Memory Alpha
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.


Name

Worf...

...son of Mogh, of the Klingon House of Martok, of the Human family Rozhenko, mate to K'Ehleyr, father to Alexander Rozhenko, and husband to Jadzia Dax, Starfleet officer and soldier of the Empire, bane of the House of Duras and slayer of Gowron

I vote that we keep this :-) --OuroborosCobra talk 02:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Of all the times I left the IRC, I miss this :-P - Enzo Aquarius 02:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I vote that we delete this :-) --Defiant 03:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Spoil sport :-P --OuroborosCobra talk 03:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not spoil sport!! Not in general, anyway. Maybe tennis or baseball or something, but not all sport!! :) --Defiant 03:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Seriously, though, is there a reason for keeping this? --Defiant 03:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
It was intended as a bit of a joke to be honest. Something to tease Renegade54 a bit. I fully anticipate it (and expect it) to be deleted. Keeping it would be a bit... silly really. :) -- Sulfur 03:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Although I can take the occasional joke, I've got a feeling that misuse of MA doesn't set a very good example for new or less regular users. Also, not only do I agree that the redirect should be deleted but I also think the long, rambling introductory passage for the Worf article should be sectioned into separate sentences, especially after having read on one of MA's Guidelines pages that long, rambling sentences should be avoided! --Defiant 03:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I say we keep this and also make a redirect for Alexander Siddig using his full name, Siddig El Tahir El Fadil El Siddig Abderahman Mohammed Ahmed Abdel Karim El Mahdi. These will be extremely useful as many users come in and take the time to type these names in the search field, hoping to be taken directly to the page and not have to go through the one match on the search result page. Come on, people, we need to think efficiency and practicality here! --From Andoria with Love 03:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
You should really know not to tease me like that... expect a blue link by morning! Hee hee! -- Sulfur 03:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't mind that so much, but the Worf redirect should be removed, IMO, as it's not only his name, but also relationships with people. --Defiant 03:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps simply Worf, son of Mogh would suffice? --Defiant 03:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
(imagines a vandal moving this page) [[Worf, son of Mogh, of the Klingon House of Martok, of the Human family Rozhenko, mate to K'Ehleyr, father to Alexander Rozhenko, and husband to Jadzia Dax, Starfleet officer and soldier of the Empire, bane of the House of Duras and slayer of Gowron on Wheels!!!]] --From Andoria with Love 03:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I was joking too. This redirect is going to be deleted, I am aware of this. It does not belong, it does not make sense to keep it. I was just having some fun with it while it was here. We should keep Siddig El Tahir El Fadil El Siddig Abderahman Mohammed Ahmed Abdel Karim El Mahdi of course, since that is his real name. --OuroborosCobra talk 04:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Name (J.G.)

Just the other day, I bought season one of TNG. The box has a booklet inside, with small character biographies. I noticed Worf's on there, where it said J.G. Worf. I searched this page, but I could find nothing about it. Could this be his first name? supergeeky1 20:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Lieutenant junior grade --Alan del Beccio 20:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
...with "J.G." being the abbreviation for "junior grade". ;) --From Andoria with Love 04:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Complete name (redux)

Wouldn't be Worf's complete name Worf Rozhenko just like his son was named Alexander Rozhenko?

Worf was primarily followed the Klingon traditions, making his complete name "Worf, son of Mogh." Alexander took the name Rozhenko, most likely, to honor both of his parents, honoring his father's adoptive parents and his mother's Human ancestory. Hope this helps. ----Willie 20:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

That sounds awful. There is no canon evidence that Alex took the name Rozhenko to honor his parents.

And? --OuroborosCobra talk 06:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, then there is most likely Worf's full name be Worf Rozhenko.

Why? It was clearly stated in canon that it was "Worf son of Mogh", not "Worf Rozhenko". A talk page comment by Willie about personal opinions as to why Alexander chose "Alexander Rozhenko" does not change that. --OuroborosCobra talk 06:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
In that case then, while this is an older discussion, shouldn't the page (similar to other Klingon character pages) be named "Worf, son of Mogh"? --Terran Officer 14:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Problem is... his name is both. Both do redirect here. And anyhow, everyone knows him as just "Worf". :) -- Sulfur 15:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
So for Federation purposes, "Worf Moghson" perhaps? I know of no instance that he was referred to by that. --LauraCC (talk) 16:00, April 17, 2015 (UTC)

Worf's full name should be in bold

Worf's full name is "Worf, son of Mogh", so shouldn't the "son of Mogh" part also be in bold at the beginning of the article? --NetSpiker (talk) 13:16, January 27, 2017 (UTC)

Dunno. Is it his proper name or just how they refer to him ceremonially? Making Worf's name "Moghson" or "McMogh" in Fed standard? :D --LauraCC (talk) 15:45, January 27, 2017 (UTC)

In novels and reference books, Worf, son of Mogh and other ___, son of ___ names are mentioned in narration, not just dialogue, so I'd say they are actual names. Icelandic names follow the same conventions. --NetSpiker (talk) 01:42, January 28, 2017 (UTC)

RTFM. - Archduk3 01:48, January 28, 2017 (UTC)

I never said that the page should be renamed. I'm just saying the "son of Mogh" part should be in bold. --NetSpiker (talk) 01:52, January 28, 2017 (UTC)

I would think this was implicit with the title of the page being what it is. - Archduk3 02:01, January 28, 2017 (UTC)

If you disagree with what I'm saying, please explain why you disagree, so we can discuss it. Don't just post links that are vaguely related to the topic, but don't really have anything to do with it. --NetSpiker (talk) 02:11, January 28, 2017 (UTC)

Highlighted text is the subject of the page, and in almost all cases, this is the page title. This should be obvious to anyone who reads the highlighting conventions. The page title here is just Worf, which is why only Worf is highlighted. Suggesting we highlight any more is a suggestion to change the title of the page, and the reasons for not doing that are in the sections above and in the naming conventions, which is why this belongs where I put it. It doesn't matter who see it either, because it's not changing unless the titles does, and in that case, it still belongs where I put it. Don't move it again, and don't change the highlighted text. - Archduk3 14:30, January 28, 2017 (UTC)

Here's a list of examples where the title of the page and the highlighted text are NOT the same:

Alfonse Pacelli - Alfonse D. Pacelli
Arlene Eckridge - Arlene C. Eckridge
Benjamin Sisko - Benjamin Lafayette Sisko
Beverly Crusher - Beverly Cheryl Crusher
Daniel Kwan - Daniel L. Kwan
Harry Kim - Harry S.L. Kim
James T. Kirk - James Tiberius Kirk
Julian Bashir - Julian Subatoi Bashir
Kasidy Yates-Sisko - Kasidy Danielle Yates-Sisko
Leonard McCoy - Leonard H. McCoy
Lois R. Eckridge - Lois R. Eckridge
Miles O'Brien - Miles Edward O'Brien
Pavel Chekov - Pavel Andreievich Chekov
Rudolph Ransom - Rudolph "Rudy" Ransom
Samuel Clemens - Samuel Langhorne Clemens
Tom Paris - Thomas Eugene Paris
Walter Pierce - Walter J. Pierce
Wesley Crusher - Wesley Robert Crusher
William T. Riker - William Thomas "Will" Riker

In each case, the highlighted text is the full name, while the title is the most common name. And don't move this discussion again. It is an ongoing discussion that is completely unrelated to any previous discussion. --NetSpiker (talk) 23:40, January 28, 2017 (UTC)

If there are no further objections, I will be making this change for Worf, son of Mogh and other Klingon characters. --NetSpiker (talk) 12:03, March 9, 2017 (UTC)

You will be blocked from editing if you do so. - Archduk3 17:49, March 9, 2017 (UTC)

If you disagree with me, why don't you explain why you disagree instead of making threats? I have already demonstrated that the highlighted text doesn't have to be the same as the title of the article. I have also demonstrated that "son of" is an actual part of a Klingon's name since it is used not just in dialogue, but also in narration. --NetSpiker (talk) 01:02, March 10, 2017 (UTC)

It's not a threat, it's what will happen if you do this. You whined last time I didn't warn you, as if it wasn't clear, so this time I have spelled it out for you. I've already explained the why we don't do this as much as it needs to be, and I don't need your understanding, or even your acceptance of it, but I will have your compliance. I don't particularly care if you're too dense to see the points I've, and plenty of others before me, have made, or are just ignoring them, but you don't have consensus here, and making these changes over the policies, guidelines, and consensus to not do this will result in you being blocked for violating said guidelines and policies. In case it wasn't clear last time either, circumventing a block will expediently increase the length of that block. If this the hill you want to die on, it's your move. - Archduk3 02:46, March 10, 2017 (UTC)

You have made the point that highlighted text should be the same as the page title. I have shown you that this is incorrect. You have made no other points. There are no "plenty of others". You me and LauraCC are the only participants in this discussion.

You don't get to block someone just because you disagree with them. Since you wish to continue abusing your blocking powers and have started insulting me, I will be asking that you be removed from your admin position. --NetSpiker (talk) 03:08, March 10, 2017 (UTC)

He said "Highlighted text is the subject of the page, and in almost all cases, this is the page title." That is different that "should be the same". --Alan del Beccio (talk) 03:17, March 10, 2017 (UTC)

"Almost all cases" is still incorrect. There are many dozens of character and actor pages where the highlighted text and the title are not the same. --NetSpiker (talk) 03:24, March 10, 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to point out two things:
1) The threat to block if the change is made, that's over the top. Don't.
2) The examples NeSpiker gave are ALL listing a MIDDLE name. None of them have an extension of the name, so I'm personally not convinced that this is a valid highlighting suggestion.
Heck, we went through this a few years back when someone else was trying to make a point and the name of the article became incredibly long. And silly. Either way, I'm not entirely convinced at the highlighting change, and even if it were done, is it really all that bad? -- sulfur (talk) 10:55, March 10, 2017 (UTC)
I'm not convinced the change is needed, either, but by the same token, like sulfur mentioned, it's not the end of the world if the change *is* made, either. One other thing to keep in mind, though, is that the built-in SEO (search engine optimization) makes use of the bolded text in the first sentence to do its thing with indexing. This is one good, concrete reason to not have extraneous bold text. -- Renegade54 (talk) 18:15, March 10, 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for unblocking me, Sulfur. There are examples where name extensions have been highlighted.

Four of Twelve - Four of Twelve, Subjunction of Unimatrix 525
Three of Five - Three of Five, Tertiary Adjunct of Unimatrix 01
Lansor - designated as Two of Nine, Primary Adjunct of Unimatrix Zero One
P'Chan - (Borg designation: Four of Nine, Secondary Adjunct of Unimatrix 01)
Seven of Nine - (full Borg designation: Seven of Nine, Tertiary Adjunct of Unimatrix 01
Norman Schwarzkopf - Norman Schwarzkopf, Jr.
Stephen D'Amato - Stephen D’Amato, Jr.
Steve Gausche - Steve Gausche, Jr.

-- NetSpiker (talk) 00:04, March 11, 2017 (UTC)

Renegade, can you explain how highlighting a larger amount of text will affect indexing? I'm not sure what indexing means in the context of wikis. --NetSpiker (talk) 02:32, March 12, 2017 (UTC)

Read search engine optimization at Wikipedia for an overview of the topic and process. In a nutshell, SEO is what drives external searches, such in Google, to an article in MA. The bold text in the first paragraph of an article is used by Wikimedia's and/or Wikia's automatic, built-in SEO algorithm to create properly route searches to the correct article; the more extraneous text, the less precise the search results. Too much bold text, and the SEO algorithm gives up and the article remains unoptimized. It has nothing to do with internal indexing, and is solely used by external search engine indexing. -- Renegade54 (talk) 02:58, March 12, 2017 (UTC)
Also, the Borg names you gave as examples probably shouldn't have the extension highlighted. I doubt few if any people would search for that whole name, or the extension part of the name. Cast and crew names are trickier; we normally have the article at the name that they're first credited as, with full name, birth name, other credited name, etc. also bolded and redirected. The Jr./Sr./whatever is added for clarity beyond what's credited. -- Renegade54 (talk) 02:58, March 12, 2017 (UTC)

I tried searching for “four of twelve” and “three of five” on Google. In both cases, the Memory Alpha page was the #1 result, so the name extension doesn’t seem to be causing any problems for the search engine. --NetSpiker (talk) 02:02, March 13, 2017 (UTC)

That wasn't my point. Because they're bold, they get fed into the SEO algorithm. That's most likely why MA ranks #1 when searching for those terms. You could bold "sadfjalkjlte" or anything else in the first paragraph and, most likely, MA would come up #1 in the search. That doesn't mean we want to or should do that. I really don't have the time or energy to get into the rather arcane details of SEO with you, though. If you want to learn more about the topic, there are whole books written on the subject. On top of that, I don't know the exact details of how SEO works on Wikia; I did discuss it a bit with the Wikia folks in SF, and that's the limit of my knowledge. -- Renegade54 (talk) 03:37, March 13, 2017 (UTC)
Is there some kind of compromise, such as italicizing or underlining the extra text? I don't know how that works either. --LauraCC (talk) 15:15, March 13, 2017 (UTC)
Could I suggest multiple bold names, formatted like Seven of Nine? That format should work for any of the examples above. Thebilldude (talk) 16:28, March 15, 2017 (UTC)

That sounds okay. I've taken a look at how Wikipedia does this sort of thing. Kahless, Gowron, Martok and Worf are the only Klingon characters to have their own pages, and in each case their full name is highlighted. --NetSpiker (talk) 05:42, March 18, 2017 (UTC)

The old opener was far more interesting

The old opening sentence was one of my favorite MA lines. It reminds me of his "if I can do all these things" speech in "Time's Orphan". The new one is boring, completely un-interesting. No style at all. --Bp 04:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and unlike the discussion above, I am not joking. It was actually a well written opening, and I prefer it to this one. --OuroborosCobra talk 04:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Well... I wrote it, and I (obviously) like it better, but I think someone else should change it back, if so desired, since I'm biased. :) As a reply to Defiant, though, in general I agree with that rule about long, rambling sentences. This, though, is different; first of all, it's not really a sentence, per se, it's a title (or set of titles). That's why it's set off from the rest of the sentence by hyphens, and that's why it's divided into sections with semicolons. Second, it's a special case; call it artistic license, if you will. By breaking a rule, doing something unexpected, you set the article off from the rest. And third, like Bp mentioned above, it fits the Klingon personality in general, and Worf's specifically. -- Renegade54 18:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I was just formatting it to MA's own guidelines - "long, rambling sentences should be avoided" (from Memory Alpha:The perfect article) - but I'm alright with reverting it, because "perfection is not required"! :) --Defiant 19:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

K'Ehleyr wasn't a spouse

K'Ehleyr is listed in the spouse field, which seems like an error. Just so everyone is clear, the dictionary definition of spouse is “a husband or wife, considered in relation to their partner”. Sure, they had a child together, but so did James T. Kirk and Carol Marcus, who aren’t listed as each others’ spouses. He does refer to her as his “mate” and engage in a mating ritual, which seems more analogous to being a girlfriend than a wife. Also, marriage rituals are mentioned in the episode, which clearly never took place. “You Are Cordially Invited” shows that Klingons have a very clearly defined institution of marriage. Worf himself doesn’t consider their union a marriage, he said in the same episode “[Dax] has had five marriages, this would be my first.”--This user is not Jesus (talk) 18:43, March 22, 2017 (UTC)

So, I noticed that her name is not in the list and was going to mention it here as I thought it should be. I see what this user was saying a few years ago, but I also remember the scene in the episode The Emissary when Word spoke the words of The Oath, and she refused. Then, later, in "Reunion," he began the oath, and she started to also, but he stopped he. Taking the oath then would have been marriage as it didn't specifically require the ritualistic weddings.
This would be like getting a marriage license, filling it out, going to the judge, but then being like, "Eh... not right now. Let's do this later when it's better for the kid." But, at the same time he claimed her as mate, and this was recognized as a legitimate claim. So, in my opinion, she should be listed as at least something equivalent to fiance. If there are no objections, I will add this in later.Dr. Quincy Lancelot Killjoy, M.D., Psy.D. (talk) 17:37, May 25, 2020 (UTC)

Worf fanon

Worf was never a Captain in any Star Trek TV shows, this looks like fanon to me. It was added by user:SummerAgenda615.--Typhuss999 (talk) 20:37, March 7, 2020 (UTC)

Advertisement