Memory Alpha

Talk:Winona Kirk

36,849pages on
this wiki

Back to page

Format Edit

is there any real cause to italicize alternate events? i thought we had done away with this, as it is a bit distracting as a style... -- Captain MKB 06:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't look at me, I just work here. :-P --From Andoria with Love 07:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Second husband ? Edit

How do you know she's remarried ? the voice heard in corvette is it really kirk's stepfather ? I thought this man was kirk's uncle (apocrypha: George's brother) like in Star Trek Generations ? C-IMZADI-4 18:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The credits say it's his stepdad.--Tim Thomason 18:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok ! I didn't read end credits ! thank you ! C-IMZADI-4 18:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Origin of name "Winona" (Kirk)Edit

The Winona Kirk entry claims her name originated with Diane Carey's book Final Frontier. But the name appeared in Vonda N. McIntyre's Enterprise: The First Adventure published two years earlier. I would've guessed the origin was even earlier than that, although I can't think of where it would be.

In any case, can someone verify this and update the entry? I'd do it but something is preventing me from editing entries. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Robschmidt (talk • contribs).

Also discussed at Talk:George Kirk. --Alan 13:39, November 10, 2009 (UTC)

Starfleet officer?Edit

Did the movie state that she is a Starfleet officer? – Distantlycharmed 23:00, November 16, 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that it did not. Later, however, Kirk's uncle stated that Winona was "off-planet," perhaps implying that she was an officer. -Angry Future Romulan 23:26, November 16, 2010 (UTC)

Well if it wasnt stated or else explicitly made obvious and we are speculating here, I say we remove that info. – Distantlycharmed 00:19, November 17, 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree, if it was not stated in the movie. She could have just been living with George, or been a consultant not actually in Starfleet, etc. If there is background info saying that the writers wanted her to be, it can be in the article in such a manner.--31dot 00:27, November 17, 2010 (UTC)
I seem to recall hearing that the writers' intent was for her to be in Starfleet- if so, it could be Background information.31dot 18:12, November 17, 2010 (UTC)


This page needs to be split between the realities, like the George Kirk and George Kirk (alternate reality) pages, since right now there is no clear distinction between them. - Archduk3 05:18, November 17, 2010 (UTC)

Um yeah, it says she is the mother of James T. Kirk but i thought she was the mother of the alternate James. Since the alternate reality started in 2233, when the alternate JTK was born, she would not be the mother of the prime universe JTK right? – Distantlycharmed 05:39, November 17, 2010 (UTC)
Not sure about the split - we only see her in 2233 on board of the USS Kelvin (which she must have been in both timelines), at the point of giving birth to JTK (which she did in both timelines). Basically, we don't have enough post-split information on these "two" people to justify a split. -- Cid Highwind 11:01, November 17, 2010 (UTC)
(conflict)Since she was pregnant when the Narada arrived, she was pregnant beforehand, not afterwards- so she is Kirk's mother regardless of the timeline split. I don't think we need to split this article given the fact it is not big.--31dot 11:02, November 17, 2010 (UTC)
But James T. Kirk was born on Earth while the alternative timeline Kirk was born on the Kelvin. So she was pregnant the first time on Earth and gave birth and then she was on the Kelvin? We cannot say she is the same mother James T. Kirk (prime) talked about.
Second: she also obviously had a different life since the split in 2233, so we need to distinguish that from the woman who married another man or raised her kids as a single mom in the alternate timeline. Also, the alternative Winona Kirk is not known to have another son (Samuel Kirk) - hence the Kirk alternative timeline not listing any siblings for him. We totally need two articles for her character. – Distantlycharmed 11:54, November 17, 2010 (UTC)
She was on the Kelvin when pregnant, and somehow made it back to Earth in one branch but not the other... the huge Spikes-of-Doom starship popping out of nowhere might have had something to do with that. :) Regarding further information - yes, if we actually had a decent amount of "different" information, it would be sensible to split this article. Do we? -- Cid Highwind 11:57, November 17, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, George Samuel Kirk. James T. Kirk (alternative) does not have a brother in the new timeline.
Also, the NEW Winona, by virtue of losing her husband, had a different life than the Winona who did not lose her husband in the prime timeline. So it is flat out wrong to pretend they are the same exact people. Even if there is little info available on the prime timeline Winona, it doesnt mean she is the same person as the new one (like she was widowed and remarried, the first one was obviously not). – Distantlycharmed 12:05, November 17, 2010 (UTC)
We don't actually know he doesn't have a brother, no. His brother wasn't mentioned in the new film directly (though he was actually seen, if memory serves), but the scene directly mentioning him was cut. That said, lack of evidence is not evidence of lacking. It is one thing for us not to mention George Samuel Kirk since the movie didn't mention him, it is another to start creating and splitting articles and deeming the universes based on a hole in our information. There may be other reasons to have this change, but that doesn't seem to me to be one of them. --OuroborosCobra talk 12:19, November 17, 2010 (UTC)
Could you please actually read what I write? I didn't state they are the same person - just that we have much information about pre-split Winona (which would need to be the same on both pages) when compared to the not much we have about the post-split Winonas (which is the only information that would make two separate articles worth the read). To inform our readers that this is one article about many different objects (each of a different of multiple timelines) we already have a big banner at the top of articles. -- Cid Highwind 12:21, November 17, 2010 (UTC)
Well as a reader I would find it confusing (and I did in fact find it confusing) to read information on a person with two different fates in one article. Fact remains that post split Winona is widowed and remarried and gave birth on the Kelvin, while pre-split on Earth. Pre-split Winona has another son (George Samuel) but post doesnt (not in canon and I thought this is what we are going by to keep things straightforward and consistent). Speaking of which, in order to keep things straightforward and consistent, it only makes sense to have two articles on the woman - one depicting her as the mother of the new Kirk, one has the mother of the old. I mean the beginning of the article says she is the mother of James T. Kirk. But if we use one article, we would have to say she is the mother of both Kirks - until the split where things change for her and her son. That's just messy. – Distantlycharmed 12:46, November 17, 2010 (UTC)
...but the pre-split information would still be the same - not having any "old-timeline" image of her, it would be perfectly valid to use one from the new movie (because both Winona's must have looked the same before the split) - etc. etc. How is that less confusing than having one article that clearly states "this is what we know about all Winonas" and "this is what we know about possible futures of the same woman". Also, if you want to open the big can of worms that this "2nd timeline information" is again, please let's do it for all potential articles concerned, in a central place, and not just bit by bit. -- Cid Highwind 13:01, November 17, 2010 (UTC)
Correct me if I am wrong, but what "big, extensive" information about old-Winona is currently included in this article anyway? Nothing. It seems to me it is all new-timeline, unless that info has been left out completely for some reason. The other thing is that this is not like some main character with 40k of info that we would have to repeat for her - she is a minor character and the info would certainly not be overtly redundant and/or visually unappealing. Third, what are you going to mention in the article header "Winona Kirk was the mother of both James T. Kirk's before the split in 2233 and the wife of both George Kirks in one timeline and later widow in the other"? I mean isnt that seriously confusing? Finally, the side-bar information would be different for both women (marital status, children etc). Do we really want a side-by-side mention of both of her fates cluttering up the sidebar? I do not want a revisiting of the new timeline issue, i am ok with how al lthe characters have been addressed, it is juts with Winona Kirk that i feel this article is inadequate and confusing. Also note that we could have very easily taken all the characters in this new movie and incorporated them into their prime-timeline articles by making a new section marked "alternate timeline" - then we didnt have to deal with sidebars and new articles at all. But we didnt. We made separate articles for all of them.– Distantlycharmed 17:12, November 17, 2010 (UTC)
You say you "do not want a revisiting" of the different characters' articles and then proceed to argue in favor of changing it.
The article header doesn't need to be changed. It states she is James's mother(which is all we know about Prime Kirk) and then goes on to a seperate section telling us what we know about the alternate reality. I don't see it as confusing at all.31dot 18:11, November 17, 2010 (UTC)
I dont want a revisiting of the new movie issue and debating it all over again. I am talking about this article. Yes she is James' mother, but she is also the alternate James' mother. Plus there is no info on Winona Kirk on this article other than the alternate timeline and the side-bar is confusing and misleading and cluttered with double info (or will be if wanna incorporate the bio of both). Finally, if the Winona article is just fine as it is, why is the George Kirk article split? There apparently is no other info on George Kirk prime and the article on George Kirk new is entirely too long anyway and reads more like the summary of the first part of the movie. There is just inconsistency. Winona Kirk doesnt get a split because we dont have enough info on her or because we would just be repeating info (which we wouldt), but George Kirk gets a split, even though we know about him just as much as we know about Winona Kirk. So either split Winona or merge George. At this point it seems arbitrary to me that one would be kept as is, while the other split. I guess that is why Duke even suggested we keep it consistent with the George Kirk article and split. – Distantlycharmed 18:32, November 17, 2010 (UTC)
I have to admit this is starting to confuse me as well. You say you want to talk about just this article and not any other - and then suggest that the handling of this needs to be the same when compared to all others. You want two articles, yet you say that one of them wouldn't even be able to contain any valid information because all we have in this "merged" one already is from just the one universe. Somehow, that doesn't compute... -- Cid Highwind 20:13, November 17, 2010 (UTC)

I'll just post my reasoning for the suggestion now. The entire article is about the alternate reality Winona. All the "prime" information is in the sidebar, and it's incomplete to boot, while none of it is covered in the article proper. My main reasoning behind splitting these articles is to avoid confusion about which one we are talking about, something that seems to have happened here. While most of the information as is overlaps between the two, they are not the same people after the split, so they should be considered to be separate. Also, there should be no basis for the we don't have enough information for a article, since we are here to cover everything, regardless of the quantity of information available. I'm not going to pretend that this wouldn't have a bearing on further AR articles, but this is a different situation from other examples like the alt Tasha or future Beverly. - Archduk3 20:55, November 17, 2010 (UTC)

For me it's not about the amount of information(we have articles with much less info than a hypothetical Winona Kirk one would have) it's just about the information we have. We know virtually nothing about the original Winona other than the fact that she existed and was Kirk's mother. We also know that about the alternate one, along with what we saw in the movie. Why split the original Winona off merely to duplicate the information that they share? 31dot 21:31, November 17, 2010 (UTC)
It seems to me that this is almost the same discussion as the Riker articles and the contents of their "backgrounds". -- sulfur 21:34, November 17, 2010 (UTC)
I agree, this is more about "individual information" than about "information at all". If there were enough "individual information" so that both Winona articles would be about as long as the two George articles, then I wouldn't argue against a split that vocally. However, the plain statement "no bit of information is 'too few' for a separate article" is a little too simplistic for my taste. What about USS Kelvin, then? There should be two of them as well. Or, to use a completely different example, what about the hundreds of planet/star/starsystem articles where we've concluded that, if there's no individual information (because just a single planet was mentioned), not all potential articles need to be created. -- Cid Highwind 21:41, November 17, 2010 (UTC)

How about I just write up a "prime" version of the page as a temp and we'll see what we get, since I'm of the opinion that there's just as much about her as there is about George. I'm not familiar with any info on her from the books though, but I'm sure that the addition of an apocrypha section for both versions of them will be coming. - Archduk3 21:49, November 17, 2010 (UTC)

Good idea - or, better yet, two pages: one about just prime Winona and another one about just alternate Winona. That way, we'll better see the overall article lengths if something might need to be removed from this one... -- Cid Highwind 21:57, November 17, 2010 (UTC) George I think he's got it, he's finally got it!!
1) Winona old: married, Samuel George Kirk as son, not widowed, didnt have Kirk on Kelvin but on Earth.
2) Winona new: widowed, remarried, no (canon) Samuel George Kirk, had Kirk on the Kelvin.
The length of the article should really not be the basis for creating it. That's superficial. There are people we have articles about who were just mentioned on the side or just merely pictured, no other info available, but she getting one is un-encyclopedic? The fact that the sidebar is a mess should be an indicator for needing to separate the two. – Distantlycharmed 22:12, November 17, 2010 (UTC)

Rough, but generally done with the temp pages. I added some info in the background from MB, didn't do a full on apocrypha section since there isn't enough for one yet IMO, but there is clearly info to be added as far as the books go. I still think this is the best way to avoid confusion over the two different versions, and would allow better linking to the article/s. We have some options for a "prime" image without too much alt timeline stuff as well, will upload as needed. - Archduk3 22:54, November 17, 2010 (UTC)

Duke, thank you, it looks very good. Exactly what I had in mind. Now there is no confusion as to who is who and what is what and when and we can link properly. Little details for formatting the appendices can be worked out.– Distantlycharmed 23:00, November 17, 2010 (UTC)
Having the two background sections looking identical is kinda... well... dumb. That would be the same as having Kirk's background sections identical. -- sulfur 23:43, November 17, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah only that they are not identical. There is little overlap but they are not identical. – Distantlycharmed 00:17, November 18, 2010 (UTC)
Two articles is not necessary. Since the timeline split *after* she was pregnant with James Kirk he *does* have an older brother. Period. No guesswork is necessary. Unless you're implying the timeline changed sometime several years *before* the movie shows it to happen...The only information on the alternate reality article would be - she had James early...give me a break. — Morder (talk) 01:38, November 18, 2010 (UTC)
Their lives changed after the split. They are different people! What is the big deal with having two articles on this woman who is not the same Winona (grand children, marital status...what have you) after the split?. The background section (including apocrypha) is different for the prime Winona than for the alternate one. Having these two articles has made things much clearer now, the side-bar is clean without any of that confusion and messiness and clutter. How can we strive or claim to be the most comprehensive resource for Star Trek if we cannot be bothered to make such distinctions? – Distantlycharmed 02:13, November 18, 2010 (UTC)
Why not keep them in the same article since all it would take is a second section? Whatever, my thoughts on this are that it's still a bad idea. There's nothing new for me to say and anything you say probably wont' change my mind so don't bother replying without something completely new instead of the same argument over and over.... — Morder (talk) 05:30, November 18, 2010 (UTC)

A quick search of the history shows that Shran at least feels that George Jr. isn't around in the alternate reality, or has some other mother like Sybok, but that madman will believe anything... - Archduk3 05:59, November 18, 2010 (UTC)

One can check how minor/major the differences really are by doing the following: get the edit view of both pages; copy the wikitext of one version, paste it to the other version; click "Show changes".
What I see is not a major difference. Some changes are of cosmetic nature, for example one of the pages has the information about her and George being aboard the Kelvin in 2233 in the initial paragraph, the other has it in the "History" section. Other differences are unnecessary, or just plain wrong: if one Winona has a different child as an older brother of JTK, then the other Winona needs to have the same - unless the whole "timeline split at a specific point in time" needs to be interpreted in a completely different way.
The biggest changes appear in the background section - and here I have to note first that the "pro-split" reasoning has so far concentrated on the apparently misleading in-universe text. I believe that even those users confused by mixed in-universe could deal with a background section that details all information about the fictional character Winona Kirk. That aside, even if we want the background information to be split as well, some of it would still be valid for both characters, for example her date of birth and Sioux descent.
I'm not sure there are any bigger, non-artificial differences, but at this point, I'm not yet convinced. -- Cid Highwind 10:00, November 18, 2010 (UTC)
While I commend Archduk for his work, I'm still not convinced either, for the reasons that have been given. 31dot 11:01, November 18, 2010 (UTC)

I've updated the page to combine both versions. As you can see, the only thing we can actually say about her with choosing one reality over the other is that she is a Human Female. Also, the number of links required to point to both version of people is just dumb. So I ask you this, is this the best way to present this information? Are we more or less informative by having the page combined? Is this really easier for the casual reader to understand? All I get is a resounding No. - Archduk3 20:23, November 18, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that- and I think it was fine the way it was before this discussion.--31dot 20:28, November 18, 2010 (UTC)

The article only covered information from the alternate reality before this discussion, since none of the prime stuff was actually in the article, so leaving it as it was was never really an option. We can play around with how it's presented, but nothing should be removed, and as far as I'm concerned, this is not the best or most informative way to present this. It's not like we're wasting paper by splitting the page. - Archduk3 20:42, November 18, 2010 (UTC)

Exactly!! I dont get this "zero sum" attitude - as if anything is taken away from MA if we split.
Also, let me note that the current page is way better than the mind-vomit it was before. At the same time, this current page seems entirely too cluttered with back and forth info about her prime and alternate reality information, the "Appendices" section contains alternating "background" and "apocrypha" sections on her "alternate" and "prime" character, not to mention the side-bar that contains information we really could SEPARATE. So the previous version is junk because it does not honor the differences in the character's life after split and the current one is just over-loaded with prime and alternate reality information. So....why not make two articles of it? We are actually more informative by separating the pages. The fact that the differences are not overwhelming, as Cid pointed out, is completely irrelevant. We do that all the time here. That's what we do - we are detailed and precise. Let me also point out that going by the nay sayers current logic, Geroge Kirk should never have been split and for that matter none the new characters from the new movie. We could have easily created an "alternate Reality" section for all of them and just foregone the whole process of making profiles for them and elaborating. I mean the entire alternate James T. Kirk profile page is essentially a condensed summary of the movie. Just like Spock. What about alternate Pavel Chekov? Or alternate Hikaru Sulu? We know jack about them in the new timeline, yet they all got their separate, elaborate profiles. This level of internal inconsistency around here and utter refusal to see it, just so you can say you are right, is staggering. – Distantlycharmed 20:58, November 18, 2010 (UTC)
I have no "utter refusal" to see anything, and I resent being told as such. Nor am I interested in being told that I am right. Of course no information should be removed, but we know very little about the post-Kelvin life of the original Winona. I just don't see the need for a seperate article.--31dot 21:53, November 18, 2010 (UTC)
DC - You're either still not getting what I stated several times now, or you're deliberately misrepresenting me to have some straw man to tear down. I can't really decide what's more annoying - but in either case, I don't see much sense in continuing this part of the discussion unless that changes in one way or another. So, from now on, re:Archduk3 who is more constructive:
You're right, we're not wasting paper by having more pages - but that doesn't mean that we're not possibly wasting anything by having the information structured in a "non-optimal" way. "Reader attentiveness" is something possibly being wasted by having information on several pages (and perhaps even duplicated) if it would better be located on a single one. "Better" is a somewhat vague term, I admit - but what it still boils down to in any case is that the slogan "MA is not paper" doesn't really apply here (historically, that has always been about "having" vs. "not having at all" some bit of information, not about its presentation).
For the moment, I'm still going to stick to the earlier argument about the amount of "individual information" being at least somewhat important. This hasn't really been refuted by now - and if it wouldn't apply at all, then shouldn't we also have two different pages for USS Kelvin, or Richard Robau, or Alnschloss K'Bentayr? -- Cid Highwind 22:03, November 18, 2010 (UTC)
Of course it's refusal, or inability maybe, to see the internal inconsistency here that is being advocated. What do you know about the alternate checkov other than he cant pronounce "v" or what do we know about Hikaru Sulu in the alternate timeline really other than he piloted the ship and sky-dived on the platform and fought side by side Kirk? We know very little about these dudes - just like Uhura etc - yet they all get their elaborate personal profiles. With Winona Kirk - where the differences pre and post split do exist and are obvious - such a huge deal is made; like there was no way we could possibly split the character without compromising MA's integrity or whatever. I think Duke has gone out of his way to illustrate in many ways why splitting might be useful and in accordance with our goal here to be as comprehensive of a reference as possible. Yet I have not seen any good and plausible reason other than "we dont know much about Winona" (i.e. she is a minor character so who cares) to justify splitting (which is not true, there are quite some differences between them in the timelines).
And Cid, I am understanding exactly what you say and - believe it or not - I still disagree. What makes *me* wonder is if, in addition to just reading, you actually are maybe also *hearing* me. Seriously. There is nothing implausible and nonconstructive about my argument - I laid out quite clearly as to why a split is warranted. – Distantlycharmed 22:12, November 18, 2010 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Cid: The main difference I see between Winona and the other examples you give is the outgoing and incoming links. While the Kelvin does have some of that, with two pages for its first officer, it's not as bad here, where we can't even have a proper opening sentence without choosing a reality or forgoing links altogether. I feel that we're unnecessarily tangling the web here when things would be much more straight forward with two pages. For the record though, I'm not opposed to splitting all those pages as well, I just don't think that it would improve anything as much as splitting this page would. - Archduk3 22:15, November 18, 2010 (UTC)

Without restating various arguments, I'll just say I agree with Archduk3.– Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 00:23, November 19, 2010 (UTC)
Of course it would be somewhat weird to split an article like Alnschloss K'Bentayr in two, because there would be not enough information for one of them. It would be equally weird to artificially merge the two articles about JTK, because there's too much mutually exclusive information. What this shows is that there's not a single, absolute way of dealing with this - a line has to be drawn somewhere, with "separated" articles falling on one side of it and "merged" articles on the other. This line-drawing can be either arbitrarily or based on some metric. Amount of exclusive information has been suggested as one such metric but instantly been ridiculed without any good reason. Number of individual incoming links is another. Not being able to choose a proper opening sentence has been suggested as a third one, but at least that one can't really be serious - just have a look at the current opening sentences of both sections, and there you have a common opening sentence for both of them. Any other suggestions for a metric? As an aside, I think that editing this article (and bringing it, IMO, to a state less optimal than what we were starting with) is misleading and deceiving. I ask that this is returned to its pre-discussion state. -- Cid Highwind 11:21, November 19, 2010 (UTC)

In a word Cid, no.

All I've done is update the article to cover both realities, something it didn't do before, as well as be completely neutral between those realities when linking to other articles. If you believe that the article is in a less than optimal state, then you have simply agreed with my overall reasoning for splitting it. As for my point about a proper opening sentence, I'm completely serious, since it was about linking and not wording, which I'm sure you would agree was the point if you reread my last post. I also never suggested that the failure to write said sentence be used as the line for all articles, if I was going to suggest any standard I would have simply pointed out there is already long standing consensuses that people from separate realities are different and that separate people have separate articles, thus all of the "merged" articles should be considered the aberration, not the standard here. Also, if you want to have a semantics discussion on whether or not I disrupted MA to prove a point here is fine, since I believe I didn't violate either the wording or the spirit or that rule. - Archduk3 18:44, November 19, 2010 (UTC)

Two and a half months later: Turns out that, apparently, the right thing to do is to just sit things out and then change the article anyway... great. I guess I'll request that the whole discussion namespace be removed, then... -- Cid Highwind 10:39, February 4, 2011 (UTC)

Your right of course, the mistake was bringing it up for discussion in the first place when we already had a clear standard. Everyone agreed that the info was in a less than optional fashion when it covered both realities fairly, and no one suggested or tried to improve the article without removing valid information. I'm still more than willing to have a broader general discussion on the subject of alternate reality articles, but it is foolish in the extreme to keep this one article stunted amongst all the rest due to a discussion that barely remained on topic because of the ramblings of a user who clearly didn't understand the difference between the two characters or their respective universes. - Archduk3 11:30, February 4, 2011 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki