Um, Humuhumunukunukuapua'a is listed as an animal. I don't recall it, and am wondering, did they ever really give a name for such an odd animal. If it does exist I'd love to know more about it. If it is real Plz someone write about it, if not, remove it from the list. --TOSrules 08:56, 13 Oct 2004 (CEST)

The humuhumunukunukuapua'a is the Hawai'ian name for the Picasso triggerfish, which the ST Encyclopedia says was the children's computer interface figure in "Rascals". The fish isn't actually the Picasso triggerfish, but it's in there. -- EtaPiscium 08:58, 13 Oct 2004 (CEST)

Discussion moved from Memory Alpha:Votes for deletionEdit

  • List of non-sentient lifeforms. Recommend deletion. I've moved the content to much more accessible Xenobiology page. -- EtaPiscium 18:28, 9 Sep 2004 (CEST)
    • Delete, the mentionded lifeforms are indeed better placed on the Xenobiology page. a seperate page is unnecessary -- Q 19:54, 9 Sep 2004 (CEST)
    • Keep. According to our guidelines, articles that are just lists of items should be named "List of X". Additionally, a list of non-sentient lifeforms is not exactly what I'd expect at Xenobiology. Suggestion: Move content of Xenobiology to this page. Then either create a link to this page on Xenobiology (preferred, a definition of "Xenobiology" might be added later), or REDIRECT Xenobiology to this article (like, for example, Species and cultures). -- Cid Highwind 11:08, 10 Sep 2004 (CEST)
    • Keep. -- Dan Carlson | Talk 16:17, Sep 10, 2004 (CEST)
      • What then would Xenobiology consist of? I don't think it's appropriate to redirect it to Species and cultures, because non-sentient organisms don't have either race or culture. Maybe it should redirect to List of non-sentient life-forms instead? Also, there are a number of current lists that violate the "list of X" rule, such as Language, Government and politics, and Religion. -- EtaPiscium 18:27, 10 Sep 2004 (CEST)
        • Sorry, I was being a little ambiguous. What I meant was that Xenobiology should eventually redirect to List of non-sentient lifeforms, just as Races and Cultures redirects to List of Races and Cultures. You are correct in pointing out the other articles. Those should either contain original content, or redirect to a "List of ...". -- Cid Highwind 14:26, 11 Sep 2004 (CEST)
      • Keep this article. Xenobiology should have a disambiguation, or list of related articles which will include lists of non sentient life-forms, sentient ones, plants, etc etc. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 19:33, 10 Sep 2004 (CEST)

Changed links to established namesEdit

It seems a tad pointless to "Change links to established names" as you then rob the animial of its origin, if that is the case then you should really organize the animals by planet -- anyone browsing an reads Saber bear has no idea that that is what it is unless you have Klingon in front of it. I would at least appreciate an explaination prior to having work I've done changed to something that makes less sense which in turn robs me of the time I took changing it to that when there was really nothing wrong with what I did in the first place. For all the "lists" around here this site has a major weakness in how to be organized. Especially if Cardassian vole can have Cardassian in front of it but zabu, another Cardassian animal doesnt have Cardassian attached to it, much less it is anywhere near the vole on the list. This makes no sense. --FuturamaGuy 09:08, 4 Oct 2004 (CEST)

Wiki article titling suggests using the simplest possible common name. A sabre bear is not really going to be confused with anything else (except possibly a bear, which is why there would be two separate articles - bear and sabre bear) There is really no need for an article titled Klingon sabre bear unless there were Vulcan sabre bears or Andorian sabre bears. Keep in mind, this means that there is a need to go change a lot of these names. I'd say cat is prefereable to Terran cat also (if only because we have a Earth-centric point of view, not only would cat be the main article space for felis catus, but would contain links to the Circassian cat and grishnar cat.. I'd recommend moving all these article names to their simplest, most elementary forms rather than cluttering them up with superfluous species or origin designations. (for example, we have an article USS Reliant because there is only one USS Reliant.. however, since there are many Enterprises we have articles titles USS Enterprise and USS Enterprise (aircraft carrier).. but theres no need to go and make all Federation starships be followed by the unnecessary (NCC-XXXX) in their article title because
  1. the registry (or whatever extra information we are suggesting the article title contain) is contained in the article space itself
  2. the longer and more specific the title is, the less chance there is that someone would actually link to it in another article.. the reason we title articles the way we do is so that there will be a minimum of thought involved in linking texts from other articles, maknig it easier to create simple bracket links rather than complicated piped links. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 09:21, 4 Oct 2004 (CEST)
If this is indeed the case...then those than can be sorted by planet should at least be done so for the sake of organization. Secondly, I merely organized them without changing their links, which shouldn't cause any confusion in the search because the answer is still the same be it "Zabathu" or "Zabathu|Andorian Zabathu", at least the way I had it gave the reader a perspective on what they were looking at -- besides it doesnt bother or interfere with the linking process whatsoever. --FuturamaGuy 23:04, 4 Oct 2004 (CEST)
Good point. I'd support this suggestion being implemented in future edits. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 09:14, 6 Oct 2004 (CEST)


With the creation of plants, it seems rather redundant to have two lists of the same thing, both here and at 'plants'. Should we disambiguate this page or remerge plants into this one? The death of this page seems suddenly rather imminent, if indeed we decide to disambiguate it. --Alan del Beccio 08:27, 16 Aug 2005 (UTC)

  • Since no one has any comments, I'm beginning to dissect this page. Thus far, Ive moved the animals section to animals. --Alan del Beccio 09:01, 17 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Spaceborne speciesEdit

This page is supposed to be a list of non-sentient lifeforms. However the link to spaceborn species directs to a list of all such lifeforms on which at least some would surely be sentient. The Calamarain for example were called intelligent by Q and he does not use the term lightly. I believe this page is due for either updating or deleting. CleverAndKnowsIt 12:09, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Dolphins are considered "intelligent." They are not (currently) considered "sentient." -- sulfur 12:23, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
And I know several people who are sentient, but clearly not intelligent so, y'know...its a bit of a gray area. :) -Angry Future Romulan 14:01, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
Actually, dolphins are sentient. With the possible exception of the sponge, all animals are sentient. Humans are sentient, but more, they are also sapient. Those two words are not synonyms. The name of the page should probably be changed to Non-sapient Lifeforms, or the link to the list of animals moved to a page with that name.-- 14:21, November 18, 2012 (UTC)
Even if that is true, the convention in Star Trek canon seems to be using the word "sentient". Lal was called an android even though technically she was a gynoid. Unless you can show an example of where the term "sapient" was used, "sentient" should remain. 31dot (talk) 14:24, November 18, 2012 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-NC unless otherwise noted.