FA status Edit

Nomination (25 May - 26 June 2017, Success) Edit

I've personally tried to put a lot of effort into upgrading this article, and I do believe it now fits the featured article criteria. --Defiant (talk) 22:01, May 25, 2017 (UTC)

  • Browsed this and it seems fairly well put together. I just wondered why the section title "service record"? That seems more befitting a character who appears multiple times (like Kirk or Spock, for whom we have multiple acts of service as opposed to one continuing story one time. Maybe that's just me, but I support this otherwise. --LauraCC (talk) 15:08, May 30, 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. It's an in-universe section heading, so (imo, at least) it works well from an in-universe perspective. If you or anyone else can think up a heading that might be better, though, that'd be cool too (I'm all ears, in other words!) --Defiant (talk) 15:12, May 30, 2017 (UTC)

I'd say the main body of in-universe info definitely needs to retain an overall section heading; that's been the usual format up to now, and I think it's less confusing, at least at first glance, for the reader. Subheadings are fine, imo, as long as an overall heading is kept. As I said, if that's not to be "service record" (which I personally don't have a problem with), please suggest an alternative. As an aside, is the subheading "Humano a Klingono" maybe a bit too humorous? --Defiant (talk) 15:59, May 30, 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps. It was a toss-up between that and "The final confrontation". --LauraCC (talk) 16:01, May 30, 2017 (UTC)

I like that one; thanks. :) --Defiant (talk) 16:44, May 30, 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome. --LauraCC (talk) 20:30, June 2, 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Fine job, as usual with Defiant. Had also some issues with lack of (sub-)headings, but that is largely addressed now. Two minor cosmetic issues remaining for me: think the Kruge puppet section as a visual (not special, as there is no interaction with life performers) effects element warrants its own heading (as well as some paragraphing to somewhat break up the fairly large, in comparison to the rest, chunk of text), and I think the "merchandise" section deserves a level up instead of being subordinated under "trivia" (perhaps even a listing above "trivia"), but are otherwise no deal breakers in themselves...--Sennim (talk) 16:44, June 3, 2017 (UTC)

Sorted those issues. Great observations, so thank you. :) The only problem I'd have with what you suggested was that I really don't want to move the placement of the merch subsection; imo, it's absolutely fine where it is, just above the "apocrypha" section. --Defiant (talk) 07:36, June 4, 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome, and like I said, no biggy...--Sennim (talk) 13:37, June 4, 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. - Archduk3 19:44, June 4, 2017 (UTC)

Kruge's petEdit

You know, people on this site really don't know how to get their facts together...Kruge did not have a targ on the bridge, that was not a targ, it wasn't even established in script what it was...yeesh! The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Looks a lot like a targ to me. What makes you say that it wasn't a targ? It may not have been established at the time what it was, but subsequent canon points to it being a targ. --McC 03:06, 23 Feb 2005 (GMT)
No, it wasn't a targ, it looked nothing like a pig whatsoever -- in fact, it was more canine in character than anything else. Either way, it was called "the Beast" in the script, so I'm sorry, but there is no canon that exists, which suggests that it is a targ. --Alan 03:26, 23 Feb 2005 (GMT)
Touche. -- Here is a link to the puppet itself. There's some conjecture here (scroll down a bit to the "Kruge's Pet in STIII" headings) that suggests it might be a Romulan animal of some kind, for what it's worth. -- McC 17:07, 23 Feb 2005 (GMT)
It may or may not be a targ (look at the vast differences in size and appearance of the many different breed of dogs) but even if it isn't, what makes anyone think would it be a Romulan animal. I'm sure targs are not the only animal native to Kronos.--T smitts 21:49, 29 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Kruge's nobilityEdit

There is no evidence that Kruge was descended from any sort of nobility. I assumed his subordinates addressing him as "my lord" as a sign of respect for a superior officer.The preceding unsigned comment was added by T smitts (talk • contribs).

Actually the script describes "Battle Commander Kruge" as "a Klingon War Lord of handsome but frightening presence, and relative youth." So take that it as you will. --Alan 05:27, 21 Oct 2005 (UTC)

No aristocracy in Klingon Culture? Edit

The article claims "there is never any evidence of aristocracy in Klingon culture" but DS9 episodes involving Klingons refute this, especially "Once more unto the breach." Klingon Great Houses are aristocratic lines. Descendants of Kahless are considered to be "of the blood" (though Martok, a commoner not "of the blood" was able to become Chancellor according to their laws).

You're right. I removed that bit. But the rest - about the form of address never being used again - is correct IIRC.–Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 22:47, November 12, 2011 (UTC)

Address Edit

The background information states that "This form of address among Klingons is never seen again." In Star Trek Generations, the word used to address Kruge, joHwI' ("my lord") is used to address the Duras sisters by their crew. What is the best way to implement this data? --wa' DaHoHchugh chotwI' SoH, wa''uy' DaHoHchugh charghwI' SoH, Hoch DaHoHchugh Qun SoH. 21:40, April 25, 2012 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-NC unless otherwise noted.