Wikia

Memory Alpha

Talk:Worf

37,578pages on
this wiki

Back to page

Past and special-purpose discussions related to this article can be found on the following subpages:
Help icon
Worf/archive

Memory Alpha talk pages are for improving the article only.
For general discussion on this subject, visit the forums at The Trek BBS.



FA status Edit

Nomination (10 July - 21 July 2005, Failed) Edit

the "fac" plate was on, so I added it here.

  • Oppose - It looks like alot of his time on Enterprise is missing, there's only the Kahless note for all of Season 6! And Jadzia seems like she deserves more then a paragraph, maybe even a picture of their wedding. This page still needs work in my opinion. - AJHalliwell 06:36, 10 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose. It was far from the quality a featured article should be. Personal history, relationships, interest, all needs to be heavily expanded. Ottens 09:59, 12 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • Opposed -- I'm curious as to who nominated this? Shouldn't the fact its unsigned and posted 'because a "fac" place was on the page' constitute a removal from the page rather than an unsigned nomination? Anyway, the article needs to be restructured and expanded. --Alan del Beccio 10:37, 12 Jul 2005 (UTC)

I appologize, I was going to remove it, but I didn't want a "You can't just remove that!" problem. - AJHalliwell 20:35, 19 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Nomination (14 June - 14 July 2006, Failed) Edit

For the character with the single most Trek appearances this article is incredibly detailed and covers every aspect I can think of. It's got extensive quotes and background info, touches on all major relationships and assignments. I can't believe it hasn't been nominated before. Logan 5 17:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Object. Despite being our longest article, it still is not complete. It needs more information on Worf's relationship with Ezri. -- Jaz talk 03:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Nomination (29 Aug - 31 Aug 2006, Unknown) Edit

  • Support. This article wasn't listed here, so I'm including it. It was previously nominated for feature status. It covers all the bases, and is abundantly illustrated. It's well deserving of FA listing. --Sheliakcorp talk 17:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, this had a nomination discussion Worf (07/13/06), and failed nomination. No one bothered to remove the template when it failed. I will do so, and then remove it from here, since it was never actually re-nominated. --OuroborosCobra talk 07:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Note on this: the act of supporting the article could be viewed as a renomination, and enough time had passed under the rules at the time, so removing this was actually ending the nomination. - Archduk3 01:49, March 31, 2012 (UTC)

Nomination (31 July - 25 August 2011, Failed) Edit

There are three reason this should be a FA: 1) This is one of the most comprehensive articles on MA and covers all the necessary criteria. 2) This article covers more Star Trek history in detail than any other article we have. 3) It's fraking Worf, what more do you want?! - Archduk3 21:15, July 31, 2011 (UTC)

  • Support. Clearly deserves FA status.--31dot 01:53, August 1, 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There are a few things that need to be sorted out before I can support this as a Featured Article.
1) While most of the background information is now cited, there are two comments that I haven't been able to find a reference for. The translation thing isn't in the The Klingon Dictionary (2nd ed.), though I suppose it could be in another of Okrand's works. As for the "Accession"/Worf's absence/First Contact note, I'm not sure that quite jives with what's in the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Companion, though I guess it's possible.
2) I think the page should have a proper appearances list, per previous discussions on Talk: Wesley Crusher and Talk: Main character non-appearances. This could be done in a space-saving format, of course. (TNG except for... etc.)–Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 06:25, August 1, 2011 (UTC)

I removed the note about the vacation, since there is no information on the film or episode pages, suggesting to me it's a rumor at best. As for the translation, that could just be removed as well if no cite is found, since it's hardly the most important piece of information on the page. An appearances, or non-appearances, section could be added, but there is no reason to list the first three seasons of DS9 as non-appearances like it is on that page, since that's, A) silly, and B) not relevant since he wasn't a cast member. If some clarifying note is needed, it can be added, but presenting the information in that manner is confusing the point of the list, or suggesting that Dorn was cast but just didn't feel like working. - Archduk3 07:37, August 1, 2011 (UTC)

Never mind about the translation note, I've removed it for the reasons I mention here. That just leaves the appearances section. - Archduk3 08:08, August 1, 2011 (UTC)

  • Suppport now that those issues have been resolved. I expanded and organised the background information section as well.–Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 10:49, August 1, 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose: seems to require a lot of work, with many instances of "would" used in the wrong context (I remember reading about this in our policies and guildelines, though I can't quite remember where – mainly because the policies and guidelines are so jumbled!), random sentences that could do with more context, and quite a few grammatical errors, etc. (at least as far as I've read, though I've tried to sort these out). I suggest a peer review, then probably renomination. --Defiant 14:57, August 1, 2011 (UTC)
There's also a few sentences that literally don't make sense, so I'm unable to make head nor tail of them, which I find irritating, because I would like to enjoy this article and not come up against such confusing statements. Also, I'm confused about whether we're still endeavoring to avoid duplicated links on MA or not. --Defiant 15:41, August 1, 2011 (UTC)
MA:POV#Tense for the "would do" v "did" stuff. Links should not be duplicated, except in the case of really long articles. -- sulfur 15:50, August 1, 2011 (UTC)
That's the impression I had, though I wasn't aware of the exception. Are we excusing this article from that guideline, then? --Defiant 16:00, August 1, 2011 (UTC)
Just as an aside, I think we should generally relax that "one-link" policy somewhat. The purpose of that originally was to increase readability by not having each word be a link. If that policy starts do decrease the quality of navigation (because readers have to search hard for the single link to some article), it has gone too far. Perhaps "once per section" would be a better guideline. -- Cid Highwind 16:54, August 1, 2011 (UTC)
I've often thought it would be, though I know some bots have (or at least had) the faculty of specifically searching for cases of duplicated links, so I also suspected that there might be some reason for their exclusion, other than just user readability. --Defiant 17:30, August 1, 2011 (UTC)

Did a pass at rewording uses of the word "would", though someone else might want to take a crack at it as well. I don't see a need for a peer review over these minor pov adjustments, as they are hardly significant revisions to the article, and I doubt that two weeks are required to fix them, or would even lead to them being fixed. That said, I would request that some of the confusing sentences be pointed out, since this is a rather long article, and I seem to have missed them before. - Archduk3 10:52, August 2, 2011 (UTC)

  • Support. Clearly deserves FA status if only for the info contained, True, maybe the "would" grammar needs to be addressed, but I've been as a non-Anglo Saxon corrected in abundance, does not subtract from the fact of the value of the article, further corrections are to be considered minor --Sennim 00:49, August 6, 2011 (UTC)
I agree that they're minor... each of them. But there's many. And like some folks say in the UK, pennies make pounds (I guess the US equivalent would be "cents make dollars"?), but I digress. I'll try to identify the sentences I'm having a hard time understanding. In the meantime, I certainly appreciate the work that's gone into this; it's a very impressive article, just quite a few nitpicks that could do with being ironed out. --Defiant 01:41, August 6, 2011 (UTC)
Then were are in agreement, one kick ass article, only in need of iring out by, grammatically, true and bred Anglo-Saxons (the community of which I'm unfortunately not part of...)--Sennim 02:32, August 6, 2011 (UTC)
  • Support I'm in agreement with the above supporting votes. This is a very extensive and comprehensive article that is deserving of FA status. --| TrekFan Open a channel 18:13, August 6, 2011 (UTC)
Nitpicks: here goes. Firstly, there's a section that reads "K'Ehleyr, an iconoclastic ambassador and Worf's former lover, [...] introduced their child, Alexander (see Family: K'Ehleyr and Alexander)." It doesn't say who or what K'Ehleyr introduced Alexander to, or what she introduced him into, but I think it'd be grammatically less awkward if it did – something along the lines of "K'Ehleyr introduced Alexander to Worf" or "K'Ehleyr introduced Alexander into the Enterprise crew," etc. A section I keep getting stuck on is where it says, "Worf served on Kurn's ship during the civil war, and fought at the Battle of Mempa, although he soon found himself dissatisfied at the impulsive manner of Klingon society when off-duty, Kurn's associating with officers who served the Duras family while they were in bars at the same time, despite the hostilities currently occurring between them." Not only is that sentence quite a rambling one but I also can't make head nor tail of it, grammatically. I also have problems with the sentence, "On the surface, Worf found L'Kor, now an old man. L'Kor informed Worf that his father died at Khitomer, and that a number of prisoners were taken to this camp." The surface of what, Carraya IV or some other planet in the Carraya region? And is that meant to be "a number of prisoners had been taken to this camp", just as it should be "his father had died at Khitomer"? The sentence, "Worf revealed technical knowledge of a temporal anomaly," seems too short and I'd like some clarification as to whether this was during the mission to Theta 116 VII or not. Another sentence I find confusing reads, "In 2370, Worf found himself along with the rest of the Enterprise crew following a mission to aid a stranded Romulan Warbird." I'm not entirely familiar with the term "to find oneself" and I find its usage here perplexing; does the word "following" mean subsequent to or basically just "on a mission that they were following". Although I certainly might be wrong, I have a hunch that a sentence that could be developed into a proper paragraph is the line that reads, "Worf helped Byleth understand the humanoid emotion of antagonism." Another nonsensical sentence is "The transmitter was tucked away in a cramped compartment, and Garak had to overcome his acute claustrophobia to complete it." Complete what?! The phrase "Worf, together with Romulans" (in the Star Trek Nemesis section) seems childish, because it's too oversimplified; which Romulans? --Defiant 20:38, August 6, 2011 (UTC)
Comment. Specific criticisms should be discussed at the article's talk page; if you oppose the article because it needs too many changes, then comments here should be left at that(which you already did with your original oppose vote)--31dot 20:45, August 6, 2011 (UTC)
Sorry; I thought Archduk3 meant he'd like comments here when he stated, "I would request that some of the confusing sentences be pointed out, since this is a rather long article, and I seem to have missed them before." --Defiant 20:56, August 6, 2011 (UTC)
Well, the above seemed like more than "some" to me, but that is only my opinion and need not be yours. :) We're just almost at the point I think where, if there is that many comments about changes, this discussion is more about that then whether or not this should be an FA.--31dot 22:13, August 6, 2011 (UTC)
I agree; "some" seems quite a subjective qualification. It is what I was aiming for, though, and I made sure that I didn't go past the about-halfway-down mark of the "Personality" section. "Too many corrections needed" is the reasoning for my objection to this FA nomination. I've been asked to explain further, which I've tried to do. I'm therefore starting to feel like this is beginning to get personal. I'd much rather it not, though, as I do love everyone's work here on MA; it's a really good community to be part of, generally. :) --Defiant 22:39, August 6, 2011 (UTC)
I apologize; I have not intended anything personal towards you.--31dot 01:02, August 7, 2011 (UTC)
Okay; apology accepted, and I'll take you at your word – that you didn't mean it to seem personal. But (returning to topic) did you mean that you don't think my quibbles about the article are sufficient for it not to achieve FA status? --Defiant 06:37, August 7, 2011 (UTC)
I was not making any judgments about the merits of your criticism; I was simply saying that I felt this wasn't the place to go into extensive details.--31dot 08:40, August 7, 2011 (UTC)
Alright. Thanks for that clarification. :) --Defiant 08:46, August 7, 2011 (UTC)

I've adjusted the wording of the sentences in question to hopefully be more Defiant and English friendly. :) - Archduk3 13:21, August 11, 2011 (UTC)

My oppose vote remains for this article; I certainly don't think it's one of our best-written articles. A big problem with it seems to be an over-reliance on informal language (phrases, etc.), which is not very encyclopedic (at least, IMO; it also makes the text more inaccessible to me, as I'm not used to such casual lingo). I'll admit that it does have potential, though I don't feel this has yet been attained. --Defiant 08:52, August 16, 2011 (UTC)

Well, I happen to find a too formal writing style to be stifling to the flow of an article, as well as overly simplistic and sometimes insulting to the reader. To be clear, that was not meant as a jab or insult to Defiant, but rather commentary on a problem with the English language.

Since a requirement for formal language is a personal preference not covered directly in the Manual of Style, that makes this an unresolvable problem unless Defiant makes the changes himself, since "well written" is clearly part of criteria, but the definition of "well written" is different for every user. A PR at this point would also be useless, for the reasons already given. - Archduk3 17:41, August 16, 2011 (UTC)

I was simply pointing out one of several problems I find with the article, others being that I think the DS9 info could be made more relevant to Worf and the "family" section on Jeremy Aster could be better incorporated into the article, as it's such a small paragraph. I actually agree with you that formal language can sometimes be too formal, though I believe this article just isn't formal enough. In total, I don't think this is one of our best-written articles, as I've tried to explain. I did not expect that any of your response was personal, nor is mine; no offense is meant, I'm purely expressing my opinions exclusively about the article. --Defiant 18:03, August 16, 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now, as there are still some typos and the Quotes-sections should be arranged chronologically. --36ophiuchi 21:41, August 21, 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I'd like to now change my vote to oppose as I have been convinced from recent comments that this article needs work to become an FA. --| TrekFan Open a channel 21:47, August 21, 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: I will not go as far as opposing this pages FA, but it is a bit long. It also gets very confusing because of missing dates in places. Otherwise well writen and full of detail. --Starfleet Academy (live long and prosper) 07:56, August 22, 2011 (UTC)

Archived. - Archduk3 02:15, August 26, 2011 (UTC)

Timeline entry for 2374 Edit

There is an entry that states "Considers fatherhood and successfully conceives a Trill-Klingon child." I don't remember that Worf and Jadzia actually conceived a child, just that Bashir said that it is scientifically possible. If no one has any other information I will fix it.--AndreMcKay 01:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and watched "Tears of the Prophets" again and corrected the above reference, plus one other, to show that they only attempted to conceive a child--AndreMcKay 23:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the reason it was added was because of Jadzia's last words in which she told Worf their child would have been beautiful. Apparently, someone took this to mean she was already pregnant, although this is not necessarily the case. --From Andoria with Love 00:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


It probably just means that if they had a kid it would be beautiful.99.227.247.121 17:27, August 11, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what Shran said...four years ago. -Angry Future Romulan 17:42, August 11, 2010 (UTC)

Minsk vs GaultEdit

moved from Talk:Minsk

I can't seem to find anythign that specifically states they lived in Minsk either, however "Let He Who Is Without Sin..." specifically states that Worf 'did not move to Gault until the age of seven', meaning he apparently lived elsewhere prior to that. I guess that much should be kept in mind, Earth seems to be the next most appropriate location. The fact that his parents beamed up from Bobruisk, seems to imply that his parents "currently" lived somewhere in or around Belarus. --Alan del Beccio 12:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't catch that reference before, thanks. But I think the elsewhere he had in mind was the rubble of Khitomer. I just have an online script for "Let He Who Is Without Sin...", and the line reads "You know that from the age of seven I was raised by humans on the farmworld of Gault?". The line from "Heart of Glory" reads "A human Starfleet officer found me. He took me to his home on Gault and told his wife to raise me as his son." If Worf was born in 2340, and Khitomer was attacked in 2346 (I haven't gotten so far in this to confirm those dates yet), that's about seven years. Maybe there was a short layover on Earth, so Helena could pack away the breakables on Gault, but it wasn't a substantial period. If someone can check the aired episodes for script differences, it might change things. --Aurelius Kirk 12:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah true, I hadn't the chance to look into Worf's age at the time of the attack, just into the background of Minsk references, though for some reason I thought he was younger. Those dates are most likely accurate, notably the 2346 as I believe there is a corresponding stardate (from the same log that cites Drew Deighan) from the time the Khitomer attack occurred. --Alan del Beccio 12:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Notes on revisionsEdit

I haven't been following the development of this page too closely until today. I was told this page was a little clunky and needed some synthesis, so I've given my first go at re-writing the "early life" section. I kept all the existing salient points, added what few items I could find, corrected what errors or speculation jumped out at me, and just tried to make the section "flow" a little better. Unfortunately, I'm not as familiar with Worf as, oh, say... James T. Kirk and I don't have a lot of the critical episodes handy, so I'm depending on memory and available scripts. If I screwed up something, call me on it. Changes and questions:

  • New lead. Goofy and ponderous, but I thought it was in the Klingon spirit of things.
  • Ubringing on Gault... adressed in posts above.
  • The final two paragraphs in Early Life are my best attempt to reconcile what appears to be a single visit and series of events on Qo'noS, told with different facts in different episodes. Fortunately, the different facts aren't entirely mutually-exclusive, and I think this is the best fit.

--Aurelius Kirk 12:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

This article is going to look pretty ugly for a few more days, but I think I have a decent handle on it now. Stay tuned. --Aurelius Kirk 12:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

SashEdit

Does anyone recall a reference or explanation of Worf's sash, beyond the command confusion bit in "Conundrum"? Am I correct in remembering the gold lamé version was only in use for TNG season one? Is the "chain-mail" version unchanged throughout his later appearances? --Aurelius Kirk 16:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it was ever directly mentioned except in "Conundrum" and in Insurrection when Picard says "straighten your baldric, commander". The gold sash was only Season 1; when Worf transferred to Security after Tasha died, he got the silver one. I would assume that for contrast against the gold uniform. The silver sash would have been the same up until the point he joined the House of Martok when the symbols on the front were changed.
I just watched "The Bonding" and at the end of the episode, Worf gives Jeremy Aster a sash similar to his own during a ceremony memorializing the boy's dead mother. Perhaps it has something to do with grieving the loss of parents?
I think it was just to emphasise his Klingon heritage. You'll notice that many Klingons wear a sash as part of their uniforms. Indeed, the gold sash he wears in season 1 is identical to that worn by several Klingon officers in TOS. 80.47.145.171 23:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I believe that the actual silver sash didn't change as far as I can tell. I do know that the symbols changed between TNG and DS9, and again when he joined Martok's house. The symbols on the sash didn't get their meaning until DS9 when he was stripped of his titles. Up until then they were just generic klingon decorations.
I remember Ensign Ro being reprimanded by Commander Riker the first time she appeared with an ornate ear-ring. I am assuming that the federation doesn't have such rules for Klingons. It might also have to do with Worf being the only Klingon warrior to serve on a federation ship that these uniform regulations might have been excused for him with regard to his Sash.

Remember also that Ro got special permission to wear her earring; presumably Worf's sash, and Nog's hat/headdress, were similar cases.

it was personally funny though seing Ro get reprimanded for the uniform violatin when Worf had such a huge sash that had never been mentioned even in passing before then. the odd thing is that from current Naval laws the uniform may be altered or ammeneded to to match heritage, spiritual or religious needs. example christians may wear a cross ont he uniform and certain aboriginal australian and native american tribes can wear pendants of their heritage. seems odd a utopia future would not be so understanding152.91.9.153 12:42, July 13, 2011 (UTC)

The Worf from ST:Undiscovered Country Edit

I could not find a reference to the worf appearing in "The Undiscovered Country", serving as Kirk's and McCoy's lawyer during their trial in that movie. Isn't that particular Worf - also played by Michael Dorn - supposed to be TNG-Worf's grandfather or great-grandfather? --89.49.170.58 14:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't logged in. That was my text. --Maxl 14:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
That character's info can be found at Worf (Colonel). --From Andoria with Love 23:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
One thing that bothers me though about the sash is that in "Heart of glory" (s1e20) was the first time (according to the episode) Worf had an encounter with the Klingon's. In the episode he explains that he was raised by humans, if this is true then the sash must represent lost loved ones as at that time there is no way he could have a rank in the Klingon empire. 66.34.9.1 11:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Cauvin
There's an incongruity there, as it is mentioned later that Worf visit's Qo'Nos in 2355. The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.175.52.3 (talk).

bat'leth? Edit

In Other notable missions, it says that Worf uses a bat'leth to attempt suicide in "Night Terrors". I don't know that much about Klingon weapons, but a bat'leth seems a little big for that. Is this accurate?

Absolutely right, I corrected the mistake. A bat'leth would be rather clumsy for that ceremony. --Jörg 12:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Timeline Error? Edit

In the timeline it notes in 2372 Worf was reassigned to DS9, however, in 2371 the USS Defiant was introduced (See "The Search, Part I"). Was Worf not already on the station when the Defiant was assigned to it? (In question Worf's Timeline) --Dlc2006 10:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The Defiant was assigned to DS9 in "The Search, Part I", the first episode of season three. Worf was not assigned to the station until "The Way of the Warrior", the first episode of the fourth season. --From Andoria with Love 10:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The old opener was far more interesting Edit

The old opening sentence was one of my favorite MA lines. It reminds me of his "if I can do all these things" speech in "Time's Orphan". The new one is boring, completely un-interesting. No style at all. --Bp 04:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and unlike the discussion above, I am not joking. It was actually a well written opening, and I prefer it to this one. --OuroborosCobra talk 04:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Well... I wrote it, and I (obviously) like it better, but I think someone else should change it back, if so desired, since I'm biased. :) As a reply to Defiant, though, in general I agree with that rule about long, rambling sentences. This, though, is different; first of all, it's not really a sentence, per se, it's a title (or set of titles). That's why it's set off from the rest of the sentence by hyphens, and that's why it's divided into sections with semicolons. Second, it's a special case; call it artistic license, if you will. By breaking a rule, doing something unexpected, you set the article off from the rest. And third, like Bp mentioned above, it fits the Klingon personality in general, and Worf's specifically. -- Renegade54 18:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I was just formatting it to MA's own guidelines - "long, rambling sentences should be avoided" (from Memory Alpha:The perfect article) - but I'm alright with reverting it, because "perfection is not required"! :) --Defiant 19:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Worf's RankEdit

Does Worf ever get promoted from Lieutenant Commander to Commander on DS9? --User:205.237.164.187 19:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

No. Worf remains a lieutenant commander from his promotion in Star Trek Generations (set in 2371), through the entire run of DS9 (237275), through his latest appearance in Star Trek Nemesis (2379). --From Andoria with Love 06:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

tuning Worf's operas Edit

Actually, although Jake and Nog work together in the episode, it is Nog, not Jake, who does the tuning of Worf's operas (DS9: "In the Cards"). It isn't explicitly stated, but it appears Nog uses his superior Ferengi hearing for this task, Jake probably couldn't have done it.

Name Edit

Worf, son of Mogh, of the Klingon House of Martok, of the Human family Rozhenko, mate to K'Ehleyr, father to Alexander Rozhenko, and husband to Jadzia Dax, Starfleet officer and soldier of the Empire, bane of the House of Duras and slayer of GowronEdit

I vote that we keep this :-) --OuroborosCobra talk 02:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Of all the times I left the IRC, I miss this :-P - Enzo Aquarius 02:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I vote that we delete this :-) --Defiant 03:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Spoil sport :-P --OuroborosCobra talk 03:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not spoil sport!! Not in general, anyway. Maybe tennis or baseball or something, but not all sport!! :) --Defiant 03:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Seriously, though, is there a reason for keeping this? --Defiant 03:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
It was intended as a bit of a joke to be honest. Something to tease Renegade54 a bit. I fully anticipate it (and expect it) to be deleted. Keeping it would be a bit... silly really. :) -- Sulfur 03:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Although I can take the occasional joke, I've got a feeling that misuse of MA doesn't set a very good example for new or less regular users. Also, not only do I agree that the redirect should be deleted but I also think the long, rambling introductory passage for the Worf article should be sectioned into separate sentences, especially after having read on one of MA's Guidelines pages that long, rambling sentences should be avoided! --Defiant 03:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


I say we keep this and also make a redirect for Alexander Siddig using his full name, Siddig El Tahir El Fadil El Siddig Abderahman Mohammed Ahmed Abdel Karim El Mahdi. These will be extremely useful as many users come in and take the time to type these names in the search field, hoping to be taken directly to the page and not have to go through the one match on the search result page. Come on, people, we need to think efficiency and practicality here! --From Andoria with Love 03:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
You should really know not to tease me like that... expect a blue link by morning! Hee hee! -- Sulfur 03:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't mind that so much, but the Worf redirect should be removed, IMO, as it's not only his name, but also relationships with people. --Defiant 03:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps simply Worf, son of Mogh would suffice? --Defiant 03:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
(imagines a vandal moving this page) [[Worf, son of Mogh, of the Klingon House of Martok, of the Human family Rozhenko, mate to K'Ehleyr, father to Alexander Rozhenko, and husband to Jadzia Dax, Starfleet officer and soldier of the Empire, bane of the House of Duras and slayer of Gowron on Wheels!!!]] --From Andoria with Love 03:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I was joking too. This redirect is going to be deleted, I am aware of this. It does not belong, it does not make sense to keep it. I was just having some fun with it while it was here. We should keep Siddig El Tahir El Fadil El Siddig Abderahman Mohammed Ahmed Abdel Karim El Mahdi of course, since that is his real name. --OuroborosCobra talk 04:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Name (J.G.) Edit

Just the other day, I bought season one of TNG. The box has a booklet inside, with small character biographies. I noticed Worf's on there, where it said J.G. Worf. I searched this page, but I could find nothing about it. Could this be his first name? supergeeky1 20:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Lieutenant junior grade --Alan del Beccio 20:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
...with "J.G." being the abbreviation for "junior grade". ;) --From Andoria with Love 04:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Complete name (redux) Edit

Wouldn't be Worf's complete name Worf Rozhenko just like his son was named Alexander Rozhenko?

Worf was primarily followed the Klingon traditions, making his complete name "Worf, son of Mogh." Alexander took the name Rozhenko, most likely, to honor both of his parents, honoring his father's adoptive parents and his mother's human ancestory. Hope this helps. ----Willie 20:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

That sounds awful. There is no canon evidence that Alex took the name Rozhenko to honor his parents.

And? --OuroborosCobra talk 06:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, then there is most likely Worf's full name be Worf Rozhenko.

Why? It was clearly stated in canon that it was "Worf son of Mogh", not "Worf Rozhenko". A talk page comment by Willie about personal opinions as to why Alexander chose "Alexander Rozhenko" does not change that. --OuroborosCobra talk 06:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
In that case then, while this is an older discussion, shouldn't the page (similar to other Klingon character pages) be named "Worf, son of Mogh"? --Terran Officer 14:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Problem is... his name is both. Both do redirect here. And anyhow, everyone knows him as just "Worf". :) -- Sulfur 15:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Alternate Realities vs. Alternate TimelinesEdit

On other TNG characters (Beverly Crusher, William T. Riker, and Natash Yar, they all have "Alternate timelines" heading. But, her at Worf's page, it is "Alternate realities". Aren't they the same? Alternate reality re-directs to Alternate timeline. Just wondering. ----Willie 17:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

There's only one canon instance credited that Worf has an Alternate Timeline and that's in (DS9: "Children of Time") any other instance like (TNG: "Parallels") or (DS9: "The Emperor's New Cloak")is an alternate reality.(Lightningbarer 13:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC))
Aren't they the same? Alternate reality re-directs to Alternate timeline. Just wondering. --TribbleFurSuit 21:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, my references sort of explain them better, but for the sake of argument. The Alt Timeline in Children of Time is where the Defiant finds a planet where the descendents of the Defiant's crew-who crash landed when they tried to leave the planet-are living there, with several Half and Quarter Klingon Descendants live. In Parallels Worf is jumping from reality to reality because of (insert:techobabble) and in The Emperors New Cloak we see Worf in the Mirror Universe. Don't know why the alternate reality and timeline would re-direct to the same place?Lightningbarer 16:57, May 7, 2010 (UTC)

LengthEdit

Would it not be best to spilt the article in to two section or more maybe, one for DS9 and one for TNG. The article is over 100 kilobytes in length. There are a lot of different sections to it and it can sometimes be an overload of information. Just wanted to see if any body agreed, or If i was just crazy and getting annoyed by something like the length.– Randomname 03:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

  • I have no problems with the length. In fact, I dislike split articles even more than single long articles, and I would be opposed to a splitting up of this article. Sorry. Picard(o) 14:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
This article is way, way too long. I recognize that as an article on a Wikia devoted to Star Trek, more detail is to be expected than elsewhere, but holy wow! I believe most of it could be fixed if the text actually stayed on topic according to the heading its under, and if the amazing amount of "fluff" is removed- every fact does not need commentary, people! Sarrandúin [ Talk + Contribs ] 03:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
One thing to remember about the length of this article is that Worf has more appearances (if I recall correctly) than any other main character. --OuroborosCobra talk 03:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Federation Ambassador Edit

Worf was made Federation Ambassador to Qo'noS in the series finale of DS9 set in 2375. However, four years later he returns to fight the Romulans along side his comrades on the Enterprise-E in 2379. Was he a Federation Ambassador and a Starfleet officer at the same time or did he have to resign his commission to become ambassador and reactivate it to serve during Nemesis? This would make his tenure as ambassador relatively brief. Is there a canon answer to this? --Topher 06:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, there is no canon explanation. --OuroborosCobra talk 06:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
According to a deleted scene from Nemesis, however, Worf states that the life of a diplomat did not fit him, suggesting he had indeed given up his ambassadorial duties returned to Starfleet. --From Andoria with Love 07:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the same subject, would it be worth stating that B'lanna Torres became the Federation ambassador to Quo'nos? Although this happened in an alternate timeline, it could explain why Worf was back on the Enterprise in 2379. I know this is mostly speculative, but at some time or other Worf must have relinquished the position so B'lanna could take over? TrekFan 14:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

If there is no canon evidence, then it's unexplianed. Except for the deleted scene, there is no reason to believe that he didn't just temporarialy go back to soldiering on and then go back to ambassodoring.99.227.247.121 18:32, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Worf on Webster Edit

Was Michael Dorn as Worf really on the last episode of Webster? Wikipedia seems to think so, and IMDb gives Dorn the credit, and a few other places refer to it, but all rely on user-generated content, so I can't help but think it might be an elaborate hoax. I mean, if that really did happen, wouldn't it be mocked constantly?

"The last episode was taped in March 1989 (but aired later that spring), which did not signify an end of any sort, but was played out as a high tragical event - the cast went on a space adventure with guest star Michael Dorn as Lt. Worf, from Star Trek: The Next Generation (in the ep. titled "Webtrek"), but resulted in Ma'am being killed by an angry follower of a Klingon Overlord." (Webster) --Bsteger 07:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it would appear that Dorn appeared as Worf in the episode "Where No Web Has Gone Before" --Alan 05:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm searching for a clip, but I saw that episode of Webster when I was a kid. I recall Webster playing a video game when his controller broke. It winds up getting repaired by the crew of the Enterprise. --173.173.28.106 23:28, June 24, 2012 (UTC)

Before Dishonor Edit

I've been reading the novel Before Dishonor and I noticed some interesting things, among them, namely that Worf is apparently back on the Enterprise now and serving as First Officer. Now I read over the canon guidelines and I understand that stuff from the novels isn't canon. Still, would it be okay to add this information somewhere? I'd be curious to know exactly when this came about (if this book, is inf fact, the first instance of Worf being back on the Enterprise and serving in this capacity.) P.S.: I'm new here (sort of), I've browsed the site before, but never really added anything. Oh, and one other sidenote, I've been reading a lot about how Before Dishonor is controversial. For my part, I like what I've read of it so far (I'm about halfway through.) – George B. (talk) 00:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the very bottom of the article, you'll see this information mentioned in background. Feel free to expand it. :-) – Cleanse 00:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
As mentioned on the canon policy, such a mention should be extremely limited and placed in the Apocrypha section(or any similar area for non-canon information). For an extensive mention, you may want to visit Memory Beta, the wiki for all non-canon Star Trek things. I don't have the link handy but I am sure someone will post it, or it can be found at the bottom of the home page. Welcome. :) --31dot 00:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge "Woof" with "Worf"Edit

I think this information should go on Worf's page. We don't have a seperate page for Ivan Burkoff, another example of an incorrectly used name. Woof could be a redirect to Worf.--31dot 12:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. support Merge and redirect to Worf. -- Rom Ulan 12:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
"Stretch" also head an own article--Shisma Bitte korrigiert mich 13:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it shouldn't have its own article as well; I'm not sure, although Stretch was an actual nickname, not an incorrectly used name.--31dot 13:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Come on, stupid not useful name...Delete page, just move that just one short little line to worf-page.--213.89.174.239 16:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Merge/Redirect. It is even more likely someone will search for woof than warf, given the name was used onscreen. Agree with 31dot.The preceding unsigned comment was added by Icesyckel (talk • contribs).
Not surprisingly since I created the page: Oppose . If we have pages for Bones, Old Man, Stretch and the like, I think we can have one for something, that given its repetition, is really one character's nickname for Worf. – Cleanse 00:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Woof is not a nickname, it is an incorrect pronunciation by another character(Lwaxana), probably done accidentally. Worf certainly did not appreciate it.--31dot 02:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Nicknames don't have to be appreciated by the person so-named, and can derive from mistakes. Its repetition by Lwaxana means that she was possibly aware of her (initial) error and only continued to call Worf that to annoy him. If kept the article should probably have a note reflecting that.
Having said that, I of course support having the info on Worf's page as well. – Cleanse 02:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, then that would ruin the point of having a separate article if all the information already exists elsewhere (we've always tried to avoid unnecessarily repeating information). "Bones" (that in all fairness, I de-redirected) has legitimate background information that would be improper to place on McCoy's page. If there is *anything* appropriate to place on the Woof page that would be inappropriate to place on the Worf page, then it will be wholeheartedly deserving of a nickname page. As it stands right now, I'd support a Merge and redirect (as long as the info is retained somewhere).--Tim Thomason 03:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Similar to Tim, I agree that a merge and redirect is the way to go. It should also be done for Stretch and Old Man in my estimation. The problem with "Old Man" is that it coudl arguably go into Jadzia, Ezri, or Dax (Symbiote)... which is an issue... -- Sulfur 03:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok, what Tim says works for me. Merge/RedirectCleanse 03:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Legacy Edit

Has Worf ever had any endeavor in his history not end in failure? I am referring to his marriage, his lack of command, his son, ect. If anyone can give me something this guy did right it would be a big help. The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.158.166.135 (talk).

Help? In what way? I mean, how will it help you? Are you writing a book report? 76.247.104.56 03:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Does it matter? It's a simple question and actually has some merit if you think about it. Though he did win the Bat'Leth competition in TNG: "Parallels". ;) - Adm. Enzo Aquarius...I'm listening 03:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I was just thinking, I mean he is one of the most celebrated characters in all of Trek, has the most on screen appearances, and yet is one of the most tragic. I can't remember the end of Ds9 but as I remember he still had not gotten any sort of closure from the loss of his wife, and he was stuck as an ambassador even after he proved himself as a warrior. The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.76.151.191 (talk).

Worf got closure of Jadzia's death in the beginning of season 7 when he got her into sto-vo-kor, then later made amends with Ezri, and was able to move on. He made up with his son in Season 6, and as well, joined the House of Martok, and was no longer dishonored. He killed Gowron, and became an ambassador before returning the the E-E. I really don't see any gaping holes in how he turned out. --Alan del Beccio 06:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Well he apparently was not STUCK as an ambassador because he was back in Starfleet in 2379. I still am interested in how it's a big help to you? Does your girlfriend cry when you harsh on Worf? The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.247.106.117 (talk).

Well I am doing a paper on the Campbell's Hero Cycle for school. My teacher asked us to take fictional characters and apply the lives of those characters to the hero cycle. I am trying to determine if Worf was a tragic hero or not. It just seemed that the writers put a lot of obstacles in his path. I am sorry if this is bothering you guys but I sorta need an outside opinion. The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.88.246.232 (talk).

It isn't bothering us. In addition, the personal attacks being made against you are blatantly against policy, and that anon has been warned to stop. I am seeking administrative action now. --OuroborosCobra talk 18:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Worf as a tragic hero? yeah, i can see that, though he wouldn't be my first choice. Data would stand out, to me, as a tragic hero; Had a father, watched him die; had a brother, forced to kill him; had a daughter, watched her die; had a love affair, she died; in the end, he died heroically and never truely met his goal of understanding humanity (or was it emulating?) all in all, data's long life really sucked. (pardon if my facts are alittle wonkey, along with my spelling; its late and im tired) – Farfallen 13:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Stephen Colbert comment Edit

I wonder if the recently added comment about Colbert truly belongs here, as it was likely meant as a joke. Perhaps it should go on the pop culture page, but I don't think it fits in with the article. Just my opinion.--31dot 21:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You're right, it should. --Alan del Beccio 21:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed it as of now-(In 2008, Stephen Colbert honored Lt. Commander Worf as part of "Black Chinese American Month New Year Minute", citing his numerous achievements.)--31dot 12:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Gold baldric origin Edit

According to "Errand of Mercy", the Worf's season 1 gold sash was a re-use of a TOS costume element. It references the TNG Companion as it's information source. Could someone confirm/deny as I do not have a copy and one of these 2 articles is in error. 75.132.192.205 06:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

left handed Edit

I was watching the casino episode when i noticed that he used a phaser left handed --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.76.60.163 (talk).

Seems to be a fluke, since it is his right hand here, here, here, and probably many other places. --OuroborosCobra talk 07:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, what is the "casino" episode? --OuroborosCobra talk 09:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I think he means "Our Man Bashir", although in that case it isn't really Worf, but a character. I'm also sure that as a security officer he is trained to use a weapon in both hands, in any event.--31dot 11:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Can't be that one, he wasn't holding phasers in a time period program like that. --OuroborosCobra talk 13:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
True, now that I think about it, could it be "The Royale"?--31dot 14:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
It is The Royale and yes, he was holding and firing a phaser left-handed. — Morder 19:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

At the end of ST: Nemesis, when they are toasting Data, Worf's glass is in his left hand.

I could be wrong here, but I thought one of the NexGen episodes talked about all Klingons being ambidextrous?--Jlandeen 23:33, December 8, 2009 (UTC)

Contractions Edit

Have you guys ever noticed that Worf NEVER uses contractions? He always says "I am...", "We are...", "That is...". He's actually much more accurate with that than Data. The preceding unsigned comment was added by 79.207.221.15 (talk).

Klingons do not.... Edit

I wonder if a section should be made or maybe added to the Memorable Quotes section; that would address the Klingons do not... sentence that Worf as used so many times, I feel that it is a likely equivalent to Doctor McCoy's I am a doctor not a...

I know there's also a references to this... Right off the bat here's two of them:

Klingons do not surrender and Kligons never bluff both came from the TNG episode The Emmisary

Captain Riggs 22:33, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

Bicep Padding Edit

I noticed in the first/second season (so far) that Worf had padding in his shirts. Can anyone confirm this or does Michael Dorn just have weirdly shaped arms? — Morder (talk) 23:55, April 4, 2011 (UTC)

Watching a few more episodes and his entire upper body looks like it was padded. Pretty sure that it's the case but would rather have some more concrete evidence before it's posted as speculation on the background section — Morder (talk) 01:05, April 21, 2011 (UTC)

Well, I found this comment in the RDM AOL chats, in the middle of a spirited debate about alleged sexism on DS9:
"Let me bring you in on a little secret -- we pad everyone. Men and women. Do you think Worf's shoulders are really that big? Do you think Dukat's chest is the size of a oil drum? The costumes are often made of material that requires... er, reshaping in order to be attactive on camera, especially the Starfleet uniforms, which are so stiff and bulky that if we didn't do something with them, you'd never get any body definition whatsoever. Some actors have great bodies and some don't. We're more than happy to show off those that do and help those who need it. Patrick had a great body and was more than willing to run around in very little whenever the situation called for it." (AOL chat, 1997)
Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 09:16, April 21, 2011 (UTC)

Well that sorta just answers it all, I noticed that Data and Geordi didn't have padding early on because you could always see their outlines...sometimes it wasn't flattering. DS9 had thicker suits and not cheap polyester so there was definitely more padding there (in the upper body) but Dukat's costume is obviously a bit overkill because it wasn't standard material. (dukat was quite thin as a bajoran - and in real life)...so I guess a note isn't really necessary based on the above. — Morder (talk) 02:03, April 22, 2011 (UTC)

KDF Rank? Edit

Can someone please provide a source for Worf holding the rank of captain in the Klingon Defense Force? I do not recall seeing any TNG or DS9 episode, or film for that matter, that states Worf held that rank in any Klingon military. If one cannot be provided I'd like to suggest removing the rank mention from the article. --72.200.71.7 05:18, July 18, 2011 (UTC)

I don't remember that either, and I couldn't find anything through a quick search through the transcripts. (Except for Worf claiming to be a Captain in "The Emissary", which was a bluff) If a source is found, it should be noted somewhere in the main text as well.–Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 04:24, July 24, 2011 (UTC)

Removed Edit

  • Worf's holiday plans were deliberately written into the series so the writers would have an excuse for Worf being with the Enterprise crew for Star Trek: First Contact, and not at Deep Space 9. The episode DS9: "Accession" aired just before filming for Star Trek: First Contact had begun. However in the movie Worf joins the crew of the Enterprise by commanding the Defiant.

The mentioning of Worf's holiday plans needs a citation, and since Dorn didn't miss any episodes for the film I wouldn't be surprised if this is just rumor. That said, if a citation is found, it should be added to the episode and film page as well. - Archduk3 07:29, August 1, 2011 (UTC)

Incite has been up since November of last year with no response. Also, according to Google, we are one of only three pages on the internet with this information, and the other two are from '03 and '04. This suggest that the info is bogus, since I would expect at least one page a year if this was legitimate. - Archduk3 08:06, August 1, 2011 (UTC)

Whiskey Edit

"Worf would then owe the chief a bottle of Irish whiskey"? Ireland has no highlands it was Scottish whiskey! The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.182.209.27 (talk).

If that's what was said in canon, then that's what we use, whether it is true in reality or not. Maybe by the 24th century they are making whiskey in Ireland. 31dot (talk) 10:24, January 23, 2013 (UTC)
Erm... Irish whiskey exists. I've had some. Irish whiskey. -- sulfur (talk) 13:20, January 23, 2013 (UTC)

Teenage years Edit

Speaking of timeline, are we 100 percent certain on those dates for events in his teenage life? It seems somewhat likely to me he might have been talking in "Klingon years" (otherwise the age of 15 Earth years is embarrassingly late for age of ascension and he would have been an outrageously oversized 13 year old playing soccer in school.) The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.182.130.241 (talk).

Yep it is a bit confusing. There is a long discussion on comparative Klingon/Human age on the Torres page. I think they accelerated Alexander for story purposes which threw it all out. Although Roxann Dawson was older than the character by a long way. Lt.Lovett (talk) 09:44, August 20, 2013 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki