Talk:Relic (Hirogen)

I'm confused by what this exchange meant. I looked up the script since it's been a while, but that didn't help:

ALPHA: I wanted to claim this prey for myself.
BETA: We may not be able to take them alone. We need the strength of the others.
ALPHA: I won't share prey with the others. These two must be the only relics! Prepare them!

So... prey somehow becomes a relic when it's formally claimed? Or a relic is just a prisoner of war? I might be reading it wrong. --Vedek Dukat 08:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

As I see it a relic is something that hangs from the walls of their chambers, a prey skeleton, or part of it. Some parts also are present in a net, which hangs from the ceiling. The command, prepare them could mean that the prey needs to be prepared so after this only the skeleton remains, nothing else, which can be displayed to other hunters. The more difficult a prey is to catch, the more value is given to the relic. -- Q 08:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I just re-watched the episode and it seems you're right about what constitutes a relic. I still don't understand why he would want Seven and Tuvok to be the only relics though - maybe so no one else would have relics from their species. --Vedek Dukat 08:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Tense

Well, at the risk of reopening yet another round of fruitless debate...why? Why past tense? As far as I know the definition of what a Hirogen "relic" is has not changed in the Trek universe. -- Kingfisher 15:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

MA:POV. -- Sulfur 22:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Rather than simply quoting policy to me, perhaps the question of why should be addressed...Why is past tense better? Why is present tense inappropriate? Are the policies so set in stone that there is no room for discussion or perhaps even improvement? -- Kingfisher 22:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Rather than bringing this up here, go spend some time with the policy page. Understand what the POV of MA/en. The POV is from "near the end of time", "far far far future". Thus... past tense is better, it allows for consistency. Otherwise, you get a random mix of past, present, and odd conditional tenses. That's why it was chosen, after several months of heavy discussion. -- Sulfur 03:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Hardly random...while universal past tense might be the easiest way, I propose that it's not the best way, not in presenting information in the most accurate manner. The fact is that we do have a mix of facts: facts that are true, and facts that have been made no longer true by subsequent developments. Using the same tense for them presumes that they are either one or the other, and this is speculation. Why would you call a simple presentation of the available facts "random"?

And yes, I'm well aware that the POV was decided to be in the "far, far future"...again, why? Is this not open to discussion anymore? If the goal of MA is to write the best possible reference for our readers, both in accuracy and in relevance, is this really the best POV we could choose, one in which human beings are long gone and which refers to the Trek universe in terms suited for a set of fossils? Is this really what the community believes, or is it being dictated by trepidation over a somewhat more complex set of rules for tense? -- Kingfisher 18:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The idea of MA/en is to write from a perspective where the "universe" is "done". If you really want to complain and suggest otherwise, do on the talk page for MA:POV. Not here. -- Sulfur 22:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)