Memory Alpha
Register
Advertisement
Memory Alpha
Past and special-purpose discussions related to this article can be found on the following subpages:
Talk page help

Memory Alpha talk pages are for improving the article only.
For general discussion, please visit Memory Alpha's Discussions feature, or join the chat on Discord.


SNW vs TAS[]

Just to get this rolling....how are we gonna handle this, since he obviously won't change race entirely over the course of ten years, meaning - while Counter-Clock might be canon - the images are not. I figure we keep CCI as part of his history and shift the images to "Production Notes" --WTRiker (talk) 06:45, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

"The images are not"......that doesn't really solve the problem, since all the other characters in TAS look exactly like they're supposed to. Why does the SNW version get priority? Because it's live action? Or should TAS get priority because it came first? Moving the TAS version to "production notes" delegitamizes it in its entirety. The preceding unsigned comment was added by ‎Powermetal2000 (talk).
Both are completely valid, as per MA:RESOURCE, and weirder things have happened to characters on Trek and in the real world, so there really isn't a reason we need to be looking for trouble when trouble isn't being sought. –Gvsualan (talk) 11:00, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Not any weirder than Khan Noonien Singh (alternate reality) showing both Cumberbatch and Montalban. JagoAndLitefoot (talk) 11:03, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Ditto. –Gvsualan (talk) 11:06, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
We've had this situation before. Spot was a male Somali cat in TNG season 4 but then became a female orange tabby in TNG season 6. We have pictures of both in the infobox. I personally think of them as separate characters but that wouldn't work for the wiki. --Crossover Fan001 (talk) 13:00, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
What about his rank? Are we going to keep it as "Commodore" and just assume that he was demoted from Admiral to commodore for some unknown reason between 2259 and 2270?-- Jkirk8907 14:36, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Well, it's not unprecedented either. JagoAndLitefoot (talk) 14:38, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Why assume anything? Let's see how it actually plays out and go from there. Best case scenario, we have an odd compilation of faces in our character sidebar, and worse case scenario, we might have to take more drastic measures, short of pretending "The Counter-Clock Incident" didn't happen. –Gvsualan (talk) 16:14, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Infobox images[]

So I checked the policy page cited for putting the TAS image at the top (as well as similar changes on a bunch of other pages, including putting George Samuel Kirk's corpse above his actual living face), and said policy page doesn't actually seem to say anything about which image should come on top. I think maybe there should be more discussion about which image to place on top, considering the rule used to place the TOS/TAS ones on top in these pages doesn't seem to exist.

I'm aware this is a multi-page issue, but I figured I'd just bring it up here rather than on all the talk pages of the articles it applies to because that would be a bit excessive. Goweegie2 (talk) 18:39, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

My thought is putting Adrian in "first position". --Ch00path1ng4 (talk) 04:08, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Adrian Holmes' Depiction First[]

I placed Adrian Holmes as the first image of April.

Its absurd the single TAS appearance of the character was placed first when Holmes is the definitive live action depiction of the character who has far more screen time and development.

Other pages use the most recent appearance of a character so what reason is there to put the primary actor, the live action portrayal, second?

Forresto44 (talk) 03:39, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

The in-universe chronological latest appearance should be the first image. That's why the TAS image is there. We don't differentiate between live action and animation. -- Sulfur (talk) 12:59, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
Montgomery Scott's top image, for instance, is an older James Doohan from his appearance in TNG: "Relics", not Martin Quinn from SNW. --LauraCC (talk) 13:28, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Sulfur LauraCC

1) This is an extremely bad look for the wiki given the backlash to casting a black actor in the role. No reasonable person is going to google Robert April, see the actual actor placed under the single cartoon appearance of an old white guy and think there isn't something fishy going on here.

2) I see no actual wiki policy regarding the order of appearance this so what is the actual reason? Forresto44 (talk) 13:44, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

1) It's consistent, at least (or tries to be).
2)I don't know where it's written down, but I imagine it is. --LauraCC (talk) 13:48, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
Paramount should've thought of that before changing the character's race. That's also a "bad look" to a different group of people. The reality is that following the standard established in other articles is the best way to avoid arguments/special pleading. I do think that the newer image should be the Open Graph image suggested for use in link previews, but that's purely because it is a larger image. Perhaps there is a way to achieve this without undermining the precedent? --GreenReaper(talk) 22:47, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Sulfur LauraCC I've looked into it and can't find it written down anywhere. It seems someone decided this was the precedent and folks are going along with it.

I'm going on the record: I think this is wrong and a bad look for the wiki - Adrian Holmes is April, we're never going to see the TAS version again.

Now if this means there needs to be a wiki wide discussion regarding characters who appeared only once before but are now played by actors who will have many times the screentime, like April or Sam Kirk, then I think that needs to happen.

Per the Scotty example - There's a massive difference between Doohan who played Scotty the majority of the time getting precedent over the new actor vs characters who featured for minutes getting precedent over an actor who will have the majority of character development and screentime. Forresto44 (talk) 14:03, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Sulfur can you think of a similar example (minor character gets a larger role after recast)? --LauraCC (talk) 14:08, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

LauraCC George Samuel Kirk (for god sake they're using his corpse that appeared on screen for 10 second as the primary pic over the actual actor), Commander Hansen Al-Salah, and Christopher Pike immediately spring to mind.

Pike's page uses the post injury depiction BUT we've seen Anson Mount's Pike post injury so why is that not the picture?

Chronologically The Animated Series is the last time we see the TOS style Enterprise but the page uses a live action shot from an earlier episode BECAUSE its the predominant version of that Enterprise we see. Forresto44 (talk) 14:28, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I have to agree with User:Forresto44. There seems to be no policy about this, and when one gets written it shouldn't just be "chronologically latest appearance at the top, earliest at bottom." It should have more to do with a) depicting the most common version on top and b) prioritizing a version by a different actor/voice actor on the bottom to show the widest range of versions of the character.
But regardless of what the policy says, there should be one so that we don't need to discuss this again . . . 🖖 Mr. Starfleet Command (open a channelcontributionsactivity) 14:42, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
I tend to agree with these statements. Natasha Yar's picture is not of her death but before her death, nor the version on the Ent-C. ‐Yaroze86 (talk) 14:50, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
What about a compromise - a gallery at the top, showing all the first appearances of each depiction side by side (when they differ appreciably), and the final appearance at the bottom?--LauraCC (talk) 17:54, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Like this? In which case, we wouldn't need a bottom image at all, as they could all be up top, right? 🖖 Mr. Starfleet Command (open a channelcontributionsactivity) 19:20, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
The purpose of top/bottom images, as I understood it, is first/last (death/oldest) appearance. Maybe label it by year of first depiction in that way, rather than actor - this is still an in-universe article. --LauraCC (talk) 19:26, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
First, the way it works right now is that the oldest version of the character is displayed at the top, not the youngest. The youngest is displayed at the bottom.
Second, why would you need to still have a bottom section if you have a gallery at the top? It would make more sense to put them all there.
So, (I think) the best idea involving tabbed pics in the sidebar would be to label them by year but organize them by prominence, and put them all up top. (I've modified the sidebar I placed on the side to reflect this idea, swapping out the actor names with the years like you suggested.)
So how about that? 🖖 Mr. Starfleet Command (open a channelcontributionsactivity) 20:01, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I think it looks way cleaner and in line with the solutions for other tricky situations such as the Constitution Class page. I like it. I think labeling the tab by year looks the best but if we're ordering the pics by prominence the actor's name may be more intuitive? In any event your sample with Adrian first is a massive improvement to what we have currently. Forresto44 (talk) 22:21, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm glad you like my example!
Would any admins like to chime in so we can maybe get some action? Your thoughts are also welcome. 🖖 Mr. Starfleet Command (open a channelcontributionsactivity) 22:35, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
So are we going to get character infoboxes with a picture for every year they appeared in? That's going to get out of hand very quickly.
The point of putting the latest (in-universe) appearance on top is specifically to avoid endless discussions about which appearance of a character is the "truest" one. I'd much rather, if we must, just open specific discussions about the relatively few characters whose appearances seem to have been retconned in canon (April, Kyle, Colt). -- UncertainError (talk) 23:55, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
Years are at least in-universe, unlike actor names. We could find something better eventually. The preceding unsigned comment was added by LauraCC (talk • contribs) at 00:05, August 12, 2023 (UTC).
UncertainError, I don't think anyone was suggesting an image for every year they appeared in. The images would be labeled with years (unless someone can come up with a better label) but there wouldn't be one for every year. At a bare minimum, there would be one image for each actor to have portrayed the character, as well as them in animation if they have ever been depicted as such.
Moving on from there, there would also be a picture for if something happened that had a lasting and visually apparent affect on them, such as Captain Pike's confinement to the chair.
There might also be a pic included for if the character aged significantly from their first to last appearance played by a given actor, such as a pic of Picard from "Encounter at Farpoint" and from Star Trek: Picard.
But certainly not a picture for every year the character appeared.
That being said, I also understand the merits behind the current system, so I'm OK if we decide not to change anything. 🖖 Mr. Starfleet Command (open a channelcontributionsactivity) 00:27, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

UncertainError LauraCC Mr. Starfleet Command

I think we maybe overcomplicating this. Latest appearance only works when a character is consistent and has a ton of screen time like Spock or Kirk or Scotty or any other series regular/secondary.

When a one off character like April is recast and the new actor becomes a consistent regular/secondary character with more screen time and development with the intention that this is the definitive version then that should 100% take precedent.

Robert April, George Samuel Kirk, and Christopher Pike are the primary examples of this. April and Kirk are only going to continue to appear on the show, this issue is only going to worsen significantly as the new actors outpace their one off appearances.

However if there is parity in appearance like Commander Hansen Al-Salah, Kyle, or say Commodore Decker shows up on SNW for just one episode then it makes sense to keep the latest appearance format.

There is precedence for this: TAS is the last chronological appearance of the TOS Enterprise but that page uses the live action image because its the most prominent depiction of that Enterprise. Forresto44 (talk) 15:08, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree that it's best to amend the (apparently unspoken anyway when it comes to official guidelines) rule if the latest appearance is a very incidental one, showing an actor (or animated version) that appeared only once, the depiction by the primary actor for the character should be the first image instead. This would affect Pike, April and Sam Kirk, but not Hansen Al-Salah. JagoAndLitefoot (talk) 19:22, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

User:JagoAndLitefoot Since it seems like we're all in consensus that this is fine I went ahead and swapped the images and will do the same for Sam Kirk. Forresto44 (talk) 02:18, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Sulfur I don't think you actually read the talk page and that's fine.

Could you direct me to the appropriate forum to discuss this so we can determine a site wide consensus? Forresto44 (talk) 12:44, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Aside from the simple fact that was already addressed in the first topic on this discussion page, MA is written from a POV from the distant future. It is an encyclopedia where sidebars depicted a character's history, and is always "oldest" version of character on top, "youngest" below (and depending on the circumstances, a third image may be used in between). This means it may not always be the most common/recent actor to play the character as on top, or the most common/recent race the character appeared as on top, nor does live action ever trump animation based on personal bias; a bias MA does not share, and all formats are fair game here, and all facts are used as presented. Our content policy allows for this, our MA example page addresses this in the use of sidebars, and the example layout for the sidebar template also uses this format. So if an older, prime version of Holmes as April appears at a later point in this or any series, then his image would be on top. It's as simple as that. –Gvsualan (talk) 13:05, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Gvsualan I appreciate your response! I do have a question.

TAS is the last chronological appearance of the 60s Enterprise but the more prominent TOS portrayal is used as the primary. Why is an exception being made there but being enforced here? Its the exact same circumstances.

When I edited the Gorn page to include SNW pictures the Enterprise Gorn was in first position with the "Arena" Gorn in second but "Arena" was the last appearance of the Gorn.

Similarly Anson Mount's Pike is in the earliest appearance on that page but he's not the earliest appearance - Hunter would be.

These are only a few examples. I realize this is annoying, you've got a lot on your plate with such a massive wiki. My point is there are already exceptions being made but for some reason ONLY April and Kirk have been targeted for correction by Sulfur who has been exceptionally terse for no reason. I'm far from the only one to take issue with this in the April page as this has continually come up on the talk page for a while.

Thank you :) Forresto44 (talk) 13:45, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

First, please keep your comments on the same indent throughout a discussion to allow easier reading for other users.
Second, although most of the examples you just gave are correct, I would like to point out that your one about Pike is not, as the image used is from the Short Trek "Q&A", which is set before "The Cage".
But yes, all the other pages you cited seem to just be exceptions made on those pages. 🖖 Mr. Starfleet Command (open a channelcontributionsactivity) 13:51, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
This is going off topic, but not everything is going to be perfectly represented, but this sidebar discussion/issue pertains to characters, more so than ships, and falls within the guidelines of MA:RESOURCE. The Enterprise in TAS is, in essence, and for lack of a simpler explanation, identical design to the TOS ship, at which point the best image of the ship from that in-universe timeframe works just fine in this case, as it doesn't have to literally be the last image of the ship to appear on screen.
Mount was the earliest appearance of Pike (aka "young Pike") from the in-universe point of view, as "Q&A" chronologically predates "The Cage". Contrarily, appearances of both "old April" and "old Sam Kirk", historically and chronologically appeared after their SNW appearances, and therefore are their latest appearances, chronologically, and therefore are on top, while their earlier, younger selves go on the bottom.
I'm really not sure there's really an issue with the Gorn. –Gvsualan (talk) 14:04, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Advertisement