Star Trek NemesisEdit
Brief shot of Wesley Crusher (Wil Wheaton) at Riker and Troys wedding reception. Wesley had no lines and was on the screen for roughly 15 seconds, aparently just brought back (after he left the show early) to show that he was still around. Wonder what happend with the Traveler? – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.127.116.11 (talk).
- Yes, there should. If you feel like adding it, please do so! Remember, Be bold in updating pages! --Josiah Rowe 23:50, 11 Mar 2005 (GMT)
Crusher was promoted from acting ensign to full ensign in Menage a Trois. I'm not sure where that fits in the article; I'll get to editing it later if no one beats me to it.--User:18.104.22.168 21:21, 6 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- Hmm. It would seem also appropriate that we have some of Wesley's other outfits represented. He was a full ensign only briefly compared to his run as an acting ensign. Further, the following quote is rather unsubstantiated: "In the early seasons of TNG there were numerous subliminal suggestions that Picard was actually Wesley's biological father, however these suggestions were never substantiated." – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 22.214.171.124 (talk). 23:32, 12 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- Agreed! Wesley's father was serving under Picard. I can't figure Picard sleeping with the wife of one of his officiers. Doesn't fit Beverly either. And I cant remeber any of these "subliminal suggestions " - too subliminal for me maybe ;-) --Rami 00:32, 22 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- To be honest, I never really saw any implications of any of that. My interpretation was that Picard felt guilt over Jacks death, and as an end result wound subconciously (or not so subconciously) trying to become a father figure to the young man who's father he felt he'd killed. Add to this the subtext of semi-romance/familiarity between Picard and Dr Crusher, and you get implications that aren't quite what the first impressoin suggests. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 126.96.36.199 (talk).
- Right. Also, Picard is a ageing man who didn't have children. It's quite natural that he tend to have a paternalistic behaviour toward Wesley, feeling something like "I could have had a son like that". --Rami 18:24, 27 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- I disagree. If he really was trying to be a father figure to Wesley, he did a lousy job of it. Constantly calling him boy and then telling him to shut up when he was trying to express his concerns over Data's brother Lore doesn't tell me that he was trying to be a father figure, not by a long shot. --188.8.131.52 03:12, June 8, 2010 (UTC)
Nemesis Deleted Scenes Edit
The article states that Wesley attended the wedding in 2379. Is this content actually canon? It's a deleted scene. It should be included but in a different section unless this discussion has already taken place elsewhere...--DannyBoy7783 19:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Generally, deleted scenes are considered canon as well, unless it conflicts with seen material in the film (i.e. an alternate ending). I think they actually have to be easily available to view, though, such as a special feature on the DVD (see Martin Madden). However, since Wesley was, in fact, briefly seen as part of the wedding conception (look to the far right -- our left -- of the table, beside Dr. Crusher), his attendance is 100% canon. --From Andoria with Love 20:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh, ok. Sorry about that then. I thought his material was 100% cut. I didn't know he made a slight appearance in the theatrical cut. Thanks for responding.--DannyBoy7783 23:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- I hope you mean the wedding REception. If he was at the CONception, Riker and Troi were a lot kinkier than I thought.
Image of Wesley at age 25 Edit
I changed the caption for this image from:
- "Wesley at age 25"
- "Wesley as he would appear at age 25 according to Q."
My reasoning is that we saw him in Star Trek Nemesis, and he looked nothing like what Q made him look like. Nemesis takes place in 2379, while he is 30 (based on the birthdate in the article). He does not look much different from when he was in "Journey's End" (at age 21), and I would assume he did not suddenly change how he looked drastically, and then changed back. --OuroborosCobra 06:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- We don't even know that this is the appearance that Q believed Wesley would attain naturally; it's the appearance that Q chose for Wesley to have at age 25. Personally, I'd be happy to remove the image from the article; this article is already image-heavy, and the picture isn't really representative of the character. (Of course, I'd keep the photo in the article of William A. Wallace. -- Heath 00:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- So the new caption fits then, "as he would appear at age 25 according to Q" (my emphasis, obviously). We've seen Q distort the past and future as it serves his needs repeatedly over the course of the three series he is in, and his "interpretations" are not always exactly what things really were or turn out to be. As such, I think that the image (and thus caption) are suitable for the article. -- Sulfur 00:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Didn't someone else besides Wesley remove the control chips in The Naked Now episode? The article says he did it, but I am certain it was another intoxicated crewmember. -<unsigned>
- Yes, it was Jim Shimoda. I will change the article to reflect this. --From Andoria with Love 11:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
The Uniform in NemesisEdit
I think we should not include this speculation on the page. Lets be honest here, the writers of Nemesis just F'd up and werent thinking when they put him in a uniform. To try to explain a reason for it isnt cannon and is just plain silly.StoryMaster 21:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, they were thinking very clearly when they put him in that uniform. Wesley had indeed returned to Starfleet. That was the filmmaker's intention, as evidenced by the deleted scene which states that Wesley was going to serve under Riker aboard the Titan. --From Andoria with Love 23:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Are deleted scenes considered on-screen cannon?StoryMaster 17:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Then I am confused. Shran thinks the Wesley to starfleet issue should be in the article because it is in a deleted scene from the movie. yet you are saying its not cannon. So, shouldnt we remove that from the article?StoryMaster 19:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Dude, that's why it's a bg note (as in... indented italics) -- Sulfur 19:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- The fact that he was wearing a uniform is not in question at all, you can see it. It was not specifically explained in the film, but since normally one wears a uniform when they have received a commission, that makes sense. It is further confirmed by the fact that we know the intentions of the writers. --OuroborosCobra talk 19:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Dude, that's why it's a bg note (as in... indented italics) -- Sulfur 19:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- I was not saying that the deleted scene should be considered canon, I was pointing out that the filmmakers did indeed intend for Wesley to have returned to Starfleet. Focus on what I actually write, please. --From Andoria with Love 21:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- The article suggests that Wesley made up a uniform for himself like Q. This is completely implausible and should not even be mentioned. Q wore his uniform in mockery of Starfleet, conflating Starfleet with the "barbaric" militaries of old. He was the "god of lies." Wesley, for all his faults, was not the god of lies. He was also never a Lieutenant (jg), the rank he wears in the movie. There's no way he would have pretended to be in Starfleet and promoted himself just so he'd look snazzy at a wedding.--184.108.40.206 15:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- ITA. There seems to be some speculation about why Wesley is wearing a Starfleet uniform, as though it could just be for show a la Q. However based on the deleted scene (and common sense), he is serving aboard a starship and appears to be back in Starfleet. Would this not be considered cannon? Why is there still question about his current career?
- Link to deleted scene: [scene]Halley 17:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- Deleted scenes are not canon, no. --OuroborosCobra talk 20:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- except for that his appearance in uniform IS in the film, albeing briefly, and therefore his being is Starfleet again is more than just implied. HE IS IN A STARFLEET UNIFORM. How much more clarification do people need? Dude is back in Starfleet. Halley 17:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
The appearances section needs updating to reflect that Wesley didn't actually appear for 19 episodes while he was a regular character. See: Main character non-appearances. The problem is, if we just listed episodes he wasn't present (say as with Miles O'Brien#Appearances for DS9), it would be confusing that one part of the list would become non-appearances, and the other appearances (after "Final Mission"). As such, I think that the list should just list all appearances. I put this on the talk page to see what everyone thinks before spending a decent amount of time making the list. – Cleanse 10:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- I will be addressing Wesley's return to Star Fleet in the novel I am in the mist of writing...I will update as this endevor proceeds. I promise it will make sense! – The preceding unsigned comment was added by EJD (talk).
According to the 2348 page, Crusher was born in that year. However, someone recently changed this page to say 2349. Now, I could have sworn we had a discussion as to why Crusher was born in '48 and not '49 but I can't seem to find it. Can anyone else add some insight on this? Which year is correct? --From Andoria with Love 05:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- See also here.
How did they contact Wesley? Edit
In Nemesis, we see Wesley Crusher at the wedding reception. However how were they able to send him an invitation? Didn't he go off with The Traveler to some far away place, even to The Traveler's homeworld to practice his abilities? Anyhow he kinda came out of nowhere without any explanation.--jchen012
- There are a number of options. For one, he was wearing a Starfleet uniform, so it is entirely possible that he returned to Starfleet for some reason before the wedding. Barring that, he seemed to be a pretty powerful being by the end of "Journey's End", so perhaps he just "knew" about the wedding. I bet Q knew about it too. He should have come. --OuroborosCobra talk 02:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- maybe he came back on his own. Also, he was kickin' it with a guy who can travel trough space and time...--Babaganoosh 02:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- According to the page on Wesley here, he rejoined starfleet at some point. I remember reading somewhere, dont know where though, that the uniform was a loaner because he showed up naked expecting it to be a betazed ceremony.--Cyno01 02:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thank god. --– Tranchera 13:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Middle Name Edit
Where is his middle name derived from? Was it mentioned in onscreen dialog? Was it visible onscreen on some computer display? Or does it come from backgroumd sources? - Bell'Orso 08:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- I was wondering about this also. According to Beverly's bio in "Conundrum", Wes' middle initial is "A" – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.127.116.11 (talk).
- (weeks later)...I just noticed that Trek.com also lists his middle name as Robert; but again, I know of nothing canon to support this. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 18.104.22.168 (talk).
- I just noticed this myself; despite no further evidence being presented to support "Robert" being Wesley's middle name, it's stayed on his page. According to his Memory Beta article, the barely-legible initial seen in "Conundrum" is actually "R." If someone can confirm this, then we should change the article accordingly. -Mdettweiler 04:04, August 19, 2010 (UTC)
- In a deleted scene, Picard comments that it is good to see Wesley back in uniform, and asked him if he was looking forward to serving on the Titan; Wesley responded that he was and would be working the night shift in Engineering.
Removed for verification. — Vince47 07:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Comments on CharacterEdit
Why is there nothing on the fan reception to the character on this page? Being one of the most reviled characters in the series by most fans (save parents who wished their kids were like him), certainly deserves at least a paragraph describing it. Even if it's only in background information. - 22.214.171.124 05:03, March 11, 2010 (UTC) My bad, half the page didnt load the first time - 126.96.36.199 05:04, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
My comment on the character can be found in the "Where no one has gone before" talk page." --188.8.131.52 03:06, June 8, 2010 (UTC)
Ronin's influence on Wes's "powers" Edit
With the Ronin entity being intertwined in the Crusher women's generations, could he be the source of Wes's apparent Traveller abilities? – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 184.108.40.206 (talk).
- There's no canon evidence to support that statement. Interesting theory, though. -Angry Future Romulan 18:57, July 22, 2010 (UTC)
- I don't find it that interesting. It is full of wholes. While both Ronin and Wesley possessed powers that could could be considered "supernatural," neither possessed powers similar to each other. In addition, Ronin had been in the family for many generations, why would Wesley be the first offspring to be effected that way? --OuroborosCobra talk 20:22, July 22, 2010 (UTC)
- I take it back. -Angry Future Romulan 20:24, July 22, 2010 (UTC)
- Waitaminute, when you say it's full of wholes, do you mean it's full of "a whole lotta good ideas?" -Angry Future Romulan 20:28, July 22, 2010 (UTC)
An anon changed Wesley's birthyear (to 2349) again (from 2348). And also added in the date, which was the same as Wil Wheaton's birth date. This was never in canon, but may have come from a book or something as such. -- sulfur 16:02, October 30, 2010 (UTC)
Johnny Snowball: I tried to change Wesley's birth date to July 29, 2349 because that's the date given in his bio on the Star Trek.com official website. My bad.
Appearances Section for cast regularsEdit
Do we include an appearances section for a series regular? Crusher was in 4 seasons and only appeared in 4 episodes over the next 3 seasons, I dont see why he needs an appearance section; we generally dont do that (see Jadzia Dax, Ezri Dax, Kes etc). – Distantlycharmed 08:08, January 9, 2011 (UTC)
- See Tasha Yar. Jake Sisko should also have one, since he is another series regular with a high number of "missed" episodes, the most in fact. I don't think Kes went unused and unseen as much as the others, but it couldn't hurt. - Archduk3 08:20, January 9, 2011 (UTC)
If Wesley had not appeared in the main credits in all those seasons I could see that, but he did appear in there. He was also a more integral/active part of the cast with more character development than Jake Sisko. Also, the Ezri Dax article is featured. Maybe this all should be a discussion in and of its own but deciding whose profile gets an appearances section and whose doesnt seems arbitrary as of now. Does it depend on number of appearances? Quality of appearances? Missed episodes? For Crusher, we have a list of almost 70 episodes in the "appearances" section which does not seem necessary. Also, Tasha Yar had one season, just like Ezri, but Tasha's profile mentions it while Ezri's - which is featured - does not. – Distantlycharmed 08:27, January 9, 2011 (UTC)
- What is the benefit of not having the list? Since Wesley missed almost a whole season in the four on the show, a list is definitely helpful as far as I'm concerned, and since the someone felt it necessary to compile it, so does at least one other person. Also, just because an article is featured doesn't mean it's finished, but Ezri only missed one episode, as far as I remember, so a list of appearances doesn't really seem helpful, at least not as much as a note about the missed episode. - Archduk3 08:47, January 9, 2011 (UTC)
We could certainly require appearances section even for characters that have appeared in all seasons of a series. But I am pretty certain that such attempts would be immediately reverted. The point of all this is to keep it uniform so that archivists know what to look for when editing/expanding articles. There is a certain logic with which the articles are organized and structured. Specifically in this case, the question is, how do you handle it? Do you have to appear in all seasons to not get an "appearances" section or do only people who do not appear in all seasons of a series get an "appearances" section? Why would a list be helpful with Crusher and not with Ezri? If anything I would say Ezri is the one needing an "Appearances" section, since she only appeared in one season, while Crusher in 4. So unless we are going to require that of all character articles, I in fact do not see the usefulness of keeping it in the Crusher article simply because it is there already. – Distantlycharmed 09:08, January 9, 2011 (UTC)
- This discussion should have been started on the relevant article talk page, not on the talk page of the editor who just "happened" to disagree (@Archduk3:please move it there). The argument that an appearances section is useful if the character missed a good number of episodes, whether it's a regular or not, sounds sensible. If a listing would be too lengthy, we could think about abbreviating it - for example by a link to a season instead of every episode individually if the character was in all episodes of that season, or by mentioning those episodes the character was not in if he/she appeared in most. -- Cid Highwind 11:47, January 9, 2011 (UTC)
In the case of Wesley Crusher it seems to me as if the only argument presented so far for keeping it in there is that it happens to be there already, so why not. But that is not a good reason as we dont just dump information on pages based on "well it's already there." There has to be some kind of structure and guideline by which all archivists can orient themselves, otherwsie it will b a mess. Wesley appeared in 68 episodes. That's a lot. He was a series regular in 4 seasons, mentioned in the credits. True, he did not appear in every single episode - but neither did Neelix, Beverly Crusher, Mayweather and lots of series regulars. Linking to a season as you propose will be kind of a moot point for characters who just not appeared in maybe 3 or 4 episodes. Do you really want to mention at the end of Deanna Troi's profile page, for example, that she appeared in
except for episodes "A, B, C, D..." ?
Is this the format we want to adhere to for each and every single character? If so, then by all means. If not, then I propose we make it a point to not insert an "Appearances" section for series regualrs mentioned in the credits - even if they dropped out after 3 seasons or so. We could certainly add a background note stating that a character appeared in the first three seasons only. – Distantlycharmed 21:37, January 9, 2011 (UTC)
- If a list of non-appearances will be shorter than a list of appearances, it's better to do that, unless, as is the case here, said list would also need an appearances section after a certain point (see above). A character should also have appeared in episodes that aren't cited in the article for a section to be necessary. That's what I've been using at least. - Archduk3 22:11, January 9, 2011 (UTC)
For Crusher we could say that he appeared as a series regular in the first four seasons and in the following four episodes as a guest star (after season 4). That should cover it broadly. No need to list 68 episodes. We could apply the same format to other characters that did not stick around for the series' entire run or came in later, such as Kes or Seven of Nine. Seven, by the way, is also a featured article. So now we have 2 featured articles not having an "appearances" section. I realize that FA doesnt mean it is done, but when an article does become featured, it is assumed that some kind of peer-review and critical assessment took place prior and that certain standards were applied to it by the community when it did achieve FA status. That is why I am pointing that out. – Distantlycharmed 22:34, January 9, 2011 (UTC)
- In short, you're seem to be missing the point of the whole section. He wasn't in all the episodes in the first four seasons, which is why they're listed individually. As Cid said above, a link could be provided to a season where he was in all, or most, the episodes, with links to the ones that he wasn't, but just saying he was a regular in the first four seasons isn't helpful, or even correct for an appearances section. - Archduk3 23:14, January 9, 2011 (UTC)
I think you are the one missing the point.
The practice so far on MA has been to not include an "appearances" section for regulars, as exemplified by the numerous articles cited above. Why someone did it for Wesley I do not know, but you seem to want to disregard established practice and just keep the "appearances" section in there for him, even though that is not what we have been doing with regulars. I removed the info based on what has been practice on MA thus far. If you want to revisit the issue in the larger, broader sense of policy and formatting issues with respect to character profile pages and an "appearances" section in them, that's another story, needing to be discussed in depth with other members. Let me again clarify as apparently mentioning it 5 times above didnt click:
1) I opted for not having an "appearances" section for Wesley Crusher in the first place. He is a series regular and doesn't need one - just like Kes, Seven of Nine, Ezri Dax, Jadzia Dax, Picard, Worf, Paris, Chakotay etc.
2) I understand that Crusher did not appear in all episodes, but as I mentioned 3 times, neither did Beverly Crusher, Neelix, Kes and lots of other series' regulars. And none of them have appearances sections. So what makes Crusher's non-appearances in every single episode warrant an "appearances" section?
Furthermore, compiling a list of all episodes he did not appear in is nonsense as it will then require that we do that across the board with every character, not just Wesley. We would do it for Troi, Beverly Crusher, Ezri Dax, Worf on DS9 etc. Do we want to do that? That is the whole of this debate: Do we want to change our approach of how we handle "appearances" for regulars in character profile pages.?
I am sorry I repeat myself but i am stunned that after the explanations above you would come back and tell me the exact same thing again, completely disregarding the points I made.
So unless you can provide good, valid reasons as to why Wesley Crusher needs an "appearances" section as a series regular as opposed to Worf, Ezri, Kes, Seven and a dozen other series regulars that do not have one, then I dont see why we should keep that section in there at all. – Distantlycharmed 00:27, January 10, 2011 (UTC)
- This has gotten pretty pointless, since you don't seem able to see the point two people have tried to make now, so I'm considering the discussion over. The current consensus is that this section is "sensible" in this case, so it shouldn't be removed. You're more them welcome to add similar sections to other characters, without disrupting MA to make a point, if you feel that there should be some commonality between the characters, but keep in mind what was said above about these lists. - Archduk3 01:51, January 10, 2011 (UTC)
I am not going to once again be brushed off and dismissed simply because you dont like me or dont like the fact that the outcome could come out unfavorably to you. There is also no consensus here - unless you consider your own opinion as meaning consensus on an issue. Cid made a suggestion as to one possible way to resolve this. Other than that, it is your personal opinion that is somehow supposed to be dictating the outcome and now you declare the discussion over? Are you kidding me? I want to see more community input and suggestions as how to resolve this. Either series regulars all get "appearances" sections or none do or we find another way to resolve it. The practice so far on MA has been that series regulars such as Seven etc, do not get a separate "appearances" section. There is no reason as to why Crusher should get one other than you saying so. If someone were to come in and try to change established practice and policy, how many times have they been told that they need to do so by community consensus, instead of unilaterally. Now you are doing exactly that: deciding on your own that a series regular needs an "appearances" section. You are more than welcome to exclude yourself from the discussion but dont think that simply because YOU declare a discussion over, it really is and no more edits can be made on the subject. – Distantlycharmed 02:44, January 10, 2011 (UTC)
- Well, he certainly wasn't a regular cast member after season 3. Was he credited during those last 4 seasons? (I'm not sure off-hand) Frankly I think it should just be a compromise where the first 3 seasons are shortened and the last 3 he was actually in show each instance. — Morder (talk) 02:56, January 10, 2011 (UTC)
After "Final Mission" he does no longer appear in the main credits. I could see the compromise you are mentioning Morder working. Listing individual episodes he appears in after his regular series appearance ends makes more sense. – Distantlycharmed 03:08, January 10, 2011 (UTC)
- Let's turn the tables here for a moment. We're trying to be an encyclopedia, as in "containing valuable information". If a reader wants to know "which episode did this character appear in?", he is able to get the information for one-time characters by reading the text (no separate appearances section necessary), for recurring characters by reading the appearances section, and for regular characters... not at all, because, according to your argumentation, it's more important to follow some imagined policy of "no information on regulars!" than to actually give that information (in whatever way works best).
- So, this is a point where I'd like you to give reasons instead of just crying wolf again - why do you think that informing readers about episodes a regular did not appear in is less valuable than informing readers about episodes a minor character did appear in?
- Also, I obviously do not want to list all seasons for every regular, and I have to wonder whether my explanation was really that bad or whether it's rather the case that you deliberately tried to misunderstand me. If a character appeared in every episode but A, B and C, then, clearly, a good approach would be to note that "character X did appear in every episode but A, B and C." -- Cid Highwind 10:11, January 10, 2011 (UTC)
So let me summarize at how i arrived at this. I made an edit to Wesley Crusher's profile page and noted that while he was a series regular, he had an appearances section. See now the way I usually do this is look at how things have been done around here over the years, by other editors and what established practice has been. You know, instead of deciding on my own that hey wait a minute, I'm going to change things around now and decide unilaterally that every regular should have an appearances section in there, I went by what has been happening thus far here on MA, which is that series regulars - i.e. characters appearing in credits, even if they did drop out after a few seasons - do not get a separate "appearances" section. It is not necessary for the same reason that Neelix or Tuvok dont get one. They are regulars. People can see that someone like Kes, for example, appeared in the first three seasons and dropped out after. Something that can be mentioned in the background notes.
As i said, we didnt do that with lots of other similar characters: Worf, Ezri Dax, Kes, Jadzia Dax, Seven of Nine - and some of their articles are FA status, meaning that obviously the community looked at it, evaluated it and believed it to be representing some of MA's best work, not lacking major, vital information. Now Duke came in and decided that, unlike what we've been doing thus far, we should list all 68 episodes Wes appeared in because "it is there." - like Mount Everest. I disagree. I do not see a value in listing in, for example, Seven of Nine's profile page, all the 80 or 90 episodes or whatever she appeared in - simply because she wasnt there since season 1. And thats exactly what we are doing with Crusher: list 68 episodes when the shorter, more elegant way could be to list all his appearances after he stopped being a a regular. Sure, readers might wanna know all the episodes that Worf appeared in on DS9 too or all of Neelix's episodes. We could certainly do that for every single character. Spell out all episodes they appeared in because i am sure there are readers who wanna know it all and we wanna give it all. But my point is, common sens wise it is unnecessary and if we are going to have an "appearances" section in there for Crusher, we will need to require that of every character in a similar position so that there is some uniformity, otherwise it will be arbitrary and based on personal preference.You are always the first ones dumping on people who want to introduce such kind of changes to structures of articles (like "appearances" section is one), reverting their edits saying "this is not how we do things here" and now you are dumping on me for upholding that very practice? Anyway, for Crusher's article, the best way to summarize his appearances would be a note indicating that "Final Mission" was his last appearance as a series regular and that he afterwards appeared in episodes A, B, C, and D. No need to list all 68 episodes he appeared in or make a list of all the 10 episodes he did not appear in (although that would certainly be better). Sorry for the length of this, but it seems like there is no other way to explain this since you asked for my rationale. – Distantlycharmed 17:37, January 10, 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, I did not ask for a lengthy rationale of what you tried to do in the past - what I asked was why exactly you think that, now that we're talking about it, a definitive listing of appearances (in whatever form, mind you - we've already discussed different ways of presentation) is generally less important for a "regular" character than for a "non-regular" character. You still haven't presented good reasons for that.
- In my opinion, it is a valid question to ask "what episodes did regular character X not appear in?" - and any valid question should be answered by this site, in whatever way seems most appropriate. Note that we even have a whole list of main character non-appearances already (and since 2005), so it's not as if the information itself is considered "off-limits". I also think (and according to the talk page of that list, I've thought that since at least 2006) that this information should better be located on the character articles - that's where the reader will expect the information, after all.
- Last but not least, you still claiming that the intention is to keep a listing of 68 appearances for Crusher, after other ways have been explained to you several times, makes me come to the same conclusion as Archduk3. You really don't seem to see the point... -- Cid Highwind 18:25, January 10, 2011 (UTC)
You gotta be kidding me. My answer was actually addressing the very question you asked and I dont know how else to explain to you. I am sorry you just dont get it. But simply cause you dont get it (or dont like it, it seems), doesnt mean that it is invalid or that I have not presented good reasons. I also never said that addressing any of this, or having a debate about it, was an invalid question to ask. I merely stated that if we do choose one approach over another (depending on community input) we need to be prepared to do it with all articles it applies to. Finally, if the intention is not to keep the 68 listing, as you said, then what is it? I already said that i think Morder's suggested approach was a good one. In fact, I gave a very concrete example pertaining to the Crusher article and how we can present the information there according to what Morder had suggested earlier. So what exactly is it that you want to hear from me or expect me to say or are arguing with me about? – Distantlycharmed 19:00, January 10, 2011 (UTC)
Making changes to article mid-disputeEdit
@ cid: I dont understand why in the world you would make changes to an article mid-dispute. It hasnt been resolved yet and people can still chime in as it has been like a day only. I love it when so-called upright citizens violate their own policies and principles when it is convenient. Wow. – Distantlycharmed 23:19, January 10, 2011 (UTC)
Exam in Samaritan Snare Edit
There is no mention in the article about Wesley taking a Starfleet Acadamy exam in "Samaritan Snare". Would love to add it, but I'm not sure how to phrase it and how it fits into the text that is already there about failing his entrance exam in "Coming of Age" and passing it in "Ménage à Troi". I don't think the exam in "Samaritan Snare" is the actual entrance exam (I don't think they mention it) but in the Background section of the episode's page it is mentioned that "Wesley's Starfleet exams, which he takes in this episode, are most likely the repeat tests of the exams he failed in TNG: "Coming of Age"". So how to fit all this in? Podex 13:25, March 4, 2011 (UTC)
There was a scene where Will Wheaton himself was bearing the rank of Lt. Commander and became chief engineer of the Titan. Do we consider that as cannon? Redfenril 11:12, June 18, 2012 (UTC)
- Nope - that scene was cut out of Nemesis, and only appears in the deleted scenes on the DVD release. - Aatrek 11:14, June 18, 2012 (UTC)
- Just FYI- it's "canon" not "cannon". 31dot 11:36, June 18, 2012 (UTC)
Captain Okana Edit
I just happened to catch a rerun of the TNG episode "The Outrageous Okona"
In that episode there's a scene where Wesley asks Okana what its like to live life always traveling with no permanent home or family to return to. Okana responds something akin to "this life isn't for everyone, but it never lacks adventure".
Given that years later an older Wesley would choose to live a similar unfettered wandering lifestyle rather than continue with Starfleet I think that this even may warrant a sentence or two somewhere in the article.Also, you can't help but admire the unintentional foreshadowing.– The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.127.116.11 (talk).