Talk: Guardian of Forever

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Guardian of Forever article. For general discussion, go to Memory Alpha's Discussions or Discord. Click here to start a new discussion on this talk page. Consider enabling EasyTalk to improve the usability of talk pages.

Garbage[]

Didn't I read somewhere in the database Q told people it was intended as a waste-disposal? -- Redge | Talk 18:12, 13 Aug 2004 (CEST)

The Original Story[]

Years ago read published version of script as it was written before changes. Could have been great episode. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.53.145.129

It is a great episode. :P --Vedek Dukat ^{Talk | Duty Roster} 01:49, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)

It's weird is what it is. You'd think if it were so powerful and intelligent, the Federation would have at least surveyed it. 129.21.42.94 18:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

In the novel Imzadi, it was written that the Federation had placed the strongest force-fields known to exist to their science around the Guardian, to protect existence from itself...since most of the scientists and personnel involved were convinced that The Guardian "Itself" would be impervious to all weapons wielded by paltry mortals and immortals alike. --ChrisK 07:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Inert defn.[]

It was just one word, but think about this. Inert means 'harmless', unable to effect change. How is the Guardian inert, and not self-aware? --Sheliakcorp ^talk 03:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Inert means unable to move or act. In this case, the Guardian is indeed inert. The article already stated earlier that the Guardian is seemingly sentient. --From Andoria with Love 03:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Pics not seen in the guardian[]

These images are in the section "Images seen through the Guardian of Forever", but with the note "recorded on Spock's tricorder" in an HTML comment. Shuld they be removed from that section?

images removed

--Bp 09:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The basic images were still seen through the Guardian (I don't think we saw them though). They're from Spock's recordings of the Guardians images. I think they should stay, perhaps with an italicized note instead of a hidden one.--Tim Thomason 17:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

They must have been visible in the guardian, at least indirectly, so we might as well keep them in the list. HTML comments don't help anyone, though, so eventually change that to a visible comment as suggested by Tim. -- Cid Highwind 17:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

YesterYear[]

"YesterYear" is part of the animated series and thus, not part of the official Trek canon and should be listed in the Apocrypha section. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.221.161.135

While we don't set the official canon, Memory Alpha treats TAS as a "valid resource", a category which also includes the live action series and films. This means the information is properly placed in the in-universe section of the article. See Memory Alpha:Content policy and the Content policy FAQ.–Cleanse ^{( talk | contribs )} 01:52, December 8, 2011 (UTC)

Gender? He/Him/Himself OR It/Its/Itself?[]

While the Guardian had taken on the form of "Carl" which was a male, it does describe itself as a "time portal" which would imply it is not gender specific and therefore we should use the pronouns: it/its/itself. Thoughts? Vyrsace (talk) 22:39, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

It chose a male persona and appearance, so a duck is a duck. - Archduk 3 17:00, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Although it chose a male persona in this moment, it might not choose one in other events or consistently. To be more determinate on male or any other gender as its choice, it would be prudent to wait for more examples to occur. Vyrsace (talk) 22:39, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

no. Facts are based on conditional statements, not what might or might not be addressed later. It is what it is until it isn't. Period. –Gvsualan (talk) 23:39, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

[edit conflict] - No, it wouldn't.

Carl is Carl, and just because you're here with an agenda masquerading as a question doesn't mean the people who made this episode didn't know what they were doing, or that the readers of this article can't draw their own conclusions regardless of whatever pronouns are used. If other people want to perform the mental gymnastics necessary to get to your particular POV, they don't need our help. In hiring male actors a half century apart, giving that character a "male" alias, and choosing "male" period clothing and mannerisms in the performance, I'm certain that we are suppose to, at the very least, think of Carl as a man.

That said, if we're going to waste time on solution-less mental exercises, have you considered that as both a being and machine, while also being both not a being and not a machine, and as its own beginning and end, the Guardian might not give a shit about fragile 21st century ideas about identity and gender. Since the Guardian was around before the sun, maybe ~5 billion years have lead to an understanding that a strong five minute set is more important than people's assumptions about your genitals or your preferred sexual partner, if you're even into that sort of thing. - Archduk 3 00:04, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, the Guardian identified itself as a "time portal". That is the only stated fact as no other pronouns were used by any party within the transcript. After a search of "time" and "portal" on Google and Dictionary.com there is no definitive masculine or feminine connotation of either word or the phrase "time portal". Therefore, it would be prudent to designate it as "it/its/itself" as it is an object or genderless entity. It is true that it does present itself as Carl, that may simply be a projection. We can say "Carl" is a male projection but we can't say Guardian of Forever is in fact "male". Also, male and female are Human genders and we know, as a stated fact, that the Guardian of Forever comes from another planet from another species long forgotten, so to assume "male" for the Guardian without evidence is naive at best. Vyrsace (talk) 19:55, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Look, it's a simple question about necessary pronoun use in an encyclopedia. While you might get incited by the idea of a preference one way or the other, I didn't imply nor suggest a preference, rather a consideration based on what I've observed. To be clear, this isn't a discussion of whether a male stated character could/should be another gender. It's a question of whether there is a gender at all for an object that some may believe is a machine.

Should the question be: Do machines gets genders? What happens if you Siri on your iPhone has a female avatar, does that mean yours and all other iPhones are female? then do we refer all iPhones with female pronouns? ("ex: I heard you're selling your iPhone, I'm interested in buying her") Does that apply to all smartphones? What happens if some people have female avatars for Siri and some have males? What pronouns do we use then?

If the Guardian identified as only a "time portal" but Michael Burnham referred to the Guardian as a "he" then the suggestion would be inherent within the transcript and we would be inclined to identify the Guardian as a male, but we know this isn't the case. The only reason why it's a "conflict" at all is when editing/reading the article and believing if its factually correct or not based on simple commonly accepted principles and conventions. To be fair, if you feel this is too controversial and sensitive for you then neutral wording and phrasing is by far the better choice as its less partisan and intrusive.Vyrsace (talk) 20:16, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Also, I agree with you that Carl is male. Whether he is Human, a projection, another race, etc. is unknown.

Using another comparison within the ST universe, TNG's Q is a male character/projection acted by a male actor but Q specifically states to Picard and others in various episodes that 'he' could have been a woman or anything else, do we still refer to Q as a he based on the projection of a male even though it clearly says that it can be anything/everything including other genders? I would answer this with a no, Q is an entity with the pronoun of it/its/itself. Vyrsace (talk) 20:47, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

That's a lot of words for "I don't understand what "a duck is a duck" or "call a spade a spade" means". Data is a male machine. People refer to Siri as female all the time, but maybe you don't know she isn't the hardware. We do use male pronouns for Q all the time, and we are correct for doing so, because while Q may not have a gender, or could be any gender, he is pretty consistent with choosing the same one, and, let me know if you're already heard this one, but a duck is a spade. Also, there is that one time Q was Human and totally was a man, and I don't mean that in the genderless version of the word. If you actually have an issue with this article, get to the point, because right now we all agree the part of the article that hasn't even been merged in yet is male for all intents and purposes. - Archduk 3 16:14, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Carl, Merge[]

Just chipping in to say that IMO, this page should be merged with Guardian of Forever.MadeIndescribable (talk) 18:58, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree, I had come here to make the suggestion. 31dot (talk) 20:35, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Is Carl an alias for the Guardian of Forever? If yes, we have a precedent of having separated pages for the actual person and for their alias, for example, James T. Kirk and Baroner.Memphis77 (talk) 22:30, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

It appears to be a "personification" of the GoF rather than an alias. Something of a familiar way to present itself to B+G to give them a beter ability to comprehend/etc. -- Sulfur (talk) 22:35, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I am considering the history of the GoF, how it was abused during the Temporal War and that it moved itself to a planet distant from its original location. It appears to me that it is concealing itself from further abuse, with concealment being one of the reasons given for assuming an alias.Memphis77 (talk) 00:02, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I'ma just gonna lob this from left field, but this name can just an alias redirect to it's self, or (and although unorthodox for MA) we have two sidebars for it; wikipedia does that for people who have multiple "roles", like Arnold the Governor and Arnold the Bodybuilder in their respective sections of the same article. –Gvsualan (talk) 01:35, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

By the looks of it (and I'll admit I haven't seen that episode), Baroner was an alias played by two people, not just Kirk? So it would need a separate page as you couldn't put info regarding someone else on Kirk's page? Even so, I'd still agree with personification rather than alias anyway.MadeIndescribable (talk) 12:25, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Merged. –Gvsualan (talk) 13:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)