Talk: Salt vampire

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Salt vampire article. For general discussion, go to Memory Alpha's Discussions or Discord. Click here to start a new discussion on this talk page.

FA Status[]

Nomination (01 Feb - 09 Feb 2005, Success)[]

M-113 creature: It's got everything and it makes for a good read. Tyrant 02:40, 1 Feb 2005 (CET)Tyrant

Supported. --BlueMars 22:18, Feb 2, 2005 (CET)
Supported. Ottens 19:46, 3 Feb 2005 (CET)
Supported. | THOR 05:14, 5 Feb 2005 (CET)

Reconfirmation (05 Dec - 24 Dec 2011, Failed)[]

This one was originally featured in early 2005, and has seen several edits since then. I just copyedited it again today, some other contributors joined that attempt. While I'm not totally happy with small bits, like the name of the "Enterprise encounter" section or the wording of the remaining bgnote, I still think it's in a better shape than before. FA blurb has been created (Template:FA/M-113 creature), this diff shows the changes since first featuring the article. I'm not voting myself. -- Cid Highwind 13:19, December 5, 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to oppose for now, since as Cid mentioned it still needs some more work, that bgnote needs something done to it, and based on the amount of changes in the last few days we might want to go "full nomination" on this one. - Archduk 3 14:42, December 5, 2011 (UTC)
Changing to a tentative support after I removed the bgnote. It does look like another pair of eyes on this wouldn't be remiss though. - Archduk 3 21:49, December 7, 2011 (UTC)

Support, looks up to specs to my (untrained) in-universe eye--Sennim 13:21, December 9, 2011 (UTC)

Support – I think the recent edits have been a good community effort, and I think the article is now up to modern FA standards.–Cleanse ^{( talk | contribs )} 00:23, December 10, 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I personally think the in-universe info about the M-113 carcass in Trelane's mansion should be carefully moved from the bg info section to the "history" one. --Defiant 01:01, December 10, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose, after extensively analyzing this article, I've come to the opinion that it's basically deeply flawed. The page, as it currently stands, seems unsure whether it's an article about the last individual specimen of a species or the entire species. It's also quite wordy, with too many repetitions of some points, and the individual sections are not separated enough for my liking (such as historical info appearing in the lead-in, rather than in the "historical" section, etc.) I'd also opt for the info in the historical section being arranged in a more historical/chronological order than it currently is. --Defiant 02:27, December 10, 2011 (UTC)

If you want to try and save it Defiant, make changes as you see fit, though the article is about both the individual creature and the species. - Archduk 3 22:02, December 19, 2011 (UTC)

Check: Barnhart[]

This article shows Barnhart being killed on the surface of M-113, and then again on Deck 9.

I removed the first reference, and kept the one of him having died on Deck 9, as the picture on his page clearly shows. --Gvsualan 03:42, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Removed[]

An alternative, more scientific designation for this creature would be "salivore," from the Latin meaning "salt-eater."

Doesn't seem to be from the Star Fleet Medical Reference Manual or something like that that's at least semi-official, so removed as fan speculation. -- Capricorn 04:28, February 3, 2011 (UTC)

I just removed the following two bgnotes:

This is the description of the single observed specimen and may not apply to all members of the species.

The presence of a mouth is evidence that salt may not have been this creature's sole means of sustenance. It may also have eaten food with its mouth but evolved a mechanism to directly absorb salt, perhaps because salt was (or became) scarce in its native environment or because it had a high biological (possibly metabolic) need of salt.

The text was rewritten to make the first one unnecessary. The second one seems to be speculation - the creature was seen to absorb salt through its mouth, so that may as well have been the function of the mouth. -- Cid Highwind 11:41, December 5, 2011 (UTC)

The sole surviving creature encountered by the Enterprise crew may not be a good example of the behaviors of the rest of its race. The creature was intelligent and was able to recognize intelligence in other species. It was also able to form emotional attachments to other intelligent beings. On top of all this, it had a food source available that did not involve preying on other beings; yet it began to, despite how it seemed to understand (as McCoy stated during the briefing) that killing was wrong. It could be theorized that this particular creature was a sociopath, possibly due to its long isolation.

I've removed this since despite the fact that there is some good material in there, it's mostly speculation and stating unknowns. - Archduk 3 21:44, December 7, 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the following, regarding the surviving creature's view of Humans as food: "As there was no opportunity to question it, it is unclear if this attitude arose from desperation or if it was the natural outlook of the species." Firstly, we don't state what is unknown. Secondly, it seems pretty clear to me that the creature's hunger for Humans is due to desperation, owing to its need for salt. --Defiant (talk) 08:24, September 19, 2016 (UTC)

Actress[]

Well, first time using this particular feature of Memory Alpha.

Who was the actor inside the suit? I have seen one picture today that suggested that it was Sharon Gimpel. I cannot find anyone with that name in the IMDB. Can someone give a good name? Thanks!

Ray

70.245.189.14 02:02, January 18, 2015 (UTC)

She is under the name Sandra Lee Gimpel in IMDB http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0319831/ --Pseudohuman (talk) 02:55, January 18, 2015 (UTC)

Two individuals[]

As there are two examples of this creature - the one McCoy killed and the one Trelane has (dead) (unless he made a model of it, not the real thing, which is likely, so would it be illusory?), should it not have a "List of M-113 creatures" page? Make this the species page once and for all and have individuals elsewhere? --LauraCC (talk) 15:33, September 9, 2016 (UTC)

If it's a model, it may not even be illusory. -- sulfur (talk) 15:48, September 9, 2016 (UTC)

True. But in that it doesn't exist as a once-live creature. --LauraCC (talk) 15:57, September 9, 2016 (UTC)

It might be an illusion, a prop, or a real specimen. If real, it may be stuffed like his article currently claims, or just suspended like he did with members of the Enterprise crew were. Trelane was capable of completely immobilizing someone without killing them. The creature in the stairway may have been alive but couldn't do anything. But then he still have no problem destroying the creature with phaser later on. So, any decision of the status of the salt vampire in Trelane's possession is speculation. Maybe "(stuffed exhibit)" should be replaced with "(exhibit; status unknown)" or something to that effect. Vern4760 (talk) 01:24, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Propose split[]

Just watched The Man Trap again to mark Star Trek Day. I was looking at the articles on the M-113 creature and Nancy Crater. It seems to me that there is a lot of overlap when there should be three separate articles. Nancy Crater should only be about the Human woman. M-113 creature could maybe be renamed something like ‘M-113 inhabitants’ and stick to discussing only the species. A potential third article would be ‘Nancy Crater (duplicate)’ and focus on the antics and fate of the M-113 creature. -- Connor Cabal (talk) 19:51, September 10, 2019 (UTC)

There's no need for the individual creature and the species to have separate articles. It's needlessly complicated in my opinion. --NetSpiker (talk) 05:43, September 13, 2019 (UTC)

I think there is some precedent for a split in the articles Horta and Mother Horta. --Connor Cabal (talk) 20:37, October 3, 2019 (UTC)

People and species are two different things. --Alan (talk) 04:54, November 21, 2019 (UTC)

Not sure I understand what you mean. The M-113 creature and the Mother Horta are both sentient beings. The Human Nancy Crater was also a sentient being (or, person). The M-113 inhabitants would be the species in question. We have separate articles for Keith Rocha, Maura, and the coalescent organism. -- Connor Cabal (talk) 02:36, November 24, 2019 (UTC)

My comment wasn't directed at you. But you are correct. The page about Nancy Crater (the creature) could be the main article for the creature, as it was the primary appearance of the character (first and last, actually) and species specific stuff on this page. The fact also remains that there was the mount of a second M-113 creature seen in Trelane's study, making a second individual of the sort. --Alan (talk) 20:59, November 27, 2019 (UTC)

Name[]

"M-113 creature" is a descriptive name MA came up with. It's now been referred to on-screen as a "salt succubus." Should we consider a name change? Does "salt succubus" seem like a real name, or is it just a Mariner-ism, like "the sexy people in rompers that murder you if you go on the grass"? —Josiah Rowe (talk) 22:17, September 6, 2020 (UTC)

The reference was probably more so in reference to a specific individual than the species as a whole. Also, since the creature literally called itself a "creature"... I'm inclined to believe that our name is more accurate than our willingness to believe that all members of this species are somehow demonic females...--Alan (talk) 22:33, September 6, 2020 (UTC)

I presume the male of the species would be a salt incubus. —Josiah Rowe (talk) 23:33, September 6, 2020 (UTC)

Sigh, which is still not the name of a species. It's a name that already has another meaning, a meaning used to describe the aforementioned individual.--Alan (talk) 00:05, September 7, 2020 (UTC)

My response above was somewhat tongue-in-cheek. Consider the suggestion withdrawn. —Josiah Rowe (talk) 01:01, September 7, 2020 (UTC)

Based on other recent discussions, one can't always tell anymore. --Alan (talk) 02:50, September 7, 2020 (UTC)

Well, now we have a canonical reference to the species as a "salt vampire," which is what fans have called it forever anyway. —Josiah Rowe (talk) 16:56, September 24, 2020 (UTC)

I think salt vampire is the best name. It was referenced in canon now, and the salt succubus was obviously used to refer to females only, not to mention that all of us fans have always called it salt vampire, and we already had it as a redirect.

Now that it's been used in canon, I'd say that's as good as a name as any.

--Noah Tall (talk) 17:11, September 28, 2020 (UTC)

I support this, especially as they're obviously not all linked to M-113. --Defiant (talk) 07:48, October 7, 2020 (UTC)

I'm in favor of keeping the name as it is because "M-113 creature" is the more familiar name to people like me who grew up with the Star Trek Encyclopedia. But I am aware that a strict adherence to Memory Alpha's canon policy requires the page to be renamed. --NetSpiker (talk) 08:13, October 7, 2020 (UTC)

...and it still feels and sounds like a nickname, as are most all LD references, than an actual name of a species. --Alan (talk) 12:00, October 21, 2020 (UTC)

I support the move to "salt vampire." - AJHalliwell (talk) 18:09, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I moved the article to the new name, but am not really planned on changing all the TOS references, mostly on account of familiarity and the direct connection that creature has to that planet. –Gvsualan (talk) 20:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)