Talk: Female Changeling

Her humanoid appearance

Odo looks like a burn victim because he tries unsuccessfully to mimic the Bajoran nose. We know that more skilled changelings can mimic Klingons, humans, etc without flaw.

So why does Female Changeling go for the burn victim look? Also, Laas goes for this same look, more or less. Why? Laas should have gone for either the Martok look or the Vulcan captain look.

a. For some reason, the burn victim look is the easiest most natural look for changelings to do.

b. The producers wanted to use the same make-up to make it easy for the audience to understand that Odo and the Founders are the same race.

– The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.64.220.172.

I always interpreted it as copying Odo's look so that he would recognize that they were the same people as him -- that is, to put him at ease with them. Regulation Bowling Alley 07:18, May 4, 2010 (UTC)

Female Changeling's name

I don't know why, but the idea of the female changeling SIGNING her name on the peace accord at the end of the series just doesn't sit well with me. Something about the idea of HER holding a pen and SIGNING! What name did she sign I wonder?!!!! – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.94.149.27.

She may have a designation that we are uncertain of. Each changeling has their own consciousness, so they must have something to call each other or she could've signed on behalf of all changelings (Meaning that she signed as all, the collective.) - Adm. Enzo Aquarius 22:38, 28 Oct 2005 (UTC)

According to "Behind the Lines", when Odo asked the Female Changeling if she had a name, she went on and on about how changelings aren't individuals, and the link's great and so on. So that episode seems to imply that she doesn't have a name. I always assumed that she signed "...in the name of the Dominion" or something. The Federation might have already given her some kind of criminal registry to sign with, or they could have some designation for unnamed people, which I'm sure had to have been encountered before.--Tim Thomason 02:29, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I always called her Salami Woman because that's what the name Salome Jens made me think of. S'pose that doesn't help much in this conversation though... Basically, yeah, she's just M. Noh Body. --Broik 02:36, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)

The Founder's writing style

The "odd writing style" the Female Changeling displays in "What You Leave Behind" isn't all that odd. Many left-handed people curl their hands around the stylus when they write, myself included. Rather than inventing a deliberately alien mannerism for the role, it's far more likely that Salome Jens simply writes that way in real life. --Jimsmith 05:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Apocrypha

Could someone familiar with Worlds of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, Volume 3 add some info on her rescue in that novel by Taran'atar? --When it rains... it pours 11:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

You might want to re-read that book. Taran'atar doesn't rescue her. But, yeah, I'll add something about it. Willie 11:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I think either that section or the section on canon needs to be rewritten since it implies the information that Odo introduced her to..."solid intimacy" only appeared in the novels whereas in fact it is stated in "Favour the Bold". – Skteosk 14:24, October 11, 2009 (UTC)

inconsistency of article title

The title of the article is "*Female* Changing", yet the info box lists her/its gender as "none". Someone should resolve this inconsistency. Either her gender is female, or it has no gender and the name of the article is incorrect. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.97.183.31.

She was called the Female Changeling according to scripts and such. As such changelings don't have a gender as far as we know. Morder 15:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The feminine article is used to refer to "her" in plenty of onscreen dialogs, too. That's justification enough to call "her" character "Female Changeling". Anyway, it's "Female Changeling" and not "Laas", "Odo", "Martok (changeling)", or any of the other various changeling characters. Which Changeling? The "female" one. That is all. SennySix 21:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

In "What You Leave Behind" the character is called the "female shapeshifter" in the opening credits. Why is it that the article chooses to call her the female changeling? Are title credits considered a canon source? I don't recall the name "female changeling ever being spoken on the show. (Vince 16:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC))

The species are called Changelings consistently throughout the show. "Shapeshifter" is something of an epithet. If this wasn't a major character, she'd be on the Unnamed Changelings page because that's the species name. At any rate, in my opinion the article pages should reflect the credits, and we could list this detail here on this page under Background. Still, I think "Female Changeling" is the right name for this article because of the species name. --TribbleFurSuit 17:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree entirely. I'll put in a note in background info, but I'm sure what I put in will undego many edits. (132.3.9.68 04:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC))

Hey why was my background info removed? (132.3.9.68 06:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC))

Since she was referred to as both "Female Changeling" and "Female Shapeshifter," we just put both names at the top. That pretty much covers it, I think; a background note further explaining that she was also referred to as a "Female Shapeshifter" shouldn't be necessary. --From Andoria with Love 19:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

She was referred to as "the female changeling" by Weyoun 6 in Treachery, Faith, and the Great River. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.176.243.210.

...and "Favor the Bold". --Alan 14:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

on most episodes its simply "and Salome Jems" with no name given to the character. Female changling seems to be simply what those on the station refer to her as as its the only way to describe her and as she's the only one who seems to have taken female form in their presence that makes sense. 82.41.88.252 10:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Also played by...

It was added in the infobox that Nana Visitor also played the Changeling in the form of Nana Visitor. Am I the only one who finds this completely unnecessary? For one, I'm sure the Female Changeling changed into a few other characters, are we to add all of those actors? Also, if we add that here, are we to also add that Odo was also played by Salome Jens? Are to also add that The Doctor was also played by Jeri Ryan, Roxann Dawson, Robert Beltran, Kate Mulgrew, and probably several others. Ok, sure, we say that James T. Kirk was also played by Sandra Smith, so I guess there is precedent. I still don't think listing things like this are necessary, though, especially for characters like The Doctor who would have a bunch of additional actors listed on his infobox. --From Andoria with Love 09:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that the case of Kirk is different, as Kirk was actually in another person's body. In the case of the Doc and the Changeling, they only took on the form of another person and pretended to be them, they were not actually that person. For example, when she changed into Kira, she was not Kira, she was just pretending to be her. That's not the actress "playing" Kira.--31dot 11:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

But it is Nana Vistor playing the Female Changling (pretending to be Kira). —Commodore Sixty-Four^(TALK) 07:51, October 24, 2010 (UTC)

spoilers at the beginning?

{moved from User talk:Archduk3)

I have noticed that many character pages already mention at the very beginning what the person ends up doing by the the time the series ends etc. (almost all articles). In the specific case of the female changeling, it is an interesting point to mention, which is that she told them even before the war what she was going to do to them. How the readers read or take information is not my, or should not be our, problem. They can take it as they like. I dont think this is insulting anyone's intelligence. I see what you are saying and I was a bit ambiguous too but the juxtaposition seems nice. Finally, we do warn people about spoilers and that MA is in fact full of spoilers. Ah, now that I think about it, I actually dont care about arguing about this crap too now. Take it off if it makes your day or night or twilight.

Oh and Duke, you should seriously read your talk page or debate it before you abuse your admin privileges, revert articles to your preference and then block them from editing indefinitely. That is indeed very uncool. This has nothing to do with making our readers idiots. There are spoilers and drawing of such connections all over the place here on MA, I dont know why this is particularly ticking you off. ....– Distantlycharmed 06:47, October 23, 2010 (UTC)

First, conversations about articles should be left at that article, this isn't about me or you, but the article. Second, don't make people read more than they have to; the longer the article, the less the casual reader is actual going to read while skimming it. Third, it is insulting to point out every little nuance with unnecessary explanations. The same is can be said about spoilers. If you don't have to spoil something, don't. Just because we have general spoilers at the top of articles, and out articles don't have to be spoiler free, isn't a reason to be adding them everywhere. As for the protection, it's staying on until someone else comes by and comments since this was important enough to keep reverting over after the explanation instead of starting a discussion here, and it's always been my policy to revert to a point before either editor added or subtracted the text in question from the article when there is a back and forth like this. If you think I'm abusing my admin powers, feel free to take it up with Cid of sulfur. - Archduk3 07:09, October 23, 2010 (UTC)

Look dude, I told you right up front that on second thought you can keep it the way it was, I dont feel like arguing about it. But now that we are starting a debate, let me say that, given what we strive to be here on MA - namely a very comprehensive encyclopedia - it is surprising to me that you would suggest to keep articles essentially as short as possible. All while there is a looong long article on an extra like Lt. Ayala, detailing his whereabouts in painful stalker-mode detail. Ha. Also, this is an encyclopedia, not a Cliff's notes or quick summary for the lazy reader. As someone mentioned in the discussion about warp theory, we are not responsible for how readers will take something or how they will use the information etc. We just put everything out there and it is up to them to make of it as they want.

Your argument about spoilers doesnt make sense. How is "have spoilers, and we know they are everywhere but also dont add them either" a rule or guidance of any kind that someone can go by? What I'm hearing here is that it is essentially arbitrary. Since you reverted my edit, you should have brought it to the talk page instead of engaging in an edit war and then blocking the article and then waiting for me to take it to talk page so you can give me your third degree about it. Finally, pointing out that you seem to be abusing your admin privilege here to indefinitely block an article doesnt mean Im a 12 year old who will take it to the principal. I just pointed out that it was uncool on your part. Anyway, this debate wont go anywhere and this entire talk page was completely unnecessary in the first place and could have been avoided by you reading your talk page and reverting the edit back to how it was, as i suggested, since i didnt feel like arguing about it, instead of making such a big deal out of it. – Distantlycharmed 07:29, October 23, 2010 (UTC)

First, that's a lot of text for someone who keeps insisting they don't care. Second, your first revert was a "why remove this?" question, which I answered when reverting that. At that point, if any discussion was required, you should have started it instead of reverting again, and you did seem to think a discussion was necessary since you spent more than one sentence counterpointing just one of the reasons I said I removed it. At that point, if this wasn't the middle of the night and there were more admins around, I wouldn't have asked myself to stop an edit war from continuing. That is also exactly the reason I didn't set this block to expire, it requires another admin to intervene, and this pretty much insures one will. Third, neither Cid or sulfur is the principal or boss here, but they are the people you should be talking to if you think an admin is abusing their power, and you don't have to find my actions cool since I was doing the same thing I always do when protecting a page. The status quo doesn't need a consensus, but disputed changes do. As for me not reading my talk page, it would seem that I do, since I was able to respond to both of your hasty posts on everything I'm doing wrong. It's not my fault you couldn't wait ten minutes for a response, or the fact you seem to think your statements wouldn't get one. - Archduk3 08:04, October 23, 2010 (UTC)

Dont give me that. You oculd have set a time limit for the expiration. It doesnt require several admins to set a time limit. Also, I didnt know othere are only 3 admins on MA. Im puzzled as to why keep mentioning cid and sulfur. err..whatever. Have a good night without too many spoilers hopefully. – Distantlycharmed 08:19, October 23, 2010 (UTC)

I see nothing improper about Archduk's actions. He acted to prevent disruption of MA, which is one of the things admins are expected to do. Any admin can lift the time limit when the issue is resolved, so that issue is being a little overblown. Cid and Sulfur are bureaucrats and have the authority to remove admin status from someone, this is why they have been mentioned, not because there are "only 3" admins.--31dot 10:41, October 23, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. The only thing I can see coming even close to an "admin misconduct" is the fact that Archduk3 acted (as admin) as the arbiter of some dispute he was personally involved in (as user). This is something that admins should avoid wherever possible, and I think that this situation could have been resolved by another admin even hours later. There wasn't any specific urgency about it.

However, the way Admin-Archduk3 handled the situation involving User-Archduk3 is not a grossly bad one. As he explained, the revert was to a pre-dispute state (which has become something of a standard around here, where disputes and a necessary consensus are concerned), and an indefinite protection was a safe way to get others involved - which happened now.

What I'm going to do is to change the protection to a length of 1 week with, of course, the possibility to lift this protection earlier if a consensus is reached before. Regarding that, let's discuss the proposed change further. I personally think that the phrase in question should not be added. Not necessarily because of any spoiler concerns, but first and foremost because the information about some utterance "foreshadowing" some action years later doesn't strike me as too encyclopedic. It is a hindsight interpretation of the editor and probably not something you'd find in a history book. -- Cid Highwind 11:33, October 23, 2010 (UTC)

When Cid says "not something you'd find in a history book" he's very close to the real issue with the phrase as I see it: it's about point of view. Foreshadowing happens in fictional narratives; Hegelian views of the historical dialectic aside, it doesn't happen in history. If this were an encyclopedia article about the fictional character, as you'd find in Wikipedia, such a phrase would be fine; but if our point of view is meant to be that of a historian in the future of the Star Trek universe, then it's not.

That said, I do think it was slightly unseemly for Archduk to use the admin tool to shut down a dispute he was involved in. It would have been better to let another admin handle the matter. —Josiah Rowe 20:36, October 23, 2010 (UTC)

Ok so I do get Cid's and Josiah's point, however, I have many times observed this practice in many episode summaries and even background section, such as - for example - in the episode "Rapture" where one of the quotes and even in-text summary says:

"- Sisko, foreshadowing the events of "In Purgatory's Shadow" [the Quote section] as well as in the Background section where it says

" Sisko references the discovery of the wormhole (which occurred in "Emissary"), and the coming war with the Dominion (foreshadowing the events of "Call to Arms" and the major story arc of seasons 6 and 7)," as well as Act Two which says

"He explains that he had been experiencing a vision of B'hala, as if he was really there, and had for one moment understood it all: B'hala, the Orbs, the Occupation of Bajor, the discovery of the wormhole, and the coming war with the Dominion – thereby referencing the past and foreshadowing the future."

I have seen this kind on numerous upon numerous of occasions now here on MA (I dont recall them all of course), and so I believed my entry to the Female Changeling article to be valid and not violating anything in terms of encyclopedia or history book violation etc. it was a nice juxtaposition, as she did end up ordering the extermination of all Cardassians at the end.

Finally, these are fictional characters, - even though we here (not me, I wasnt here), erroneously, decided to disregard that fact and pretend that it is history, but it isnt, really folks. Star Trek is a fictional universe and we have made that quite clear on numerous occasions, when someone had proposed a change to some tech article because it wasnt "scientifically sound" based on our current, real world understanding of an issue (evolution, genetic engineering, medical advances, engineering, warp theory etc anyone?). We always tell newbies "hey, this is a fictional universe". Now treating it as history seems bizarre to me...but oh well.

I also understand that simply because "it is everywhere else" doesnt mean it is right, but this is not an isolated thing to be only found in very few articles, this is quite commonplace. We use this kind of "foreshadowing" language quite extensively throughout MA. Saying it is wrong would then require going back through every episode summary, background info and article basically (32,000 +) to make sure no one talks like that. – Distantlycharmed 21:18, October 23, 2010 (UTC)

You're forgetting the POV of everything you're listing above. Most of those are from background notes. Others are from memorable quote sections (which are from the "real world" POV). The ones in the summaries should not be there. And if you can't get through the fact that we are treating these people as if it was real history and want to treat it all like fiction, then I really don't see why you're still spending any time here at all. -- sulfur 21:49, October 23, 2010 (UTC)

Ok sulfur, check your bad attitude and personal dislike for me at the door and let's stay focused on the point of contention here ok? All these low blows and subtle insults on your part are starting to get annoying, not to mention they are disruptive, unbecoming of an admin, go agasint MA policy, are just plain rude and really uncalled for. Your pointing out the POV on those is duly noted and you could have done that without inserting your usual personal insults in there. The fact that I do not agree with a certain kind of policy does not mean I shouldnt be editing here or that it is your place to tell me/ask me or anyone else for that matter that they shouldnt even bother. What does me not pretending that the Star Trek universe is real history have anything, whatsoever, to do with me editing here and my valuable contributions? And who are you to make that call anyway? It's actually pretty sad and pathetic of you to think that unless someone considers the Star Trek universe as real history, they dont belong here. You are way out of line and your comment, as usual as pertaining to me, has little to do with making a solid argument as much as it has the "gtfo" attitude that you have been exhibiting towards me quite a few times now.– Distantlycharmed 00:51, October 24, 2010 (UTC)

Episode summaries, actually whole episode pages, are real world POV. They are describing an episode. Folks in-universe wouldn't be describing these various events together as an episode, or collecting them into acts. So "foreshadowing" is fine. And you're all big jerks. --bp 01:51, October 24, 2010 (UTC)

Can everyone just take a breather? I've forgotten what the actual issue is.--31dot 02:01, October 24, 2010 (UTC)

It was about the virtues of self-sealing stembolts over reverse ratcheters, right? -Angry Future Romulan 02:16, October 24, 2010 (UTC)

The first part of the argument happened in an edit war. It's not really clear from this talk page what the problem was, but I think Archduk3 was talking about spoiling the article, not the show, so it has nothing to do with spoiler policy. Nobody used the talk page, that was the problem. I think if Archie had talk-paged and given notice before revert/locking then it would have been Ok. Anyway, "foreshadowing" being only for fiction? Then it could have been possible to rewrite that sentence in some way as to simply report the fact that she nearly kept the promise. The issue of whether it spoils the article just each person's opinion. Also, Cid used "However," at the beginning of a sentence, bolded even, and he should be shot. Sarcastic antagonism. --bp 02:24, October 24, 2010 (UTC)

Let's forget about the edit war and all that, and stay focused on the issue: the sentence in question, which I wrote in the first section of the article for the Female Changeling was

"During her stay with Odo, she promised Cardassian citizen Elim Garak that his people would all die by the Dominion's hand, foreshadowing the extermination of Cardassians which she ordered at the end of the Dominion War. (DS9: "Broken Link", "What You Leave Behind")"

As Bp said, maybe this can be rewritten to report that she nearly kept her promise (if the word foreshadowing is loaded with implications and just makes people cry in agony).– Distantlycharmed 02:36, October 24, 2010 (UTC)

bp, stop calling me Archie, I'm capable of choosing between Betty and Veronica. Actually, don't use anything that ends with the "ie" sound. I was rather fond of Archdick, but I think we blocked that guy, so don't use that either just to be safe.

DC, no one here is "crying in agony" over the use of a literary term that technically doesn't apply, since the reference wasn't deliberate, and silly statements like that just invite the "attitude" you don't want.

As for the actual issue, why do we need a sentence that just makes the one further down in the article redundant? This just spoils that part of the article, and it's not like the Cardassians were all killed because she suddenly remembered some idle threat from several years/seasons ago. The extermination was completely unrelated, and implying that the threat was the reason is at least speculation, if not down right wrong. Either way, I'm offline till Monday, so don't expect any replies till then. - Archduk3 03:09, October 24, 2010 (UTC)

Oh Duke, I know you mean well. But silly and sarcastic comments are just that: so people stop being so uptight and rude :)

I do see your point about "giving away the ending" (despite spoiler policy), but I'm gonna say this and hopefully we dont have to deal with this anymore: the threat the Female Changeling made really did come true. No one is implying (at least that wasnt my intention) that she later remembered her threat from 2 years ago and then went for it. All it does is inform the reader that she did in fact order their extermination a few years later. It shows internal consistency (character wise), which is important. (Remember the Voyager episode "Worst Case Scenario" where Paris says "Im gonna rewrite the story so that Janeway decides to execute everyone" and Tuvok says "that is completely inconsistent with Captain Janeway's character"?).

If you wanna remove the foreshadow part to express it differently, cool. But again, this is just to inform the reader what happened, a side-by-side comparison if you will. Whatever conclusion people will want to draw from this, (idle threat vs serious threat etc) is not our concern. – Distantlycharmed 04:00, October 24, 2010 (UTC)

To be perfectly accurate, she attempted to make her threat into a reality, but did not quite succeed. Although there were 800 million Cardassians killed, she didn't succeed in having every Cardassian exterminated. Garak, for one, survives, and there are also Cardassians present at the treaty signing.

Now, I don't think there's anything wrong with noting at that point in the article that three years after her threat to Garak, she gave an order which would have fulfilled it. Personally, I don't think that "giving away the ending" is a big problem in this context. But at the same time, I don't know whether the "side-by-side comparison" really adds that much to the article either. I think the article would be fine with or without it. —Josiah Rowe 04:20, October 24, 2010 (UTC)

First of all, everyone please be concise and to the point. Several KB of text just expressing the same small point again and again won't lead to that person "winning" the argument - just to other people no longer following. Second, everyone trying to participate here please understand what this really is about: this is not an episode summary, so out-of-universe "foreshadowing" is not, for that reason, OK.

With the point of using a certain, specific expression already having been dropped, what this discussion boils down to, now, is just the question:

1. Do we need to mention that some threat eventually came true (or close to it) years later when we mention that threat - or
2. should we refer back to the threat when we mention the event that can be construed as being fulfillment of the threat - or
3. should we do neither, and let the reader beware?

I think that both 2 and 3 would be preferable to 1. -- Cid Highwind 11:09, October 24, 2010 (UTC)

Well, since none of these is a violation of any kind of policy, what you are saying then is that it just boils down to personal preference then, as Bp pointed out. – Distantlycharmed 19:33, October 24, 2010 (UTC)

I was going more for "consensus while keeping in mind that we're trying to write an encyclopedia" than just simple "personal preference" - but does that really help you either way? -- Cid Highwind 20:26, October 24, 2010 (UTC)

The consensus will be about personal preference, as none of the 3 options violates encyclopedic entry when you remove the foreshadow part. So anyway, concretely, how about this:

"During her stay with Odo, she promised Cardassian citizen Elim Garak that his people would all die by the Dominion's hand; a threat that eventually came true when she ordered the, albeit unsuccessful, extermination of Cardassians at the end of the Dominion War. (DS9: "Broken Link", "What You Leave Behind")"– Distantlycharmed 20:36, October 24, 2010 (UTC)

"Albeit unsuccessful" is quite awkward there. How about "...a threat which nearly came true when she ordered the extermination of the Cardassians at the end of the Dominion War"? (I still am not completely convinced that the clause is necessary, but neither do I think it's harmful.) —Josiah Rowe 01:25, October 25, 2010 (UTC)

2 Cid. - Archduk3 19:08, October 25, 2010 (UTC)

Pardon? —Josiah Rowe 05:06, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

If it's so important to directly link these two events, it would be best to mention the threat where we talk about the end of the war, not the other way around, hence, Cid's second option. - Archduk3 05:10, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

Citation needed!

The following {{incite}}s will need to be added when page protection is lifted:

Her blind hatred and distaste for humanoids and her genocidal ambitions ultimately culminated in the death of billions of people {{incite|Where is the number of dead estimated?}} and the destruction of hundreds of worlds {{incite|"hundreds" seems a bit much without reference}} in the Alpha Quadrant.

The topic of "billions of people" having been killed in the Dominion War is also currently being discussed on Talk:Dominion War. -- Cid Highwind 09:29, October 25, 2010 (UTC)

Change it to "hundreds of millions of people" - take out billions. – Distantlycharmed 19:59, October 25, 2010 (UTC)

{{Incite}}s added. I think I explained elsewhere that "hundreds of millions" shouldn't be used either, unless it is a figure that has been stated as definite along the way. We need a citation, or we need to use weasel words like "many" - or we need to rephrase that completely. -- Cid Highwind 13:16, November 13, 2010 (UTC)

'Billions of casualties' is mentioned in several episodes as what might happen if this or that didn't. See e.g. "Inquisition" or "Statistical Probabilities". I rephrased. --(boxed) (talk) 20:56, March 20, 2013 (UTC)

Article focus

This article has a focus problem that definitely needs to be fixed. Somewhere in the "Dominion War" section, it drifts off to give detailed accounts of specific events in that war. This article is not about the War, though - we have pages about that, such as Dominion War, Cardassian Rebellion, Battle of Cardassia (among many other "Battle of ..." articles), etcetera.

Worst offender in that section is the paragraph that starts with "Later that year...". About 75% percent of that paragraph don't even mention the Female Changeling, which should be the focus of this character article. If this problem is solved by trimming the parts that should be located elsewhere, I assume the problem discussed above might be solved automatically... -- Cid Highwind 09:45, October 25, 2010 (UTC)

It was meant to discuss how she ordered the execution of Cardassians and specifically Damar's family and how outraged she was about the rebellion itself. These are character specific. Didnt want to just jump in and say, "she ordered the execution of Damar's family" without giving some kind of context. All other paragraphs, whoever wrote them (I slightly expanded and rephrased some things), bring the focus back onto her. Can there be things trimmed, like how she brought in the Breen, sure? But mentioning that she had allowed the escape pods to flee so they could send a message to the Aliiance, for example, is Female Changeling specific, especially if we want to be as comprehensive as possible. It's not like battle tactics and war strategies are discussed here. – Distantlycharmed 20:09, October 25, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but the goal of "being comprehensive" should not be misunderstood as simply "more = better". Instead, it should rather be interpreted as "as detailed as necessary, but without losing focus" - after all, "brevity is the soul of wit". The paragraph mentioned is one that completely loses focus, whereas the others typically get back to the topic of the article within the first sentence. -- Cid Highwind 14:16, October 27, 2010 (UTC)

Ok. The first part that elaborates on Damar's motives can be condensed to summarize his motives for the insurrection, which have lead to the female changeling losing her shit, resulting in her ordering the extermination of his entire race plus family for good measure. Being comprehensive doessnt mean more is better, it means just that - informing the reader assuming they dont already know everything there is to know about the Star Trek universe. If we want to just state the least amount of information, we might as well just delete this entire section and have readers look at the appropriate episode summaries for info about the female changeling.

And honestly, we have sections in here about the most obscure things and long, irrelevant, FA status articles on extras and we have pages where someone decided to do something like the "six degrees of separation", cross-referencing Star Trek and Babylon 5 or Stargate or whatever other sci-fi series it was. Some very adamant fan recently decided to link all Babylon 5 wiki links in the "external links" section of nearly every Star Trek actor/director who as much as merely breathed on the Babylon 5 set or had one guest appearance. Like Star Trek is relevant to Babylon 5 or its universe...more than it is to any other shows/series in which the stars appeared?? Anyway, given that, I find it strange to be assuming this article has lost focus and has too much info. But anyway, let's abbreviate it so we can stop debating it. – Distantlycharmed 06:04, October 28, 2010 (UTC)

Quote

This particular quote doesn't really represent the female changeling it's more a quote about the war itself. Anyone have any other quotes that they feel might be appropriate? If one cannot be found I say we remove it. — Morder (talk) 00:53, November 11, 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Header quotes are meant to represent the character somehow. The article had a more appropriate quote before:

"Ever since the day you crossed paths, she's lied to you, tricked you, sat in judgment of you – I don't trust her. And I don't understand how you can." Major Kira to Odo

That's at least about the character, although if someone has someone has a better idea, we can go with that.– Cleanse ^{( talk | contribs )} 01:59, November 11, 2010 (UTC)

Which is from "Behind the Lines" for citation purposes.– Cleanse ^{( talk | contribs )} 02:01, November 11, 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. This quote summarizes pretty damn well the nature of her character and species (wage war, kill or conquer) and the way she is sort of sardonically stating that even if they win, it will still feel bitter, because of the sheer devastation the Changelings (or her kind) caused to the Alpha Quadrant. That really sums it all up for her treacherous species or her for that matter (same thing). That other quote is more like what Kira thinks of her and it isnt even accurate, because she didnt sit in judgment of Odo, she adored Odo and thought he was worth the alpha quadrant but was being mislead and her lies (manipulations really) were all directed at getting him back to the Link not for personal gain. I dont think that quote reflects her personality very accurately. – Distantlycharmed 03:46, November 12, 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree that this new quote isn't really about her at all, it's more about the war and the Dominion mindset in general. Change it back quick. - Archduk3 16:18, November 12, 2010 (UTC)

I'm not too keen on the original quote either. For the same reasons as Charmed. It's not really necessary to have a quote. — Morder (talk) 07:54, November 13, 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the quote since it isn't about her(it may say things about her, which are debateable, but the quote itself is not about her) and we don't have any ideas for a replacement.--31dot 22:36, August 18, 2011 (UTC)

• "You may win this war, Commander, but I promise you, when it is over, you will have lost so many ships, so many lives, that your "victory" will taste as bitter as defeat."

- Female Changeling to Kira Nerys (DS9: "What You Leave Behind")

You are right, this isnt a quote about her because she is the one saying it. I also dont see how what she personally says about the situation is debatable (since it is not someone else's opinion on her but something she says in her own words about the war ). In fact this quote is a perfect reflection of who she is and her entire rasion d'etre which were the contents for 5 seasons: blind hatred for solids and the desire for their annihilation. Anyway, we dont need a quote up there at all. Distantlycharmed 23:07, August 18, 2011 (UTC)

I submit quoting her on "all the justification [they] need[ed]", literally stated in exactly those terms, for what they did. That way, her entire worldview is very quickly brought into focus, with the occasions where she deviated from few and far between. And that is the purpose for generalized quotes, is it not?

"So many years ago we set ourselves the task of imposing order on a chaotic universe."

--ChrisK (talk) 08:33, November 2, 2014 (UTC)

Removed

It is also unclear as to why the entire Link was not held responsible for the war crimes that the Female Changeling had committed on their behalf as she was a part of them just as they were a part of her, and why Odo was permitted to take the cure back to them.

Nitpick, since it's all about what we don't know, not what we do. - Archduk3 04:18, September 8, 2011 (UTC)

It is not nit pick, it is speculation and personal opinion and that is why it should be left out, genius. Distantlycharmed 04:26, September 8, 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to agree with DC. I would't say it's a nitpick either, but it does need to be removed nonetheless. --| TrekFan ^{Open a channel} 22:31, September 10, 2011 (UTC)

Practically UFP Propaganda

At numerous points throughout this article, the descriptions are nothing less than condemnatory of the choices the Female Changeling, and by extension the Founders of the Dominion, made throughout her/their recorded time interacting with the Alpha Quadrant powers and their citizens, with a basic procession, throughout, of systemic bias of assuming the latter side's worldview to be the only correct one. Thus, as editors are encouraged to be bold, I am going to begin revising entire sections when and where I will, to at least attempt to provide a more balanced perspective for a character who literally had, along with the rest of her species, the full gamut of the memories of the terror and persecution that those they now controlled and dominated had once unleashed upon them. Or to put it another way: "blind hatred of the Solids"? If you had either been put through the Holocaust, or remembered it all as though you had, you just might find yourself despising Germans. --ChrisK (talk) 08:46, November 2, 2014 (UTC)

Pretty sure it was never stated that the Female changeling personally had memories of that persecution. If you really want to do this thing, please be very careful about not adding speculation and subjective interpretation like that. -- Capricorn (talk) 16:45, November 2, 2014 (UTC)