Talk: Beard

Data's beard

Working on the Data page, it occurred to me this image is totally unnecessary. There is practically no reference to Data growing a beard in the article, and such an insignificant detail does not need an image. After all, there were barely two minutes alltogether which showed Data with his beard. Ottens 16:08, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ah yes, but the article is incomplete. At the moment I vote neutral. The fact of why he did it - all part of being a student of the humanities is a topic that can be well discussed in his article (not necessary about growing a beard, but as an example of one of the many things). As well, it does go well with explaining what he, as an android, is capable of doing with is body, as was discussed with Bashir in "Birthright". --Gvsualan 19:42, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Seeking to reduce the number of images on the Data page ;) I found Data's growing of a beard unimportant enough for an image. That, plus I don't think it could be used on any other page (the beard was rather insignificant in the episode as well)... Ottens 15:05, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Has there been enough information to justify an article about beards ("Cause and Effect", "Q Who", etc.) in reference to Star Trek? keep, some fans keep track of that sort of thing -- Captain Mike K. Bartel^talk

An article about beards would be interesting... but we need to ask ourselves... is it important for the casual fan need to know what Data looked like with a beard? -- SmokeDetector47 // talk 18:19, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Re: Mike - There is also the refence to Riker shaving off his beard in Insurrection and the whole "smooth as an androids butt" joke. As well, there could be something mentioned about Siskos new look, in the little Ben/Jake/goatee interaction, from "Explorers". There might be enough to make a beard fetish page. ;) --Gvsualan 10:52, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I was under the impression that Data's beard in Episode 6 of Season 2 was making fun of the adoption of Jonathan Frakes' beard at the start of the season. Is there any evidence that this was intended as an inside joke by one of the writers? – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.80.237.43.

Implementation

I'm sorry, but this is, perhaps, one of the silliest topics for an article. However, if it has to be here, it should be done well.

First it needs a reorganization, as it throws out a few examples of beards but then categorizes them by species, including the people just discussed. One or the other, please.
The section on Bajorans is conjectural by assuming that every single person on Bajor is in the militia or is a monk. And Bajoran religious views have nothing to do with beards so far as I know; conservatism does not equal facial baldness, if that was the point.
I have no idea how to even begin to comment on "By the 24th century, many Humans did not have facial hair", except that it is biologically wrong, and as we see primarily Starfleet officers not a good conclusion to draw from observed males.
"Klingons in particular, find beards to be a symbol of pride" is not cited as to the resource used.
"Vulcans are generally do not grow beards" is both in need of work and not cited. More importantly, why do we care about the absence of a beard? It appears little more than an attempt to find content where there really isn't any.

Basically, if this article is to remain it should cite each of its statements of fact and confine itself to (and I can't believe I'm saying this) important beards in Trek. Aholland 21:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't start the article, but beards are referenced a few times (as noted in the intro) and this is necessary for a complete future encyclopedia existing in the Star Trek (Tommy Westphall) universe. To address your points:

I think the organization is alright as the beginning examples cannot be categorize into the lower sections (they don't deal with species-specific beards). So, I don't believe there's a problem there.
I fixed the grammar of the word "so" that caused it to appear that way. I was trying to relay the fact that all Bajorans with beards happen to be religious figures and such.
The "symbol of pride" was something Worf said in "The Quality of Life". (and is cited now, but not by me)
Yes, that's one of the easily fixable grammar problems that shouldn't be brought up on a talk page. It is to note that most Vulcans, seen, do not have beards (hard to cite, because it's based on several episodes and movies).

Hopefully that'll deal with the problems you have with article (other than your gut "silliness" feeling). There aren't that many beards in Trek (this page covers most, if not all, of the species referenced), so this doesn't seem that silly to me.--Tim Thomason 07:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Some of the symptoms have been corrected, but the underlying problems still need some work:

The first sentence on Data deals most directly with human beards; not Klingon, Bajoran, or anyone elses. It should be under the human section.
The statement "Bajorans are a very religious and conservative people" has absolutely nothing to do with beards or explanations of their existence. (Just removing the "so" didn't fix that, unfortunately.)
The statement "In the 24th century, many civilian Humans did not seem to have facial hair" is not supported by anything; it is a logical fallacy (an "inductive fallacy" for those who like technical terms) as the sample used in an inductive inference is insufficient to make the claim. It is like saying that "In the 24th century, many humans did not seem to have homosexual relationships" or "did not seem to have bathrooms" merely because of the paucity of observed examples. And it is still biologically incorrect as to facial hair.
The statement "Vulcans generally do not grow beards" is the same logical fallacy. And why just Vulcans? Why not make the same claim for any number of species where beards were not observed?

I will make an attempt to fix these problems, even though at heart I find the article fairly pointless. Aholland 15:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Aholland, while you may find this article "silly" and "pointless", there is no reason to express that opinion on this talk page. People have taken the time to work on this article, and while comments as to the actual content of the article are more than welcome (i.e., what needs changing, what is fine), criticism typically is not welcome and can actually be seen as a personal attack against the user who created the article and those who contributed to the article. Please watch what you say in the future, and keep excessive criticism to yourself. Thank you. --From Andoria with Love 23:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe that my comments have been exclusively in respect of the content of the article; please correct me and let me know where my comments have in any way been personal as that is certainly not my intention and I would like to understand where I might be wrong in that assessment. My opinion that this article does not significantly contribute to the overall comprehensiveness sought by Memory Alpha, and can lead to derision by those who already feel that our collective work here is of little value and the most trivial in nature, is, I believe, appropriate for this Discussion page. If there is another, more appropriate, place to discuss that, please let me know.
That having been said, I disagree that Vulcans deserve a section of their own. Why a species with three beards and no notable social or biological interest in beards should be highlighted here is a mystery to me. Is there some compelling reason I am missing?
I also disagree with the implication that merely because people have spent time on an article that quality and/or significance are a necessary byproduct. The very nature of the wiki format invites criticism; criticism of both the content and the choice of subject matter. I have created some really silly and pointless things in my time; I have always welcomed someone letting me know so I could turn my attention to things of note instead. I am trying through my criticism here to improve quality and accuracy; nothing more. Aholland 02:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I beleive my exact words were "can actually be seen as a personal attack." All I'm saying is that your comments may be interpreted as an attack on others. Criticism is welcome, of course, but I think – unless an article is truly meant as pure vandalism or silliness – that going on and saying an article that's been around for a while and has been worked on quite a bit is "silly" and "pointless" is a bit much (you've said the same about TAS articles). Memory Alpha is about completeness, it's mission to create the most comprehensive Star Trek encyclopedia. And believe it or not, beards do play an important role in Trek in that they help to distinguish character. Beards were clearly referenced and discussed in several Trek episodes, making them even more important. Riker grew a beard because he didn't like everyone saying how young he looked. Data grew a beard in an effort to mimmick such a distinctly human quality. Geordi attempted to grow a beard twice, and both times, the occassion were discussed. Riker shaved off his beard to please Troi in Insurrection. And, of course, Soval and Spock sported beards in "In a Mirror, Darkly, Part II" and "Mirror, Mirror", respecitively, to better emphasize the strange universe we are seeing and the difference in the characters as compared to those in our own universe. So, while you may feel the article is ridiculous and unneeded, obviously there are many who disagree with you... specifically those who worked on the article.
As for the Vulcans being given a section, I think Vulcan beards should be a major part of the article, although it needs to give detail as to their beards in the Mirror Universe. It doesn't matter how many Vulcan we saw with beards, though; all that matters is that there were some.
Wow, I've gone into a bit of a rant here, haven't I? Terribly sorry, I don't usually do that. Anyway, I wasn't trying to say flat out that you were attacking fellow contributors, merely warning you that it could be looked upon as such. Your clarification here, however, should help to prevent such an event. :) --From Andoria with Love 04:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad that you didn't see my comments as personal attacks of any sort. I'll wait and see how the Vulcan section develops before making any other suggestions regarding it. Aholland 05:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Evil beard

Merge with beard, eventually. Could be a background note there, although I'm not really sure about even that. Isn't necessary as a separate article, though. -- Cid Highwind 11:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The beard article already notes that Vulcans in the mirror universe sport goatees, while the Star Trek parodies and similar Trek homage/reference/pop culture articles should discuss the "evil beard" phenomenon. Frankly, I think this can be deleted without a merge, but I'm okay with that option as well... so long as it's not left here much longer. --From Andoria with Love 23:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

AR Separation

It was more not shaving than a true effort to grow one, but McCoy has a beard when Kirk meets him on the shuttle - should he be listed since Kelley-Bones and Urban-Bones are essentially different people, or is just the one listing enough?--Ten-pint 00:17, April 2, 2010 (UTC)

Sisko & Vulcan "Goatee" References

The references in this article (and throughout the website) to "goatees" of Sisko and the Vulcans should be permanently amended to "Van Dyke," which is the proper term for this form of beard. A goatee is tuft of hair on the chin, and has no moustache. I know that this article is somewhat silly, but it should be done correctly nonetheless. -- Quackattack 11:23, 27 Apr 2011.

It is indeed a Van Dyke, so the only question is was it called something other than that in canon? - Archduk 3 19:13, April 27, 2011 (UTC)

I'd never even heard of this "Van Dyke" term until I looked it up(at first I thought it might be vandalism, which I now know it is not). I think all that was said in canon was "beard". The script for Explorers only says beard. --31dot 00:42, April 28, 2011 (UTC)