- That's exactly what it was played for... a joke meant to embarrass Riker in front of the bridge crew. From the look on his face, it obviously didn't happen. :) -- SmokeDetector47 // talk 15:33, 3 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Date of birth?
The DOB is given as "April 15, 2335 (Stardate 12286.5)". I assume that someone used the well-known but non-canon stardate conversion formula here - in that case, either the date or the stardate should be removed (which one? references?). -- Cid Highwind 13:18, 22 Aug 2005 (UTC)
- The Daystrom Institute has a stardate converter, which says stardate 12286.5 equals 15 April 2335. It also has an essay detailing how post-TOS era stardates can be arrived at. -- Miranda Jackson (Talk) 14:45, 22 Aug 2005 (UTC)
Without having had a look at the page, I can assure you that it is not canon. We don't know if 1000 stardates equal exactly one year, if XX000.0 is exactly January 1st etc... Again, can someone confirm which one of those dates was mentioned/shown, and which was calculated from the other? -- Cid Highwind 20:48, 22 Aug 2005 (UTC)
- A date of birth should have been seen in TNG: "Conundrum" (most likely August 19th, actor Jonathan Frakes' real birthday). I can't recall whether that episode only listed the years or the exact date, but if it's the latter, then that is the date that should be used. --From Andoria with Love 21:16, 22 Aug 2005 (UTC)
- The stardate is the correct birthdate as given in "Future Imperfect". I'm not sure what the birthday was on the "Conundrum" screen as it wasn't used in the episode... the only thing of interest behind-the-scenes publications listed was his mother's name. -- SmokeDetector47 // talk 21:57, 23 Aug 2005 (UTC)
- "To show the passage of time, the producers of Star Trek: The Next Generation decided to use five-digit stardates. They chose to begin the stardate with the number 4, chosen because the program was set during the 24th century." The "4" means "24th" century. Riker can't have been born 300 years ago. Todays stardate: 18093.1 Riker's birth-date: 45284.7 The only flaw with my system that I can see is that stardates repeat every decade for a century. And then there's the problem with the 5XXXX stardates. But, one stardate would equal about one working shift, about 8 3/4 hours. "A canonical stardate ending in ".8" is a real rarity, though not totally unknown" (stararchive.cs.umanitoba.ca) can easily be explained by the fact that you wouldn't usually be writing your log a couple hours before your shift ended, you would wait until it did end. Eh, I'll stick to mine, you stick to yours (or mine). -- Kopachris 00:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Continued below...
Riker's Combat Performance
Apparently it is too much of an opinion to call it a failure when Riker can't defend his Galaxy class starship against two B'rel class (scouts) birds-of-prey commanded by Ferengi. It doesn't matter that they took control of the ship, and that Riker was unable to regain control on his own. We must not call this a defeat. On the other hand, we must praise his ingenuity and call it a victory when he defeats a single scout style bird-of-prey and it only costs him a Galaxy class starship. Some may think this phrasing a little harsh, but let us examine the battle of Viridian III as it occured with some references to related events for context.
- Fact 1: It took Riker ten seconds after the first hit from the Duras sisters' bird-of-prey to return fire, with a single phaser blast.
- Fact 2: It took approximately one minute to come up with the plan to force the bird-of-prey to cloak so it would drop its shields.
- Fact 3: It was precisely two minutes nineteen seconds after the first hit on the Enterprise when the plan was implemented and the bird-of-prey was destroyed.
- Fact 4: Riker was in possession of an arsenal capable of destroying the bird-of-prey in a fraction of the time.
- We see in "The Way of the Warrior" that it takes three to four photon torpedos at most to destroy a scout style bird-of-prey such as a B'rel or D-12.
- We see in "The Survivors" when the Enterprise is attacked by an illusion of a Husnock warship that a Galaxy class starship can quickly fire off six photon torpedos and supplement with heavy phaser fire.
- Fact 5: Riker did not make any significant use of this overwhelming firepower.
To be fair, much of this can be attributed laziness on the part of the writers of Star Trek Generations and other similar sequences. Riker's actions in Generations would have come across much better with a few small changes. The first disruptor and torpedo hits could have very justifiably been much more disasterous (we've seen single torpedos destroy otherwise unscathed attack cruisers once their shields were down), perhaps resulting in significant damage to the ship's weapons array. Secondly, they could have come up with the idea of remodulating the shields (every trek fan I knew was asking why they didn't, and it took the crew of the Odyssey all of five seconds to give it a try in "The Jem'Hadar"). The Duras initial advantage would have been gone, but with all the damage Enterprise's shields may well have been a joke, not to mention the lack of more formidable weapons. HaganeNoKokoro 02:37, 7 Sep 2005 (UTC)
- I think I better explain the user's comments above. The user attempted to place the information above into the article itself to emphasize on Riker's perceived "failures". These edits were reverted as they were of an individual's personal opinion based from on-screen evidence. (You can check out the article's history to see for yourself.) --From Andoria with Love 02:40, 7 Sep 2005 (UTC)
That's why I posted it on the discussion page this time. HaganeNoKokoro 02:44, 7 Sep 2005 (UTC)
- I know, I was just explaining why you posted it. Others may not be familiar with our little disagreement. ;-) --From Andoria with Love 02:48, 7 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Cool. Please don't think I'm some sort of malicious vandal. I just thought Riker's combat record needed a little balance, as it describes him in very glowing terms, citing only success. Clearly my original posting came off a little biased, so I replaced it with pure facts. To lose control of the ship was a failure, albeit one that was remedied by the end of the episode. Everyone fails sometimes. HaganeNoKokoro 02:58, 7 Sep 2005 (UTC)
- I know, and I think you're right. But the way you worded seemed more on a personal level. The way you worded the thing on "Rascals" was fine, but I felt it could be slightly better, and the word "failure" didn't fit into the revision. (You can re-add that part if you wish to, I don't think anyone will have a problem with it since it was a failure on Riker's part.) You could also try rewording the previous info and reposting it (no guarantees it will stay, though). Perhaps saying something along the lines of "not all of his combat experiences were successful" and then following it with examples, like the one from "Rascals." However, when relating a failure to something established in another episode or movie, make sure to list it in italics, as these are most likely discrepancies on the writers part. :) --From Andoria with Love 03:12, 7 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Riker was also seen playing the Trombone in 110010010. --Clarkhennessy 09:37, 2 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- Jonathan Frakes plays trombone. He has credits playing trombone in the song "Riker's Mailbox" by Phish on the "Hoist" album. --Fenian 09:57, 2 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Geordi La Forge
He should mentioned in the relationships section as there is some background between the two prior to their serving on the Enterprise. - 18.104.22.168 23:31, 10 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Riker's fictional personnel file
In "Future Imperfect" a fictional personnel file of Riker is seen, showing his career after the Fornax Disaster. Though it is all fictional and created by Barash, it is still interesting to see what the writers came up with for his fictional future backstory. It seems, Riker was first promoted to Captain and took command of another ship (The USS Crazy Horse?) and when Picard was finally promoted and left the Enterprise-D, Riker returned and took command of the Ent-D.
- LCARS 40290
- File ID - Service record 53-4986-435
- Riker, William T., Captain
- Current assignment: Captain USS Enterprise NCC 1701-D
- Stardate 4XXXX – Commended by Captain Jean-Luc Picard for exceptional bravery in
- XXX XXX situation?. XXX XXX the XXX XXX and exceptional judgement, Riker
- XXX in XXX XXX XXX XXX.
- Stardate 4XXXX – Completed Starbase XXX XXX USS Enterprise. XXX XXX
- recommended to USS Enterprise. Request granted by StarXXX XXX XXX XXX.
- Stardate 4XXXX – Accepted promotion to rank of Captain. Assigned command of
- Starship USS Crazy Horse??.
- Stardate 4XXXX – Reassigned to command of starship USS Enterprise after Captain
- Jean-Luc Picard accepted promotion to head of Starfleet XXX XXX XXX.
- Stardate 4XXXX – Commanded expediton to Beta XXX sector. Responsible for
- First Contact with the new XXx XXX XX of United Federation of Planets
- XXX XXX XXX by XXX and XXX population XXX by the
- XXX XXX XXX sector 23XXX, 23XXX and 23XXX.
Just re-watched "Up The Long Ladder" and there is a scene where Riker phasers a clone that the Mariposans have made of him. Since this was potentially another sentient lifeform made from his DNA, should it be added to his sidebar as an offspring; 'unnamed clone'? -- StAkAr Karnak 01:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not sure "clones" are the same thing as offspring. They are not children produced via normal reproduction, a.k.a. with someone else's DNA involved. Also, these "clones" were killed before ever coming conscious, or even finishing being created. --OuroborosCobra talk 04:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
second paragraph makes no sense
Commander Riker Day?
Wasn't there an episode of next gen where a joke was made after Captain Picard Day aboard the ship about an upcoming Commander Riker Day? – TheBovaEffect 02:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi i'm sure at some point i remember seeing Ryker with 3 gold pips and one black but can't find any reference to this rank. When asking around other people seem to remember this too but no one can seem to find referneces. Has anyone proof one way or the other on this matter.
Steve 22.214.171.124 15:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- This rank doesn't exist, though it's possible that it occurred as a wardrobe error. --- Jaz 05:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Can someone confirm that the birthdate (as a stardate of 12286.5) showed up on screen? -- sulfur 18:53, December 20, 2009 (UTC)
- Cid Highwind just reverted my removal of the suspicious birth stardate of 12286.5, stating that it is in fact correct and pointed me to the discussion above. I did read that discussion first, however, and saw no canon source for the stardate before I removed it. Cid - since you're sure that it is correct, please point me to the source so I can check it out. If it was shown in an Okudagram, that's fine.
- However, if it was reverse-engineered from 44286 (birthday episode) by subtracting 32000 units, using the simplistic stardate assumption that 1000 units = 1 year, one which may or may not apply in a particular case (what about Lwaxana Troi's stardate 30620.1 of 2328, or the 2355 Battle of Maxia stardate 40217?), then it is absolutely non-canon and must be removed from the infobox as soon as possible. The 1000 units = 1 year, with 000 = January 1 is just a simplification introduced by Chronology writers after the fact, and was by no means adhered to 100% in the canon. Therefore, it is impossible to reverse-engineer stardates on the show, only record them if we happen to see them. – NotOfTheBody 18:56, December 20, 2009 (UTC)
- I reverted the removal because it happened although there has been a citation on the talk page (and undisputed for more than the last 4 years, no less). If that citation turns out to have been wrong for the whole time, then by all means feel free to correct it - but do it in a way that is comprehensible to everyone, even months or years later. Removing some fact while keeping the discussion that considered that fact "valid" unchanged, will just lead to confusion down the line. Exactly this concern is the reason for not just deleting assumptions, but moving them to the talk page. -- Cid Highwind 19:33, December 20, 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I immediately saw that the "citation" obviously isn't one - I thought everyone understood that one can't just reverse-engineer stardates. Also, I did explain myself in the summary field, because I didn't think more than a sentence or two was necessary. I tracked down the revision which introduced this stardate: January 2, 2005 at 16:01 by SmokeDetector47, so I asked him to comment. – NotOfTheBody 20:07, December 20, 2009 (UTC)
- Just to make sure we're talking about the same bit of information: "The stardate is the correct birthdate as given in "Future Imperfect"." - in this comment, SmokeDetector doesn't mention anything about this stardate not being from the episode proper. Especially nothing about any "reverse engineering" going on, which was an independent assumption made by other participants of that discussion. -- Cid Highwind 20:13, December 20, 2009 (UTC)
- I meant the last comment about stardate calculation, but looking at SmokeDetector47's comment again, mine is still a reasonable interpretation, since the episode is set on stardate 44286 and features Riker's birthday, while I don't recall ever having seen references to Okudagrams from that episode. Anyway, if he confirms it was added based on a calculation, we can remove it (and possibly replace it by a date from Conundrum, if it appeared onscreen). – NotOfTheBody 20:20, December 20, 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks for the info. – NotOfTheBody 20:24, December 20, 2009 (UTC)
- After watching "Future Imperfect" I can find no reference to a stardate other than 44286.5 that was spoken or seen on a display (except his service record - which is barely visible) and the only year reference is 16 years ago. His service record was shown on screen but the record was limited to the Fornax Disaster and after so I seriously doubt it contained his birth date. In addition to the stardate problem neither of those episodes stated his gregorian dob either. So that's probably speculative, as well. If found it should go on the Timeline project page. — Morder (talk) 21:01, December 20, 2009 (UTC)
Something should be said about Riker's relationship with Wesley or lack there of. Commander Riker was in charge of Wesley's studies and had an annoying habit of calling Wesley "Boy". On the episode “Data Lore”, he is apologizing to Captain Picard because Wesley was defending himself because the Captain Picard was unwilling to listen to Wesley's concerns about Lore. On the episode “Where no one has gone before”, he admits to not listing to Wesley when he should have.--126.96.36.199 03:39, June 8, 2010 (UTC)
Claustrophobia and love of exobotany?
In TNG: "The Outcast", Riker tells Soren that "he's always been interested in exobotany." Whether he was joking or playing along to get alone with Soren is debatable, but if it's true a statement, it should be added somewhere, right? Also, after going outside for some air, he says that because he was raised outdoors, he's never been very comfortable in crowded rooms. I don't see any "dislikes" or such on the Article, can we add somewhere? Is he possibly claustrophobic?--Brumagnus 03:35, June 9, 2010 (UTC)