Talk:Unnamed humanoids (22nd century)

Moves

I have moved Alien Dockmaster to Dockmaster on Pernaia Prime's moon under Unnamed Markalians since they are the same thing. Noman

I have removed Large alien from article and moved it to unnamed Kreetassan, Kreetassan in the Pernaia system. Noman

This ia a page for unnamed humanoid species, not unnamed alien characters. Persons should be grouped by species and each species paragraph should contain a short description of the physical characteristics of said alien race, like on the corresponding page for the Unnamed humanoids (24th century). --Jörg 13:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I have moved Decon agents to Tret species. --Noman 16:10, 30 July 2006

• It is preferred that you write comments like these in the "summary" bar. --Alan del Beccio 22:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Moved Alien #1 and #2 to illusionary people, since they are figments of Hoshi's imagination, and not real. 70.105.200.111

Can someone add pix of alien head guard.

Terra Prime

[1] Is that the marmot seller's species there (plus some others)? --Golden Monkey 13:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Similar but different skin colors

Several sets of species that show up in different episodes appear similar, with the only difference being their skin color.

"Rajiin"'s Slave Girl 4 (the one with green spots and elongated ears) looks a lot like the dark-skinned dignitary from "Demons" and "Terra Prime" (played by Daphney Damereaux):

Dignitary

Slave Girl 4

The male of the alien couple seen on the bazzar in "Rajiin" (the one with the circular ridges) looks a lot like the blue skinned alien with identical ridges seen in "The Seventh"

Male alien

Pernaia Prime visitor

The race that attacked the Horizon in "Horizon" looks similar to both the dead alien found in "Anomaly" and one of the slavers in "Borderland":

Alien Corpse

Unknown Alien Captain

I'm not sure if these races are similar enough to be considered identical, and I don't know if they should be grouped together, but if others agree with me, at the very least the similarities should be mentioned.

--TrekkieCub314 (talk) 17:43, November 15, 2014 (UTC)

That seems pretty convincing to me, but then again I'm not really good at spot-the-difference. Could someone that's got some experience with this kind of stuff weight in please? This really seems like a worthy thing to look into. -- Capricorn (talk) 03:55, November 17, 2014 (UTC)

This sort of thing is always tough to judge. There are many aliens that look like humans, for example. There are few ways to know if aliens who appear the same are indeed the same, without it being specifically said or seeing them all together at once. The real reason so many look alike is that makeup was reused. I would tend to lean against saying aliens are the same race just by looking at them, but it is tough to judge. 31dot (talk) 11:55, November 18, 2014 (UTC)

"Shroomies"

"Non-Humanoid"?

They have two legs, two arms, one head with what we can reasonably assume are eyes and mouth, and they wear space suits. What exactly makes them non-humanoid? Xavius, Envoy of Fluidic Space 18:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Everything. They acted very differently, and they might not have been eyes. I think this species is a "might-be-but-probably-not-humanoid". No-one else has said anything. Dave^{Subspace Message} 19:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Got to disagree. What "everything"? I'm having trouble finding ANYTHING non-humanoid about them. Bipedal, standard arms, standard legs, and yes, those are eyes. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 20:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The way to resolve this would be to look at what production sources call them. -- Capricorn (talk) 05:46, September 9, 2013 (UTC)

Splitting "Shroomies"

I'd like to suggest that the "Shroomies" part of this article be split to its own page. Firstly, as can be seen in the above discussion, it has been disputed whether these actually are "non-humanoids." Secondly, the amount of info on this page about these particular aliens is much more than info about any of the other listed non-humanoids. --Defiant (talk) 12:21, September 8, 2013 (UTC)

Support, valid reasoning in my opinion, especially on the info argument, which is enough to warrant a page onto itself. Pages like these are, in my opinion, intended as "list" pages on subjects on which no, or extremely limited info is available...--Sennim (talk) 12:32, September 8, 2013 (UTC)

Support, although I'm not sure I like the idea of naming the new article "Shroomie". That was a background name only; a casual reader wouldn't know what to search for. That said, I can't really think of a good alternative. - Mitchz95 (talk) 15:12, September 8, 2013 (UTC)

Oppose - Where was it ever said that these kinds of pages were only for stuff where little information was available? Like the page name says, it's for unnamed things, simple as that. I'm very worried about the precedent of moving this kind of information to their own pages with ad hoc names, just because we feel they've outgrown the pages they're on. It's bound to become extremely arbitrary very quickly, maybe less so with the rather scarce unnamed-non humanoids set of pages, but definatly with for example all the Unnamed humanoids, Unnamed planets, or Unnamed engineering tools pages (which surely must follow similar rules if we're to have consistency).

Btw: The concern if they're non-humanoid or not is a valid one; but it has absolutely nothing to do with splitting. if they're humanoid, then (for now) all that would mean is that they should need to be moved to Unnamed humanoids (22nd century). -- Capricorn (talk) 05:45, September 9, 2013 (UTC)

Come to think of it; given that the length is mostly due to the extensive discussion of the design, maybe spinning that section off into an article on the model would be a solution more in line with established practice? -- Capricorn (talk) 05:52, September 9, 2013 (UTC)

Remark--The naming is not as "ad hoc" as you make it out to be. Is has been common practice at MA to use names generally used by the production staff in valid background resources, especially by the ones who created the items in question, in lieu of instances where no in-universe designations are available, no matter if they seem "flippant" (case in point: USS Alka-Selsior). That being said, I see merit in your other arguments, and your split suggestion seems like a nice alternative. By the way, a casual reader does not know what to look for, period. It's unnamed in-universe;)--Sennim (talk) 10:29, September 9, 2013 (UTC)

There's still a difference between a name that really was intended for use (but just didn't make it for whatever reasons) and a name that clearly is an inofficial nickname. "Shroomies" clearly is a case of the latter, but not the former, so we should not use it as an article title. I agree with the comment that it might be moved to a different "unnamed" page (although, if we can't be sure at all whether they are "humanoid" or "non-humanoid", the best place would be a list that assumes neither), but oppose a split to "Shroomies". -- Cid Highwind (talk) 10:47, September 9, 2013 (UTC)

Following your line of reasoning, the example of Alka-Selsior, then, is not a valid article title either (the study model was never intended for use in the first place). Anyway, that is for another occasion. As for naming, how about "unnamed aliens (+century and Quadrant)" (this would circumvent the whole humanoid/non-humanoid question) and for the case at hand: "Unnamed "Silent Enemy" alien(s)" ?--Sennim (talk) 11:21, September 9, 2013 (UTC)

But the model did make it to the screen, and supposedly had a decal with that name on it at the time. That makes it "invisible, but there" - which is one of the weakest types of resource we allow, but still a little more than "a funny moniker used by some production guys while internally talking about stuff". :) If you want to bring the validity of the Alka-Selsior up for discussion, you might even have my support in questioning it (because I believe we are straying too far from what's considered "canon" at times) - but for the time being, it seems to be a stronger name than "Shroomies".

I think it's a good idea to get rid of humanoid/non-humanoid in the title (because we most often don't know), but there's a problem with the alternative suggestions as well: we often don't know their home quadrant, either, the century is subjective (these aliens might have first been encountered in the 22nd century, but that doesn't mean they don't exist earlier or later). Still, it might still be preferable to "humanoid/non-humanoid". -- Cid Highwind (talk) 11:49, September 9, 2013 (UTC)

"we often don't know their home quadrant, either, the century is subjective ", no argument there, as this is absolutely the case. But doesn't this hold true then, for all the other "Unnamed Humanoids/Non-humanoids (+century)" pages. The way I see it, as they are in-universe pages, the in-universe people (mostly from Earth perspective) do not know themselves, so (in-universally) designating them with time and place of first (and often only, as far as we know) encounter seems as good as any other. Perhaps, in order to minimize befuddlement, we could limit ourself to the century then, such as "Unnamed aliens (22nd Century)", as is currently the case. I think for a real world article, "Unnamed "Silent Enemy" alien model" would do. My two cents...--Sennim (talk) 12:26, September 9, 2013 (UTC)

To clarify my "ad hoc" comment; I'm not saying Shroomies is an ad-hoc name, but merely that once we start splitting of articles from the unnamed xxx type pages, there's going to be a lot of pages of the format "[generic term] ([name of episode they were in because the name we've settled on is so damn generic])". (the generic term probably being something like "species", "planet", "guard", etc.). Some fiction wikis handle stuff that way, and I've always found our way superior from a searching standpoint.

Considering the whole humanoid/non-humanoid debate: again, that's really not relevant to the split. Either we split the Shroomies of and it's irrelevant, or we don't and there should be a sepperate discussion on keeping it here or moving it to unnamed humanoids, or as Sennin suggest restructure the whole system. But in any case, it's a different question altogether, and could we have it somewhere else please? -- Capricorn (talk) 12:29, September 9, 2013 (UTC)

Hence my final remark, I was reverting back to your suggestion to split of the production POV part into its own article--Sennim (talk) 12:45, September 9, 2013 (UTC)

Oppose split to "Shroomies". Support moving them to Unnamed humanoids (22nd century), since the "definition" makes it pretty clear they were humanoids. We also have other options for dealing with appendix sections in "list" articles beyond splitting it off. - Archduk3 07:50, January 8, 2014 (UTC)

I've moved the information about the "Shroomies" to the Humanoid 22nd unnamed 000|Unnamed humanoids (22nd century) article as it seems this is the consensus. I also removed the split tag as there is no consensus about an own article. IMO, I prefer keeping this information on this page and don't create an own article. Just because one of the "unnamed species" has a bit more information, the current article list won't explode. Tom (talk) 16:49, March 8, 2015 (UTC)

Redux

I'm suggesting the "Shroomies" info to a new page called "Shroomie", since this is the only name we have for them. There's also quite a lot of info about that species. --Defiant (talk) 00:52, October 11, 2016 (UTC)

Same as above, so oppose. - Archduk3 00:55, October 11, 2016 (UTC)

You actually haven't stated a rationale either above (at least as far as I can see) or here. Therefore, your objection is nullified. --Defiant (talk) 01:02, October 11, 2016 (UTC)

My rationale is clear based on the context, which is these are unnamed. Since you haven't presented a new rationale, or a reason to nullify the previous objections to said rationale, you've done nothing but make this the "same as above." - Archduk3 05:22, October 11, 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the lateness of my reply; I hadn't noticed you'd posted here. Anyway, as I'm sure you already know, MA's resource policy states, "There are only two exceptions where material not directly seen or heard in an episode or film may be used in a section considered to be in-universe," and I'd obviously argue that the first of those exceptions (i.e., "To name items or people that were seen or referred to on-screen but not referred to by name") applies to the Shroomies example. I'm still not sure why you're objecting to what is or (at least) seems to me to be a clear use of policy. --Defiant (talk) 20:52, October 19, 2016 (UTC)

I think the reason why some people don’t want to split the page is because "Shroomie" is more of a joke than an actual name. It would be a bit like saying "spoonhead" is a legitimate name for that species that once occupied Bajor.

On the other hand, the policy doesn’t say "joke names don’t count" and the Shroomies already have a page under that name on the Alien Species Wiki.

The name "Shroomies" is used once in the novel A Choice of Futures, where it’s immediately condemned as a juvenile slur. The rest of the novel calls them Mutes. --NetSpiker (talk) 05:20, October 20, 2016 (UTC)

"The primary reason for this is to avoid creating a large number of "unnamed" subject pages when an official name already exists."

"Shroomies" was never intended to be the "official" name for this species, any more than "Warp Delta", "Future Guy", or "Cupcake" were for their respective story elelments. With the exception of the last, all of these are nicknames given to an otherwise unnamed and under developed story element becuase the producers of Enterprise couldn't have cared less. It wouldn't surprise me if many of the "unnamed" things we have had nicknames on set, like many of the aliens in the alternate reality films, but we don't use those as "canon" names because we know they were never intended to be that. It's just that people tend to need a name to talk about something in an efficient and coherent manner. - Archduk3 19:08, October 20, 2016 (UTC)

At the very least, set nicknames provide a better header for the species' section on the unnamed pages than "Alien with four nostrils" and "Green mohawked biped". --LauraCC (talk) 19:11, October 20, 2016 (UTC)

I don't see anything in the redux rationale that wasn't already said and rejected in the last discussion. I'm open to new arguments, but without them I'm still opposed and this split should not happen per the last discussion. -- Capricorn (talk) 11:31, October 21, 2016 (UTC)

But there is no logical rationale for not splitting the page!! --Defiant (talk) 07:40, October 26, 2016 (UTC)

This discussion isn't going to go away without any logical rationale for refuting it. --Defiant (talk) 19:49, November 1, 2016 (UTC)

If the consensus doesn't change, then the discussion stops. If NEW evidence or reasoning comes to the fore, then re-present it and perhaps change the consensus then. -- sulfur (talk) 20:06, November 1, 2016 (UTC)

Wrong; the discussion stops when people stop discussing it. And as I said before, the consensus isn't based on anything. In other words, there's every reason for splitting this page. --Defiant (talk) 20:13, November 1, 2016 (UTC)

That's what you've presented. That's not what the general feeling above is (both here and the prior discussion, between which it doesn't strike me as any new evidence or information has been presented). -- sulfur (talk) 20:16, November 1, 2016 (UTC)

As I said, the presentment of new evidence or lack thereof is entirely irrelevant. If the idea of splitting the article is to be opposed (which seems to be the case), I'm still awaiting logical rationale for that. --Defiant (talk) 20:20, November 1, 2016 (UTC)

I think it's worth mentioning that Memory Alpha's "official name" policy is applied inconsistently. Since Humanoid Figure, Chef (Enterprise NX-01) and Reman Viceroy all have their own pages, there is precedent for giving the Shroomies their own page. --NetSpiker (talk) 03:21, November 2, 2016 (UTC)

Not to mention the Regent of Palamar. --LauraCC (talk) 15:22, November 5, 2016 (UTC)

Precisely. On top of all those precedents, I'm still awaiting some logical rationale for opposing this suggestion... --Defiant (talk) 18:50, November 8, 2016 (UTC)

I see a somewhat decent rationale in the first discussion. We've all had times when we were utterly convinced that ours was the correct way to do something, but our arguments just didn't get through and what seems like clearly the wrong thing was done instead. I've certainly been there once or twice. There comes a point where you just have to accept that the community doesn't agree and move on. At least it won't result in misrepresenting or deleting information in this case, it's just a technical matter. -- Capricorn (talk) 21:04, November 8, 2016 (UTC)

It's not to say that consensus won't change later on. These things take time. The merge/rename/split page has ballooned. --LauraCC (talk) 21:07, November 8, 2016 (UTC)

If you see "a somewhat decent rationale in the first discussion," Capricorn, please point it out. Otherwise (i.e., without any logical rationale), my suggestion is non-opposable; that's just the way it is. It's not me that has to "accept that the community has to agree" (and, in fact, the opposite seems true even of the community), but it's instead up to those few who are opposing this suggestion to say precisely why. I'm still waiting... --Defiant (talk) 21:59, November 8, 2016 (UTC)

The argument I read is that "shroomies" was never an intended name for the species that they might have wanted mentioned on screen but eventually didn't, but just a shorthand term coined for convenience, so they could label concept art and such.

Either you missed that, or maybe more probably you think that was such a weak argument that it shouldn't be relevant to the discussion at all - but what's relevant here is that other users reached consensus that not only it was a valid argument but also the right one, and therefore this has been settled according to our policies, even if maybe it's still wrong. It happens, and the only recourse is to try to move our understanding in some future argument. For what it's worth, I welcome that future argument, I definitely lean towards not splitting, but this doesn't look like a slam dunk to me either -- Capricorn (talk) 05:57, November 9, 2016 (UTC)

According to our policies and guidelines, the legitimacy (or lack thereof) of the name "Shroomie" isn't suitable grounds for opposing this suggestion. In fact, the relevant naming policy even includes an example of info derived from "official reference materials" being used in an in-universe way, much as I'm suggesting doing in this case. Also, I would contend that the "consensus" seems to be to indeed give the Shroomies a page of their own; it definitely appears to be a minority which is opposing this fantastic prospect. --Defiant (talk) 17:32, November 10, 2016 (UTC)

Actually, it seems to be a tie. Defiant, Sennim, Mitchz95 and I support the split. Capricorn, Cid Highwind, Archduk3 and ThomasHL oppose. LauraCC and Sulfur haven't made their opinions clear. --NetSpiker (talk) 05:48, November 11, 2016 (UTC)

The numbers actually really don't matter, since consensus building doesn't require a majority, it just requires the mitigation of arguments. Policy makes it clear that production material may be used to name unnamed things, not that it should, or must, be used, as Defiant seems to think. The default position of the policy is always that "canon" material overrides production material, and these aliens have no name in "canon". I haven't heard a good reason we should use this production nickname as an "official" name, even though I'm sure that separate page would be tremendous, and great, and the best, and be paid for completely by Mexico. - Archduk3 07:43, November 11, 2016 (UTC)

Lol. Though you admit production material "may" be used for naming articles, that's not happening here, where it's being argued, for some weird reason (i.e. no reason at all, actually) that production info may not be used for naming an article. Whether production info "should" be used for naming an article is subjective, and in my personal opinion, it should (but obviously, I absolutely understand and accept that not everyone feels the same way, and obviously everyone's entitled to their own opinion). Also, whether "Shroomie" is a nickname is subjective too; I certainly don't consider it such, convinced it's actually a name.

However, some things are set in stone. For instance, consensus is indeed about what the majority votes for. Wishing it were otherwise does not make it so. You haven't even given any evidence for why you're wishful-thinking it's not, so that assertion can also be dismissed as nonsensical.

Now to the matter at hand (rather than dealing with your continual tangents, such as the admittedly humorous Donald Trump nonsense!) Personally, I can think of 2 reasons for having the "Shroomie" entry on its own page, both of which I consider "good". Firstly, it's encouraged by our naming policy, not only fitting the possibility of it having a non-canon name because it's (as you conceded) unnamed in canon but also because the suggested name stems from production sources quoted in official reference materials (that looks all great by the policy's standards, as I said in my last post). Secondly, that naming policy was created for a reason; to avoid having too many entries – in other words, too much content – on "unnamed [...]" pages. That certainly applies here, where the "Shroomies" entry looks unsightly on this "unnamed humanoids" page, due to its extreme length. If all other entries on this page were the same length, they too would look unsightly, because they would clearly require their own page (something they clearly would be granted, of course on a case-by-case basis, if they met the naming policy). Therefore, I strongly recommend we do the sensible thing by splitting Shroomies to their own page. As I've stated before, this case won't rest until that's been done. Thank you. --Defiant (talk) 09:24, November 11, 2016 (UTC)

Archduk3, you talked about argument mitigation, but you haven't explained why it's okay for Humanoid Figure to have his own page, but it's not okay for the Shroomies to have their own page.

Personally, I don't like having to scroll back and forth on various Unnamed pages until I find what I'm looking for. I would even suggest that names from novels, comics and games should be accepted as article titles, just to reduce the amount of content on Unnamed pages --NetSpiker (talk) 09:53, November 11, 2016 (UTC)

If you seriously want to suggest that, I recommend you do so on a different talk page (it's a bit too general for this discussion). However, I absolutely agree with the other points you've made. :) --Defiant (talk) 10:03, November 11, 2016 (UTC)

When you say "this case won't rest until [a split's] been done", you means that you specifically won't rest. Ruling out compromise or loss is not a constructive way to conduct a discussion, and indeed this is going nowhere. As such, I think it's really unhelpful that you've spread out this argument to Talk:Onlies' homeworld while this discussion has reached consensus in your mind but not that of the community. -- Capricorn (talk) 12:23, November 11, 2016 (UTC)

The discussion on Talk:Onlies' homeworld is a completely unrelated topic. They both involve the issue of non-canon names, but that's the only thing they have in common. --NetSpiker (talk) 13:50, November 11, 2016 (UTC)

If a nickname that we think is silly is given to a species of aliens by the characters, that is accepted by all. If a similarly goofy nickname is given by the production people, it seems to be another story altogether. Why do we call one a legitimate name for a page and the other a joke? Shouldn't we be consistent?

We had this argument (merge or not) regarding the Alfa 177 canine, but that was decided simply because nobody gave them a known nickname, in the script or behind the scenes. It was also a non-humanoid, and that 23rd century page was small and needed filling out. We made the choice based on mitigating circumstances.

If we are going to move them to their own page, give it the name "Shroomies", but create a redirect that helps people find them who are not familiar with background info yet. --LauraCC (talk) 15:51, November 11, 2016 (UTC)

@Defiant: I suggest you read up on consensus building at Wikipedia, as it's expressly not a vote.

@NetSpiker: Humanoid Figure shouldn't have it's own page IMO, but others disagreed. You're welcome to read the discussion on why it's not at Future Guy, as that applies here, but the short version is that in that case the name came from production material, which is in group 1 at the resource policy, and this nickname comes from production members, which is group 2, and therefor is already less "official" than then something like tech cube. Anyone can have a nickname for anything, but at least when it's written down in the script a large number of people had to agree with using it. That didn't happen here, and therefor I don't think the nickname was even remotely considered to be the "official" name, even by the people using it, and therefor we shouldn't elevate it to "canon" if the only other issue is about the size of the bg info section here, because the bg info doesn't have to be right there in the middle of the article. - Archduk3 17:57, November 11, 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me that the most "official" name is the one used in Star Trek Online, which is Elachi. Which, yeah.... not used outside the game, and thus non-canon. But Shroomies is also not official.--Marhawkman (talk) 00:10, November 14, 2016 (UTC)

Humanoid Figure, Chef and Viceroy may be official but they are not names. They are descriptors and titles, so according to the policy they shouldn't have their own pages. But in each case, it was decided not to merge them because they are prominent characters and because enough people want them to have their own page. So the question is how prominent does an unnamed character or species have to be and how many people have to want it for the character or species to get its own page? --NetSpiker (talk) 08:20, November 14, 2016 (UTC)

@Archduck: I suggest you keep in mind that MA is not Wikipedia. In other words, your comment is therefore (yet again) irrelevant. --Defiant (talk) 09:33, November 14, 2016 (UTC)

If the character/species is the driving force of a story/story arc, and there is lots of information about their culture and a significant background section, they get a page. If it's a side thing or significant but not well-developed, then no. Of course, we need an objective way of determining what constitutes "significant". --LauraCC (talk) 18:25, November 14, 2016 (UTC)

Well the Elachi had the distinction of being the villain of the week. So you could argue that they had an episode devoted to them.--Marhawkman (talk) 01:51, November 15, 2016 (UTC)

Indeed you could. The dog was little more than a prop. A clue to Kirk's dual nature, but a (relatively) minor thing nonetheless. --LauraCC (talk) 18:16, November 23, 2016 (UTC)

The Shroomies appear in one episode, one novel and one video game, in each case playing a central role in the story. And the Shroomies section of this page already has much more content than the Chef (Enterprise NX-01) and Reman Viceroy pages. It would be even larger if someone decides to add information about the species from Star Trek Online and A Choice of Futures to the Apocrypha section. As Cid Highwind said on the Viceroy talk page: “If someone doesn't have a proper name but a descriptive title and two pages of content - let's have a page about him.” --NetSpiker (talk) 01:23, November 24, 2016 (UTC)

STE-based split

I support the split. For reference, the new 4th edition of the Star Trek Encyclopedia (Volume 1, A-L, Page 441), lists these guys as the Kovaalans "seen" in the Episode E^2, due to the reuse of the "Shroomie" ship. --Appalachia Actual (talk) 20:22, December 28, 2016 (UTC)

I'm more in favor of that than anything else. We can then justify it with a well-explained background note. --Alan del Beccio (talk) 16:19, November 7, 2017 (UTC)

What exactly is being proposed here, a merge with Kovaalan or a split? -- Capricorn (talk) 20:59, July 16, 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure if we should agree with the Encyclopedia's claim that the Shroomies and Kovaalans are the same species just because the same ship model was used in both episodes. Ship models often get reused so that designers don't have to create a new ship for every species that gets introduced. Just take a look at all the "Redresses" articles on Ex Astris Scientia. And if "Kovaalan" was really the canon name for the Shroomies, then it's unlikely that the novels and games would've been allowed to give the different names. The Encyclopedia also claims that Mot and V'Sal are the same character, but here at Memory Alpha, we have separate articles for them. --NetSpiker (talk) 07:56, July 17, 2019 (UTC)

Removed

I removed the following line from the background info of the alien foreman from "The Xindi":

"The alien foreman was also scripted to have makeup which cannot be seen in the episode, as the teleplay described him as having "some nasty-looking boils on his neck and jawline" which he occasionally scratched at, though he does not do this in the episode."

In fact he does have red boils on his neck and jawline and he can be seen scratching in the episode some times. Tom (talk) 14:33, December 26, 2017 (UTC)