, 2010 (UTC)
Just for the sake of breaking with consensus here, I agree with the anon. I've always found it weird that we classify holographic versions of a character as "different" characters. To me, that would be the same as classifying a photograph of Neelix as a new character, Neelix (photograph). Anyway, that's what I think. -Angry Future Romulan 22:58, November 7, 2010 (UTC)
I have to agree with anon and Blair too on classifying holograms of the characters as being different characters altogether. – Distantlycharmed 00:07, November 8, 2010 (UTC)
For the sake of argument, this has been brought up before, with no clear outcome and no changes made, but I remain convinced this is a stupid thing to do without showing other characters as well. Brent Spiner and the rest of the TNG and DS9 cast members get shafted on the number of roles/characters/what-have-you they played while the Voyager cast members get more because the writers just kept going back to the holodeck. - Archduk3 00:50, November 8, 2010 (UTC)
We could condense all "hologram of a character" appearances into one listing on the actor's page, citing each episode in which they did so- if we want to go that route. That's kinda what we did with "X (hologram)" articles instead of having a seperate article for them. Or, if we don't, then we should be fairer about it and do it with everyone.--31dot 02:16, November 8, 2010 (UTC)
Well ok since we dont have a separate page for each hologram (like Neelix hologram 1, neelix hologram 2 etc) i dont really see what the issue is - practically. So what if we have 10 pictures of Neelix on the actor's page depicting all his holographic appearances? It is a little annoying but since it is there, why not keep it? It would be a different issue if now all of a sudden we started making separate pages for each hologram or mentioned in an article that this character had 12 holograms doing this and that. – Distantlycharmed 03:31, November 8, 2010 (UTC)
For what little it's worth, I agree that listing every holographic recreation, alternate persona and possession by another character as a different character seems excessive and over-literal. But I take Distantlycharmed's "what harm does it do" point as well. Perhaps we could separate the genuinely different characters (in this case, Farek, the maitre d' and Ulis) out from the "Neelix variants", and place the Neelix variants in a separate, collapsible table? That would ensure that the information isn't lost, but it would also distinguish real appearances by Ethan Phillips as different characters (in different Trek series) from holographic duplicates and the like, which would always just have been credited as "Neelix" in the real world. —Josiah Rowe 03:47, November 8, 2010 (UTC)
Frankly I never felt it was necessary to post each individual hologram. Other characters, sure, but holograms? Unless the hologram had a meaningful role such the holoprogram from the episode where seska edited tuvok's program. A list of holograms would probably better suffice. Though I do agree with the "why not?" attitude as it's not like it's a waste of space or anything. — Morder (talk) 05:48, November 8, 2010 (UTC)
But it is a waste of space on the page. It makes it harder for people like me who just come here every now and then to look up some random Star Trek fact, when we have to scroll through so much extra junk to find what we're looking for. Sometimes it's just mildly annoying, but sometimes it's so excessive that I give up without finding what I was looking for, because I don't feel like spending 30 minutes reading an article for an answer to a question that I won't care about 5 minutes later. That's the harm it does.-- 06:21, November 8, 2010 (UTC)
I like the idea of collapsible lists for "Neelix Variants" and "Other Characters".-- 06:26, November 8, 2010 (UTC)
The pictures you are questioning are at the bottom of the article, so you wouldn't be scrolling past them to find information. Also keep in mind that it is our mission to "create the most definitive, accurate, and accessible encyclopedia and reference for everything related to Star Trek", which means that there will be a lot of information. I think in this case it is a matter of organizing that information correctly, not whether or not to have it.--31dot 10:39, November 8, 2010 (UTC)
To quote myself from the Forum: page that has been linked to: "I think the question that should be asked instead is "do we become more informative by doing it that way?" And, in my opinion, we most often don't." That's still my position. Even if playing a hologram of Neelix is different from playing Neelix actual (something which I'm still not convinced of) - the gallery is (probably first and foremost) supposed to show how the actor has looked in the different roles he has played. If at least 8 of the "other roles" look exactly like the main role (giving "Klingon warrior" and "Kyrian recreation" the benefit of the doubt more than they probably deserve), then having all those images there does not make the article more informative, but less (because the few roles where the actor did look different get lost among those where he didn't). -- Cid Highwind 13:54, November 8, 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Cid. It gets to a point where we're clogging up the page with different pictures of the character where he essentially looks exactly the same. I gotta ask, what's the point? -Angry Future Romulan 16:12, November 8, 2010 (UTC)
Well Blair that's because we view the hologram as a different person/entity as the actual character - which I think is nonsense. Your photography example from above actually convinced me. – Distantlycharmed 16:32, November 8, 2010 (UTC)
I started this discussion because I was watching ENT: "Acquisition" and I wanted to see if it was Ethan Phillips playing the Ferengi (I thought it was, but I wasn't completely sure). So when I came here, it was the very section that I meant to look at that was cluttered. So it didn't matter that it was at the bottom of the page. Granted it only took me about an extra 5 seconds to find what I was looking for, but it really shouldn't have taken more than one second once I scrolled to the correct section. It was 5 seconds of pure frustration.
Also, I want to point out that, all other arguments aside, "French Resistance Fighter" and "Klingon Warior" REALLY don't count because there's nothing in that episode to suggest it's a different character. His memories are altered, but that happens all the time in Star Trek. It's still the same version of Neelix.-- 23:11, November 17, 2010 (UTC)
I'm all in favor of condensing down the hologram references- but has our society become so used to instant gratification that we allow ourselves to be frustrated over a five second search?
The Klingon and the Resistance fighter are different characters- they were part of the program, not altered memories.31dot 23:15, November 17, 2010 (UTC)
No, the Klingon warrior and French Resistance fighter were both altered Neelix direct, only with altered memories. --OuroborosCobra talk 03:47, November 18, 2010 (UTC)
To quote "The Killing Game": "Each crewmember has been fitted with a neural interface that makes them believe they actually are the character in the holodeck program".
To quote neural interface, the device used: "When the Hirogen took over the USS Voyager in 2374, they installed neural interfaces, essentially subdermal transmitters, into the crew. Located at the back of the skull, the interface linked the subject's neocortex with the holodeck, suppressing their personalities and making them believe that they were part of the Hirogen's violent holoprograms."
It isn't just altered memories, the holodeck took them over and forced them to act out a part of the program. Altered memories suggests that they still were themselves, which they were not until the devices were deactivated.--31dot 11:06, November 18, 2010 (UTC)
That's semantics. The point I'm trying to make is that, contrary to your statement of them "not being Neelix, only part of the program," they both are physically Neelix. That's Neelix body, just reprogrammed. Whether you call it "altered memories" or "reprogrammed" doesn't make much difference, Ethan Phillips was still playing Neelix, not someone else. --OuroborosCobra talk 17:54, November 18, 2010 (UTC)
It's not semantics, it's very different. It wasn't Neelix with altered memories, it was some holographic program which was not Neelix in any form other than his body. If I take you and put an implant in you to give you George Bush's personality, are you still you? If I take you and simply give you George Bush's memories, then you are still you- but not if you are no longer in control. That's all I can say.--31dot 18:26, November 18, 2010 (UTC)
If you take an implant and put Bush's personality in me, I am still physically me. I do not become physically George Bush. Considering you happily accepted brainwashing, rather than "implant and no longer being Seven of Nine" before, I find your completely new position for entirely the same position to make no sense. Ethan Philips was playing Neelix. The character of Neelix may have had an implant in his head, but the actor was still playing Neelix, just one with an implant. Some episodes he played Neelix with different colored shirts, too. --OuroborosCobra talk 22:15, November 18, 2010 (UTC)
The parts of Morder and Archduk3 will be played tonight by 31dot and OuroborosCobra. This really is the same discussion I linked to before now, so I'll stand by what I said there: If the character has a different character then they should be considered a different character. - Archduk3 22:26, November 18, 2010 (UTC)
I think a nice rule-o-thumb might be that if it is distinct enough to have its own MA article (or spot on an unnamed X page) then it is distinct enough. --bp 22:31, November 18, 2010 (UTC)
Something neither of of the "implanted Neelix" Hirogen examples have. --OuroborosCobra talk 22:48, November 18, 2010 (UTC)
Yes, she wasn't physically a hologram(what I was referring to, not particularly happy at the time, but whatever), but she was mentally. It wasn't Seven playing de Neuf(like someone in a play), it was the computer program- just as it was not Neelix playing a Klingon, it was the computer. If there was a conscious choice for a character to act out a certain role, that is very different than being controlled.
Have we considered listing roles based on scripts? Maybe based on how dialog is assigned?(certainly not based on shirt color)--31dot 23:08, November 18, 2010 (UTC)
My suggestion, for a rule of thumb about a character being distinct enough if it has an article, doesn't take into account Category:Aliases. So, forget what I said and continue with your recursive discussion about what the definition of is is. --bp 01:10, November 20, 2010 (UTC)
I think the most important thing to consider is "Why are we doing this?" Is this site supposed to be an informative reference guide for people who want to learn more about Star Trek, or is it meant to show off our nerdiness at how far we can take "being specific"? Do any of you honestly think anyone is ever going to need this article to know if Ethan Phillips played "Chakotay (posessing Neelix)" or "Neelix (hologram)"? If not, is there really a practical reason to include it?-- 20:50, December 4, 2010 (UTC)
I think the best way to please both sides is separate categories for "Other Characters" and "Neelix Variations", and have both sides be collapsible. That way it's there for the people who want it, and it's not in the way for the people who don't. And the Neelix Variations category can include everything from "Neelix Hologram #27" to "Neelix wearing a blue hat" and "Neelix on a thursday".-- 20:50, December 4, 2010 (UTC)


The image of Ethan Phillips as Neelix hologram from "Tinker Tenor Doctor Spy" is barely recognizable. Is there any other image from that episode that can actually be seen without squinting? The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jared Paul Baratta (talk • contribs).

Sadly, no. -- sulfur 01:25, January 3, 2011 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-NC unless otherwise noted.