Memory Alpha


36,854pages on
this wiki

Back to page

FA status Edit

FA removal (09 Mar - 20 Mar 2007, Success) Edit

This article was originally marked as a featured article on September 11, 2004 and has changed rather significantly since then. The Dominion article changed less than this, and was removed as a featured article because of it.

In addition to the large number of changes, there is also a lot of speculation in the article, which really adds to what we want to present as a featured article (sarcasm intended). -- Sulfur 00:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Support removal. -- Renegade54 02:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed and Archived. -- Sulfur 15:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

First Contact?Edit

Isn't it mentioned in the TNG episode "First Contact" that the Federation Prime Directive was established because of first contact with the Klingons before they were a warp capable society? Did I just imagine that, because it's contradicted all over the place?

Contact with the Klingons led to a change in first contact policies, not to the establishment of the Prime Directive. The Directive was likely in effect at the time the change to policy was made. As for contradictions, it's possible that, after the initial contacts seen on Enterprise, relations between the Federation and the Klingons became non-existant. (After all, would you want anything to do with people that were partially responsible for a virus that mutated your entire race?) Then, sometime around 2218, the Federation ran into the Klingons again, probably not knowing it was them for some reason or another. The result was disastrous, the Klingons became blood enemies of the Federation, and the Federation basically said "screw this, it's time for a change." --From Andoria with Love 02:24, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)
In "Bread and Circuses" Kirk claimed responsibilty for drafting the Prime Directive, ironically. I think in the dialog, he said it was only recently enacted. But, I'd have to watch again and check on that.--Mike Nobody 02:30, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)
All that was said about the prime directive in "Bread and Circuses" was that it was in full force when the SS Beagle chrash-landed on 892-IV in 2261. It never said how long it had been in force, although it seems to have not been too long before that. --From Andoria with Love 02:54, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)
It was "A Private Little War" in which Kirk suggest it was his report that caused the Prime Directive to come into being. It was "A Piece of the Action" in which Kirk said the Prime Directive had not been enacted, but that was referring to 100 years ago. --TOSrules 03:33, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Indeed he did. "No interference with normal social development. I'm not only aware of it, my survey 13 years ago recommended it." Of course, that could have just meant that he recommended no cultural contamination for that planet; it doesn't necessarily mean the prime directive was not in effect at the time. In other words, he suggested that further Starfleet interference with the planet's culture should be avoided - that the prime directive should be enacted for that planet. Knowhatimean? --From Andoria with Love 21:04, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)
An orbital survey is enough to know if that planet needed the prime directive. The Prime Directive doesn't need someone to recommending it to be applied. --TOSrules 21:25, 20 Nov 2005 (UTC)
One would think so. Who knows? I just don't know why they would wait nearly a whole century after the founding of the Federation to decide, "Hey, you know what? The Vulcans were right!" I also don't see why it would take one lieutenant's report to stir Starfleet into action and create the Prime Directive. Here's hoping it gets explained in a future Trek series/movie. --From Andoria with Love 07:39, 21 Nov 2005 (UTC)
As another famous Captain once said, "I don't pretend to understand Brannigan's Law, I just enforce it."--Tim Thomason 23:44, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Just to be clear, the episode TNG: "First Contact" said nothing about the Prime Directive. The dialogue is: Picard - "Chancellor, no starship mission is more dangerous than first contact. We never know what we face when we open the door to a new world. How will we be greeted? What are the dangers? Centuries ago, a disastrous first contact with the Klingon Empire led to decades of war. It was decided then that we must do surveillance before making contact. It was a controversial decision. But I believe it prevents more problems than it creates." This raises questions as to what Picard meant by "decades of war" following first contact, but that is another discussion entirely . . . . Aholland 16:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Smooth forehead informationEdit

Is there a reason why the information from "Affliction" and "Divergence" is included in the background section instead of history, or even physiology? LordJuss 10:46, 1 Mar 2005 (GMT)


(Removed beginning, not meant for MA) You know the cure didn't have to be found by the 2070's. After all not all Klingons were effected. the first time we see a TOS Klingon is in DS9 episodes. Of course if the Klingon from the Enterprise Episode is related to his ST4/ST6 counterpart it would be likely they found a cure by then. That is if it's a Direct relation.--TOSrules 07:49, 28 Feb 2005 (GMT)

Comment from Josiah Rowe 23:59, 28 Feb 2005 (GMT) removed, since it was responding to the part of TOSrules' post that he subsequently deleted.
Run that through the translator again, i didn't really get any of it. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 08:50, 28 Feb 2005 (GMT)
It seems that Star Trek Online will go into this farther, based on what I've seen in the Open Beta -- 23:32, January 26, 2010 (UTC)

Images Edit

Should more images of TOS Klingons or 24th Century warriors be added, rather than the Enterprise photo? -- Dmsdbo 01:35, 4 Jul 2004 (CEST)

Enterprise makeup is probably better ;). On the Klingon Civil War page there are multiple images of other Klingons, as well images of Worf can be used to supplement. However, I don't think it's a good idea to include TOS Klingons, as they just looked different because of budget/makeup limitations. Ottens 16:21, 4 Jul 2004 (CEST)

Copyvio reversionEdit

I have reason to believe that the recent additions made by Valaraukar were a copyright violation. View this diff, and compare the information added with this DITL article (some info has been shifted around to fit our article, but the information, grammar and styling remain identical. I have reverted the changes made, and restored to last non-copyvio version. If it proves necessary, I will have to delete the article, and recreate the non-copyvio version. -- Michael Warren | Talk 22:27, Aug 28, 2004 (CEST)

MediaWiki 1.4 lets you undelete selected revisions, so you might want to delete the article, and then undelete everything prior to the copyvio being added. Angela 23:44, 2 Mar 2005 (GMT)

Minor ridges Edit

I restored Lincolnian's observation some Klingons only having one ridge. It is a valid point especially with regard to Chang and Azetbur. -- Krevaner 23:42, 7 Mar 2005 (GMT)


Does anyone have a good idea where to include the fact, that Klingons view the hammer as a symbol of power? Kennelly 14:51, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Cast membersEdit

When did Ethan Phillips wear Klingon makeup? Excelsior 20:30, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In "The Killing Game" or II -- Kobi - (Talk) 20:41, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
When did Scott Bakula wear Klingon makeup? 23:30, 21 Aug 2005
In "Divergence" he has a tiny ridgeline on his forehead due to his involvement with the Klingon genetic augment cure.--Tim Thomason 06:26, 22 Aug 2005 (UTC)
The background info notes that The only Star Trek cast members, besides Michael Dorn and Roxann Dawson, to have worn the full Klingon makeup include Avery Brooks, Colm Meaney, Rene Auberjonois, Kate Mulgrew, Ethan Phillips and Scott Bakula.
It should be noted that Bakula did not wear the full makeup. -- When it rains... it pours 17:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
The same is true for Ethan Phillips, he only wore his regular Talaxian make-up with very small ridges, a darker complexion and fake teeth. --Jörg 17:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The trouble, with... Edit

"Klingons suffer from certain allergies, most notably a strong reaction to small furry animals such as tribbles. (TOS: "The Trouble with Tribbles")"

...I removed, because I don't remember anyone sneezing or having an alergic reaction to the tribbles. Odo joked (to get Worf away from them) "Worf is... alergic, to tribbles". And also, the Tribbles reacted TO the klingons, not the other way around. - AJHalliwell 01:44, 20 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the Klingons did also react to the tribbles: They were totally repulsed by them. But that's not really an allergic reaction. Spatula 22:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I think the Allergic reaction theory comes from a few NexGen books that I have read. I agree that there is no "hard cannon" support for this, and I think for now we should leave it as something to the effect of "Tribbles do not make good pets for Klingons."--Jlandeen 19:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed prehistoryEdit

  • I removed the following section that was added after this article is featured because a) the entire paragraph is written as non-canon speculation b) none of it is cited and c) it appears to be completely contributed by an IP address (which means it does need to be scrutinized moreso than it would from a major contributing player):
Little is known of the Klingons prior to the establishment of the Empire. Klingons being a prideful race with a closed society, they are averse to sharing their secrets. Being violent, belligerent, and anti-intellectual, it is hard to imagine that the Klingons developed their high level of technology and science (including warp drive) by themselves. Klingon religion also states that the first Klingons destroyed the gods who created them. Klingon physiology with its redundancies and great strength is also ideal for military operations. Based on the available information, some have theorized that the Klingons originated as a vassal race. They were possibly bred or genetically engineered as "shock troops", and then turned on their masters.
  • Signed, Alan del Beccio 02:58, 17 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • Perhaps it should be replaced with something about their evolution with the info from "Genesis". Jaf 14:45, 17 Sep 2005 (UTC)Jaf

The Prehistory removed is similar to/cribbed from the history given in the Star Trek Novel "Ishmael" by Barbara Hambly. -- Soukey : 10 Oct 2005

PNA ExplanationEdit

The article needs Appearances/References list(s). --Defiant | Talk 12:30, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)

You don't really want a list of all episodes with Klingons? That will be longer than the article itself. The appearances thing can be overdone in some cases, this is one. --Memory 16:06, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Hm. Ok. --Memory 17:12, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Such a page exists now: Klingon appearances


  • I don't like how this page opens with a big pic of the emblem, it's suppose to be about the species not the empire. Does anyone mind if I remove it? Jaf 13:49, 28 Nov 2005 (UTC)Jaf
  • I don't mind its removal. If kept or moved within the article, it should be dated as TOS-era emblems had different colors. Aholland 17:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


Was it ever mentioned how long their average lifespan is? If several TOS Klingons were around in the TNG era, it is likely longer than humans'.--This user is not Jesus 08:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I thought Klingon lifespans were actually supposed be shorter than humans. I seem to remember a quote "the shortest flame burns brightest" or something from some episode.... OK thats not much to go on obviously... sorry, maybe its just my imagination. --Anonymous Coward 01, October 2006
We don't know the exact lifespan, but we do know that Kang was in command of a starship in 2268 (the actor playing Kang was 46 at the time). It wouldn't be until 2370 (102 years later) that he would be die, and even that what not of natural causes. Similar stories for Kor and Koloth. -- Jaz talk 07:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
We know that Klingons reach maturity quicker than humans, however the thought is that if a Klingon reaches "old age" he must have lived a somewhat dishonorable life. Thus as many times in the shows, older Klingons are sent to the front lines of battle for honorable deaths. Perhaps this social action is the reason we know little of a Klingon's potential lifespan?--Jlandeen 19:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Appearances Edit

Sorry for editing the list, i must have missed something. Why is it supposed to be "scrambled" so to speak? Slipzen 22:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I should apologize for not explaining myself, but I was probably rushed at the time. I reverted the list because the appearances are in chronological order from an in-universe perspective; it's not supposed to be in order by episode. Hope that explains things. Sorry again. :) --From Andoria with Love 16:44, 4 April 2006 (PDT)
Please note that I have added some DS9 episodes to the list. They are episodes where Martok appears. Since the heading at the top says "besides Worf and B'ELanna Torres" I feel that ALL OTHER Klingons, even recurring characters, should count as "Klingon" appearances. Otherwise it should say "apart from Worf, Torres, Martok" etc.

Klingon aging Edit

This is my chart for Klingon Growth, taking in account the Klingon years that have passed. Right now it is 100% Alexander based. I don't know of any other rapid aging Klingons seen in Star Trek. Alexander is the lynch pin, the fact he said he was three years old within one human year (Season to season about a year distance) the chart works off a one earth year is three Klingon year idea. --TOSrules 17:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Earth Years Qo'noS Years Physical Appearance
1 3 4 Earth Years
2 6 10 Earth Years
8 24 16 Earth Years
  • It should be remembered that Alexander's mother was only part-Klingon. His rapid aging could have something to do with his slightly exotic biology.
The article on Qo'noS says that one Qo'noS year equals 1.5 Earth years.

Production Issue?Edit

Have we considered that this "Klingon Growth" is actually a similar condition to that found on many television sitcoms, soap operas, and other media? I mean there are plenty of times where a baby is born on a show in one season and by the beginning of the next season is replaced by a child much older (Growing Pains, Family Ties, Full House). This seems to be a typical logistical issue with regard to television and I think the article seems to take this a little too far.

I think age issue as it pertains to Alexander is just a production gaffe and should be removed as non-canon or italicized as a background note. --Topher208 12:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I would agree, except that Trek provided us with an example where it was explained (in "Mortal Coil") in another child, thereby establishing to me that the rules are different for Star Trek. --OuroborosCobra talk 14:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Spellings to follow the Dictionary and Galactic Traveler book? Edit

I'm wondering is there ever going to be any effort to include the Okrand spelling of Klingon words in the entries? For instance veq'largh instead of or appended to Fek'lhr or qel'argh appended to Key'lhr etc. - Wejvagh 21:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Klingon anatomy description Edit

As an anatomy specialist (IRL) I thought I would make some comments about Klingon anatomy, as shown in the diagram presented in the article.

The body is that of an adult male. For illustration we see only the left half of the subject dissected; the right half is complete and clothed. The intersection between the two halves is slightly to the left of the midsaggital line. The diagram omits the lower limbs below the ankle joints. Comparison is made with the human adult male.

The skull displays the familiar cranial ridges associated with this species. It is robustly constructed. There may be a flap of bone covering the superior temporal foramen which would lend strength to the zygomatic arch. There appears to be a plate of bone in the anterior triangle of the neck, protecting the airway and larynx.

There is no sternum visible (or it has been removed). The rib architecture is very different from the segmental arrangement seen in humans; instead a multi-articulated bony reticulum seems to protect the thoracic contents. This might require respiration to be more diaphragmatic in this species. In the mediastinum the heart can be seen.

The abdomen displays four organs. Two of these resemble the human liver (possibly stomach) and colon; the others are less identifiable. No genitalia or organs of reproduction are visible.

The upper limb articulates with the thorax via a robust clavicle-scapula articulation. The humerus has an un-named paired bone alongside, whose head articulates with the upper third of the diaphysis. The elbow and forearm are similar to those in humans. The forearm is prone and terminates in a carpus in which seven carpal bones may be seen; the metacarpals and phalanges are arranged as in humans.

The pelvic bones differ greatly from those in humans. The acetabulum is more inferiorly placed and its opening is directed more anteriorly. The angulation of the femoral neck is straighter and the head is larger. An un-named paired bone lies alongside the femur and articulates with it at the lesser trochanter. Both this bone and the femur appear to articulate directly with an enlarged patella which occupies the whole centre of the knee joint. The tibia and fibula are similarly arranged to those in humans.

In summary this individual displays several anatomical differences from the adult human. His robust musculoskeletal system denotes considerable physical strength and resistance to injury. Vivienne marcus 13:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

...son of... Edit

Does anyone know when Klingons started to be called "X, son of Y" in the series? 01:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The earliest reference I can find is from Worf, son of Mogh in TNG: "Sins of the Father". Of course, it would later gain steam in the series ("Redemption"; "Redemption II"; "Birthright, Part I"; "Rightful Heir") and by the time of DS9 was used by various Klingons to introduce themselves (note "Apocalypse Rising" and "Sons and Daughters").--Tim Thomason 01:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. 01:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Past Tense Edit

Please edit this article to place it in the past tense (per MA:POV). Thanks. --Commodore Sixty-Four(talk) 15:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind. I did it myself. It is pretty non-trivial to revert my changes; however, I suggest that if you have problems with the concept of representing species in the past tense, you should discuss this on the MA:POV talk page.
I also made a few gramatical and style changes here and there, some to better fit the past tense, and others to reduce sentence length or complexity. Since it took so long to go through the article, I did these in one edit. I hope that isn't too problematic.
The one change I didn't make is the subject of the next section on this page, "The Klingons" vs. "Klingons"
--C64 05:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
This is a completely moronic request. The Klingons are a current, existent race, it should be in the present tense. Do any of you understand grammar at all? Past tense is for what happened in the past or no longer "exists", not for a race which, for all intents and purposes, essentially still exists. I know it is fiction but the Klingons are still an existent race within that universe. Scum of the Earth, COME ON! 21:48, December 30, 2009 (UTC)
Careful reading would have led you to MA:POV which would have meant there was no need to post this comment. Which means that I would not have had to post this one to point you to the thing that you should've read from the get-go. :) -- sulfur 22:23, December 30, 2009 (UTC)

"The Klingons" vs. "Klingons"Edit

I personally have no preference in the matter, but I believe this needs to be consistent throughout the entire entry. Either use the article, or don't. As it is currently, the earlier edits tend to use "the Klingons", while more recent ones simply use Klingons. --Commodore Sixty-Four(talk) 05:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


Klingon warriors generally did not wear rank insignia on their uniforms. A Klingon would never claim to be any other rank than what they actually are, since this would be an egregious violation of a warrior's honor code. If a Klingon claimed to hold a specific rank, they could almost always be taken at their word. {{incite}}

From society section --Alan 05:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Alexander Rozhenko appearances Edit

In the list of appearances, all episodes with Klingons but Worf and B'Elanna Torres are reported. What about Alexander ones? We should add them, or add his name to the list of exceptions, or note that he is not fully Klingon. According to Alexander's article, the following episodes may be added: TNG: "New Ground", "Ethics", "Cost of Living", "Imaginary Friend", "Rascals", "A Fistful of Datas". Triggerator 14:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Given there are no opinions, I added the above episodes (featuring Alexander) in the Klingon appearance list. Triggerator 13:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree that Alexander should be included, my thought of his original exclusion could be from his not 100% Klingon bloodline.--Jlandeen 19:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Assimilated Klingons...Edit

This question has been burning at me for awhile. Okay, so I've seen a few assimilated Borg Klingons here and there. I was wondering, are they considered dishonored or what? I mean they were technically captured and I'm sure they didn't have time to commit ritual suicide and stuff. So what's the deal? What do you all think happens to their family name and honor after this occurs to them? Oh, and sorry to keep going on, there was that Klingon Korok from Unimatrix Zero who ultimately got his individuality back... So if he came back to the Empire, do you think he would be considered honored? Haha. Sorry. I have a lot of time to think about this stuff. --TrekDudeToTheMax 23:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)TrekDudeToTheMax

Very interesting idea...From all of the references I can remember, it was required for a Klingon to be killed in the line of duty, or in battle to be allowed to go to StoVoKor. Families of Klingons that were captured or missing wouldn't likely lose the honor of their house unless it was confirmed that they were still alive in prison or something. I expect that Klingon families would declare that the soldier in question gave their life in performance of their duty even if they were assimilated. The only somewhat similar situation to this that I can think of was that of the invasion of the Khitomer outpost where Worf's father was killed. The empire declared that all of the colonists of the outpost were killed during the battle and were considered to be honored, with the exception of Worf's father, even though the evidence of his collaboration with the Romulans was fabricated. When it was later discovered that there were many survivors of Khitomer at the Romulan prison camp on Carraya IV, those Klingons chose never to attempt to return to the Klingon homeworld because it would dishonor their families. -- Davisn456 01:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I believe in this case, the Borg would bear the dishonor, because they would not allow their "prisoners" from ending their lives with honor. - Quase 14:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Since the Klingon's believe the body to simply be a shell for the soul of the warrior carrying it, it would stand to reason that any assimilated klingon would not be seen as Klingon anymore, and the soul of that warrior did die an honorable death in combat.-emmjay

Apocrypha notes Edit

How many "In the novel XXXX, the Klingons YYYYY" statements are appropriate for an article? Right now there are three, which seems OK to me, but how many does it take for this article to be like Memory Beta? --31dot 21:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I think as long as apoc+bg is the same size as the in-universe entry, things are still appropriate. If it is larger there is too much. I dont see any problem with articles having same info as MB articles. --Pseudohuman 21:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

With xenophobia for all ... Edit

There should be more specific notes, of their widespread species-ist attitudes, (e.g., DS9: "You Are Cordially Invited"), since Klingons were introduced into Roddenberry's Brave New Federation World partly as a counterpoint to cultural tolerance and non-militarism. I suggest it be inserted under the Society section.Toddsschneider 11:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Physical Strength Edit

How strong are Klingons compared to Humans? In the DS9 episode "Take Me Out to the Holosuite" Capt. Sisko says something about the Vulcans like, "they are stronger and faster then anyone of us, except for Worf and our genetically enhanced Doctor." Vulcans are three times stronger than Humans. In the ENT episode "Borderland" two Human Augments take on a crew of Klingons. Augments are five times stronger then Humans. So Klingons are somewhere between more than three times stronger but less then five times stronger then Humans. But what I want to know is can we get more precise then that?

I think you've pretty much covered it, in terms of canon.--31dot 22:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
That, and then there's probably as much diversity in Klingon strength as there is in Human strength. Worf might be an especially "fit" Klingon, or just "average" and still comparable to a typical Vulcan starfleet officer. -- Cid Highwind 22:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I may be wrong, but I can't think of any instance that shows the klingons have physical strength anything like a vulcans, infact at the most I would say that they are no stronger than a high level athelet, something that is unsurprising in a race that exercises so often. --General MGD 109 20:47, September 11, 2011 (UTC)
In the DS9 Episode "Let He Who Is Without Sin..." where Worf, Dax, Bashir, Quark and Leeta go to Risa, Worf lifts then throws Fullerton across the room with 1 hand. He does this after Fullerton struck him in the face for taking back the tricorder he modified to change the environmental grid and for no longer aiding him with his maniacal plan. So, yeah. Klingons are considerably stronger than humans. At least as stron as Vulcans without a doubt.The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Quotes Edit

Does anyone else think that three quotes at the top of the article is a bit excessive? Could we just pick one and keep it at that? -- TrekFan Open a channel 02:18, February 13, 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Each article should only have one quote at the top (if any). Out of the current quotes, I'd prefer Kurn's.–Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 03:31, February 13, 2011 (UTC)
For the record, here's the other two quotes:
"If there's one thing I've learned over the years, it's never underestimate a Klingon."
- Jean-Luc Picard
"Notice the primitive rage in his eye, the uncontrolled brutality... Klingons can be quite entertaining, can't they? Every Romulan zoo should have a pair!"
- Senator Letant
Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 23:18, February 20, 2011 (UTC)

Pink blood Edit

There is no explanation for the Klingons' pink blood in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. A good explanation is that the Romulan ale they consumed before dieing affected the color of their blood. They could make that canon only if no red blood is seen after Klingons consume Romulan ale in other movies or episodes.The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

As you said, it is not canon, so it cannot be in the article.--31dot 01:10, July 1, 2011 (UTC)
This may not be entirely relevant but there are terrestrial species with pink or violet blood. Hemerythrin is an iron-based respiratory pigment found in some marine life. There's an informative article on various real and speculative pigments of various colors at While not canon, it is a plausible scientific explanation. Of course, Klingon blood is seen to be red everywhere else.Bat'leth 04:08, July 1, 2011 (UTC)

Klingon Head Ridges Returning Edit

I'm not sure how "canon" Star Trek Online is considered, but there are a few missions centered around Miral Paris in which she gets taken by Klingons and sent back in time (to around the TOS era) and the Klingons there take her DNA and use it to apparently fix their ridges. This is noted on her page, but this article leaves that information out. 07:08, September 6, 2011 (UTC)

See the canon policy, but STO is not canon. As on the Miral Paris article, such a note could be mentioned in the Apocrypha section.--31dot 10:21, September 6, 2011 (UTC)

Klingon philosophy merge Edit

There's nothing really here that isn't better written and cited at Klingon.–Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 10:55, January 13, 2012 (UTC)

Either this should go there or some stuff there could be brought here- a merge to there is probably best. --31dot 10:59, January 13, 2012 (UTC)
I agree with a merge. These "philosophy" articles were suggested by a very early redlink listing (on the main page, I think), where there were "X", "X history", "X philosophy", and some others. It's likely that not all of these articles are still considered "sensible" to have, and some of them should be merged with their "parent" article. -- Cid Highwind 12:29, January 13, 2012 (UTC)

New klingons Edit

So...What about the Klingons in the alternate universe of Star Trek Into Darkness? The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

What about them? 31dot (talk) 09:08, May 20, 2013 (UTC)
There is a segment on alternate reality Klingons on this page, plus I've added an image of a Klingon from Star Trek Into Darkness. Was there something specific you were looking for? Pmbasehore (talk) 20:56, May 29, 2013 (UTC)


The appendices section has evolved to a hyper-detailed essay about establishing and developing the Klingon race and takes about 3/4ths of the article at this point. Should it perhaps be split off into a separate Establishing Klingons real-world article. --Pseudohuman (talk) 02:50, July 13, 2013 (UTC)

Oppose this suggestion, quite a typical one when bg info sections get predominantly bigger than the in-universe sections. As is fairly typical of my response in these situations, I reckon we should wait to develop the in-universe info too, as it's shabbily on the under-developed side. --Defiant (talk) 08:07, July 13, 2013 (UTC)

The in-universe side is not shabbily underdeveloped, it is just split out into pages like Klingon history, Klingon Empire, Klingon homeworld, Klingon military, Klingon augment virus, Klingon language, Klingon uniform and so on, so that this one article would not be about everything Klingon. Now this article seems to be mostly about developing the Klingon makeup, so that should be in my opinion be split out into a page of its own. --Pseudohuman (talk) 11:07, July 13, 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, I am well aware that there are several Klingon pages.... I'm referring specifically to the info that belongs here, of which there is a lot more than is currently on the page. --Defiant (talk) 11:49, July 13, 2013 (UTC)

If any of the sections was expanded to the size of the current appendices section I would suggest the section was split off too. there is no need to have everything on the same page like this. But we can agree to disagree and wait if someone else has an opinion on this. --Pseudohuman (talk) 21:00, July 13, 2013 (UTC)

Klingon/Background would be a good name. --Alientraveller (talk) 21:26, July 13, 2013 (UTC)
We try to avoid subpages here on MA. -- sulfur (talk) 21:33, July 13, 2013 (UTC)
I'm in favor of splitting articles that are "too long", if a split can be achieved in a "natural" way. Both of that terms are not that easy to define, I admit - but being among the Top Ten of our Special:LongPages is a good indicator of the article being quite long, and the idea to split "design information" from in-universe content was considered natural enough in cases like Constitution class model (which, ironically, is itself the longest article we currently have). I believe that "a different part of the article could be longer, too" is not a good argument against a split (quite the opposite, in fact), so I agree with the suggestion to move that part to its own article. --Cid Highwind (talk) 13:01, July 14, 2013 (UTC)

My split suggestion banner has been removed from the page, but there seems to be a majority opinion supporting a split? What would be a good name for the in universe article "Designing the Klingons" "Establishing Klingons"? opinions? --Pseudohuman (talk) 10:02, September 27, 2013 (UTC)

Klingons in Star Trek. :D --Alientraveller (talk) 10:36, September 27, 2013 (UTC)
I'd suggest something less "poetic" and more descriptive, for example Klingon character design or Klingon make-up design, depending on the exact content of the new article. --Cid Highwind (talk) 11:00, September 27, 2013 (UTC)
I've re-added the split template, it seems it was removed by mistake, and tend to agree that an article, or several articles for that matter, could be split out of the background section depending on how one would want the information presented. If we're going for one article though, I would actually say it might be better to go more "poetic" and use the title "Klingon motif", since motif can be used to describe both the makeup and narrative styles. - Archduk3 22:35, September 27, 2013 (UTC)

"Klingons in Star Trek" seems most fitting, as the bg-section written by Defiant reads like a magazine article or a chapter in a book, and that would be a good title for it IMO. I wouldn't want to split it up any further. I like it the way it is. See also: Klingons in Star Trek, the real-world story of creating, establishing and designing the Klingon race. --Pseudohuman (talk) 06:44, September 28, 2013 (UTC)

Having talked to several people about this in the "real world" (both Trekkies and just general sci-fi fans), I feel it should be noted that when asked what title they would search for when looking for information on "creating, establishing and designing the Klingons, both in makeup and character", none of the suggestions, including my own, were what they would use. The closest match to their suggestions was "Klingon makeup design", as the most common thing suggested (even though that doesn't cover the character of Klingons in the title). The current most popular option, "Klingons in Star Trek", was considered to be either non-descriptive enough or simply redundant, and I tend to agree. I don't think that's a good title for MA, but I could see it used in a magazine or on a website that covers more than just Star Trek. I think we still need to keep looking for a good title that works here. I suggest trying to come up with a name for a category that would cover pages like this, and work backwards to the page name from there. - Archduk3 02:13, October 6, 2013 (UTC)

What's the objection to my original suggestion "Establishing Klingons" that is at least a broad concept as it is a continual process of recreating and redesigning the makeup and re-establishing the culture and style etc. and encyclopedic. sort of. I too think that what ever we decide ppl wont find the real-world page by itself, but will find it through this article. But that is just because MA is mainly an in-universe database. --Pseudohuman (talk) 13:14, October 10, 2013 (UTC)

To my, admittedly non-English native ears, "Establishing Klingons" sounds a bit awkward and ambiguous, as is "Klingons in Star Trek", which I think is somewhat of a pleonasm (where else would Klingons be?) Why not go for the more short and sweet simple "Depicting/Portraying/Imagining Klingons"? (personally I like the ring of "Imagining", but either of the three would do it for me) It is neutral enough as a broad concept to allow for other (real-world) aspects as well, besides make-up alone--Sennim (talk) 14:04, October 10, 2013 (UTC)
Oppose split; Having read through all comments, it has become clear that a split will happen, no matter what, so I've cast my vote on principle, though agreeing with the secondary (note the secondary, put forward as an afterthought) reasons put forward for a split, i.e. a self-contained large, easily split along "natural lines", it holding true, and which, under normal circumstances, would have gotten my support, Yet, I've to admit that I find myself largely in agreement with Defiant's reasoning for voting against a split, apart from my personal feelings that the treatise as is (kudos btw for Defiant, excellent work), is well placed in the article as is, regardless of its length. I've grown wary of the all too easy "being too long" reasoning, without further explanation, as if this were a reason onto itself, which it is explicitly not.--Sennim (talk) 21:17, October 11, 2013 (UTC)

Depicting Klingons sounds good too. --Pseudohuman (talk) 21:57, October 11, 2013 (UTC)

Ah cool, that's two, at last some consensus:):)--Sennim (talk) 22:21, October 11, 2013 (UTC)

I would propose that we do a split of the bg-section to "Depicting Klingons" and do a rename for that article later on if someone comes up with a better name at some point. --Pseudohuman (talk) 14:39, November 14, 2013 (UTC)

I've recently changed my mind, now realizing the bg info would indeed probably be best if it was on its own page, as I think that might make it a little easier to edit it. Also, I quite like "Depicting Klingons" for the new article's name. --Defiant (talk) 13:17, November 20, 2013 (UTC)

It has been several months now. Overall consensus seemed to be that the split would be okay and Depicting Klingons would be the title. Would someone like to do the split. Or are there still strong oppositions? --Pseudohuman (talk) 19:38, April 8, 2014 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki