Talk:List of Star Trek characters (G–M)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merge of Kahless into this article[edit]

This idea wasn't suggested by me, but I have no argument against it. --Rockfang 08:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kahless is notable enough across the multiple Star Trek series to have his own article. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 08:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kahless was notable in-universe, but there needs to be significant real-world notability to stand alone. Ejfetters 08:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You make this statement according to what policy? --Ye Olde Luke 20:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not -- Descriptions of fictional works. Wikipedia's coverage of works of fiction should provide sourced information to provide commentary on the works' real-world context, such as development, production, distribution, and cultural reception and impact. Both for encyclopedic purposes, and also to qualify as fair use, summary descriptions of plot, characters and settings are appropriate only in the context of real-world information, not when they are the sole content of an article or told entirely from an in-universe perspective. This applies both to stand-alone works and to series. (See also Wikipedia:Television episodes, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction), Wikipedia:Notability (fiction), Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines#Plot.) These articles are not notable enough in their current forms to stand alone because they are almost entirely in-universe reiterating plot subjects. Hope this helps Ejfetters 01:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It does! Thank you. I'll get right on reading that, before coming to a conclusion. --Ye Olde Luke 04:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would merge "Kahless" with the "Klingon" entry instead, since it is of importance mainly in the context of that culture (and its real-world influence), and just link from here.Aishalanea (talk) 09:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Fails on grounds of real world notability (WP:N and WP:FICT) mattbuck (talk) 02:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Kahless noteable enough, has affected a TON of in-canon Trek events. Not to mention been the focus of novels. Lots42 (talk) 16:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge- utter fancruft, totally not notable outside of the star trek canon. Definitely appropriate for Memory Alpha, but not here.Hello, My Name Is SithMAN8 (talk) 23:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, rewrite, add more info, especially from an out-of-universe perspective. note: wikip is an encyclopedia; whether certain material abt kahless is trek "canon" or not is a point of interest & should be mentions, but if it's in the trek universe, & wikipedia covers the trek universe as a subject, it should be mentioned; canon or not. he's turned up lots in the novels & comics & is the subject of considerable fan attention. just for additional info: article is being used, it gets about 2000 hits per month. http://stats.grok.se/en/200904/Kahless Lx 121 (talk) 11:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Kahless is notable well outside of Star Trek cannon, enough to have unique pop culture references, and if verious comic book characters and minor actors no one cares about has their own artice, there is no reason to make something as significant as Kahless into a footnote. I am David Pee (talk) 00:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep His notability within TNG, DS9 and TOS, as well as the Klingon Culture, and the fan culture regarding Klingon that has arisen over the last 40 years, warrants its own article. SGGH ping! 15:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Format[edit]

The table format looks nice. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 08:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge of John Harriman[edit]

Another user requested that I begin a discussion for this particular article aside from the rest of them because there is a lot of information in the article. This information appears to be primarily in-universe - not just in-universe fromt the film Generations, but in-universe from the novels also, - please see What Wikipedia is not Ejfetters 01:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge - Fails on grounds of real world notability (WP:N and WP:FICT) mattbuck (talk) 02:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The amount of information in the article, and the character's prominent position as an Enteprise captain, esp. the one believed for decades to be responsible for the death of James Kirk, merits his own article. Nightscream (talk) 13:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but tone down the article, too little character information, padded out by information on the works he is featured in. Alastairward (talk) 21:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't merge For a minor character to inspire writers and fans to want to "rehabilitate" his character shows more notability than a plot regurgitation would suggest. Cromulent Kwyjibo (talk) 16:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep for now; until we figure out how to handle fictional a subjects as a general class, i favour not making the mess worse. Lx 121 (talk) 11:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposed to save articles[edit]

The merger proposed are done so to save the articles from ultimate PROD and AFD nominations, that will be inevitable because most, if not all of these articles fail WP:Plot, WP:WAF, WP:FICT, WP:RS, WP:OR - how can one ignore or put aside these "guidelines" put forth in Wikipedia and used in writing fictional subject articles throughout Wikipedia. Ejfetters 00:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

actually wikip policy for covering fictional subjects is kind of a mess. we really need to establish clearer rules, standards, & practices. this business of merging everything is pretty unuseful for somebody trying to research a character. it also makes for messy articles. i appreciate the good intentions, but i the real thing that needs to get settled is how do we cover fictional subjects on wikipedia Lx 121 (talk) 11:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge of Harry Mudd[edit]

While he's only a recurring character, I'd say that he's rather important to TOS. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 07:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose merge -- one of the most well-known guests on TOS. Also appears in animated series, comics, and ISTR a planned appearance on TNG before the actor's death made it impossible (or at least unlikely).--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 19:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry to be a broken record, but, again, do you have real-world notability for this character? Without it the article fails most of the guidelines listed above here. If you have it, then, by all means add it to the article and then it should be fine. It needs to be sourced and cited though. Ejfetters 19:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Didn't say it shouldn't be sourced and cited. Just said it shouldn't be merged.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 20:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Fails on grounds of real world notability (WP:N and WP:FICT) mattbuck (talk) 02:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge He seems important enoungh to have his own article--Iceglass (talk) 15:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - the article is a stub, and there will never be enough information for it to be more than a stub. mattbuck (talk) 15:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've merged him into the article List of minor recurring characters in Star Trek: The Original Series Alastairward (talk) 12:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bit late for a follow-up comment, i know, but mudd's primary listing shouldn't be on that page; he appears in more than just tos. Lx 121 (talk) 11:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article says that Mudd is "the only non-crew character to be featured in more than one episode of the original series." That's certainly not true. Sarek and Amanda appeared several times, and I'm sure that there were some Klingons or Romulans with recurring roles (though I don't have specific examples right now). Can someone come up with a better description than "the only non-crew character"? Keeves (talk) 14:28, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, Sarek and Amanda only appeared in one episode of TOS, "Journey to Babel". No Klingons or Romulans appeared more than once either, despite David Gerrold's attempt to set up Koloth as a recurring antagonist in "The Trouble with Tribbles". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:32, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the correction. I thought for sure they were in Amok Time, but you are tight. Thanks again. Keeves (talk) 16:45, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge of Leslie (Star Trek)[edit]

The character of Lieutenant Leslie, through his continued appearance on the show, spawned the name for the stock charater Redshirt, which has been used and parodied on many shows, including Stargate SG-1, South Park, Eureka, and Gears of War, amongst many others. --Ye Olde Luke 03:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Proof of this? That he was the one that spawned the phrase? I thought it was the continued killing of dispensible Red Shirt (security) characters, and later yellow shirt in TNG and past. Ejfetters (talk) 04:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Fails on grounds of real world notability (WP:N and WP:FICT) mattbuck (talk) 02:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Check the citation on the page. That fact came from Robert W. Bly's "Why You Should Never Beam Down in a Red Shirt". --Ye Olde Luke 02:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge per Ye Olde Luke. The MA article on him is amazing. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 02:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also note that "His Star Trek character, Mr. Leslie, actually appeared in more episodes than Sulu or Chekov." (from Eddie Paskey) —Disavian (talk/contribs) 02:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - That's all very well, but redshirts are very much generic. The book in question has 750 questions, and I'm prepared to guess that exactly one mentions Leslie. It wouldn't matter that he recurred more often than Kirk - he is not a notable character. Ask a random person if they recognise Sulu, Chekov or Uhura - there's a fair chance they will. But only true trekkies would ever recognise Leslie, and wikipedia is not a star trek wiki. It doesn't matter that his Memory alpha article is amazing, since this is not Memory alpha. The article is a stub, will never progress beyond a stub, and should be deleted post haste. mattbuck (talk) 09:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I haven't read the book, and so do not know how many questions Leslie is mentioned in. However, the number of questions he is granted in not the point. The point is whether the book proves that his character is what spawned the redshirt stock character. If you have the book, please post proof that the book does not do this. Until then, the book must be kept as a reliable source. Also, if you read WP:N, you'll see that asking random people off the street is not a way of establishing or disproving notability. Not many people on the street would know who Dicaearchus is either, except for Greek Philosophy buffs. --Ye Olde Luke 23:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge article not neeed. RC-0722 communicator/kills 23:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redshirts came for the security officers who -died-. Not the ones who lived. Plenty of expendable characters had speaking roles on TOS. Lots42 (talk) 16:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'H' entries[edit]

There should be mention of Stephen Hawking, who appeared as himself at the beginning of 'Descend, Pt. 1'. Elwin Blaine Coldiron (talk) 02:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't Hugh from "I, Borg" and "Descent, Pt. 1 and 2" be on here as well? Arm19 (talk) 00:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If there's a third party source (and there likely is one), then feel free to add him. DonIago (talk) 15:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ilia[edit]

Ilia (Star Trek) has an outstanding merge proposal dating from December 2007. Should the article Me merged or not? Totnesmartin (talk) 21:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support the merge. There doesn't seem to be a suggestion of enough notability for a stand alone article. Alastairward (talk) 21:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed; although the content of the article is sourced and of some interest, notability is not sufficient for a separate article. What's surplus to Wikipedia's requirements should be added at http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Ilia instead. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that WP's license and MA's license don't exactly agree with each other, and the stuff that someone did add to the MA article assumed that MA was WP. It's nice to put the information elsewhere, but in future, please note the requirements there, and note that the citation styles are different too. -- 99.233.90.33 (talk) 21:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge of Colonel Phillip Green[edit]

The article Colonel Phillip Green fails to meet the notability guidelines, and relies entirely on first party sources. There isn't enough information for a standalone article, however, there is relevant content that could be merged here. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 22:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree with the merge; character is not widely notable. Sir Rhosis (talk) 00:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An unpopular suggestion[edit]

In accordance with WP:IPC and WP:LSC I'm forced to ask the question of what the criteria for inclusion are for this article and related ones. I don't believe it's appropriate to include every character who's ever appeared in a Star Trek work, and would consequently suggest limiting these articles to those characters who have attracted notice from third-party sources, but am open to suggestions. DonIago (talk) 14:02, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For Characters of Halo the approach I took was that the characters in question had to be recurring in some fashion—for Halo that includes books (since in that franchise they are canonical) but for our purposes we’d limit ourselves to the TV series and movies (so characters that appeared in one episode but went on to be covered in the books doesn’t meet the threshold.) That should instantly cut a great number of character blurbs that can adequately be mentioned in their respective episode, including any reception (which is better served supporting that episode’s article than a list.) I’d say following that approach would easily allow us to convert the multiple lists we currently have into one master list. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:17, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not what I'd consider "best practice", but I'd support that as a compromise between what we have now and a "nuclear" option. Perhaps we could retitle the resulting hopefully single article to something along the lines of "List of recurring Star Trek characters"? Ideally it would be nice if the article title made it clear that the characters recurred in the TV series and movies, but I can't immediately think of how to specify that without making the title ridiculously long. DonIago (talk) 14:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well "List of recurring Star Trek characters" is only four characters longer than the current scheme, so it's not any more of a mouthful. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:20, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, sorry, I meant...well, actually, "List of recurring onscreen Star Trek characters" might work. My point was that coming up with a title that reflects the fact that the list doesn't include novel appearances to establish recurrence might be tricky, but maybe not... DonIago (talk) 15:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any reason to limit it to canon/onscreen characters if we could come up with reliable sources for novel-characters. A list of recurring Star Trek characters wouldn't likely include many (if any) non-canon characters, but it still leaves the door open in case somebody comes up with reliable sourcing for one. The entry for such a character would simply note that "though non-canon, this character is notable because of these sources." — fourthords | =Λ= | 19:56, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd go farther than David and require that a character needs to be recurring with reliable third-party sources to be listed. This will keep the list pared down to notable characters who don't have enough to support their own article. If we list every character with an appearance, we wind up with entries for "Mulcahey" who wouldn't ever be included on a disambiguation page or a hatnote, and probably isn't even significant enough to be included in "Drone", yet he's earned a place here… why? Keeping recurring characters w/o reliable sources will probably wind up keeping Mot the barber: he appeared in two episodes and yet what more do we have to say on the subject? I'm feeling a little scatter-brained at the moment, so my arguments may not be the most cogent w/o specific points to reply to, but I'd like to point to a similar argument I made a while back: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Star Trek/Archive 7#Character lists. (P.S. This doesn't contend with spin-off articles like List of Star Trek: The Next Generation characters which further duplicate these lists.) — fourthords | =Λ= | 17:23, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be quite amenable to this option as well, and I do generally prefer to establish significance via sourcing. DonIago (talk) 17:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do we want to create a draft somewhere of a compiled character list using the recurring character criteria above and then see what we've got to go looking for sources/replacing the current lists? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:20, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're a nicer editor than I am; left to my own devices I'd just start removing the unsourced entries. DonIago (talk) 20:37, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know when you have the lists and I'll see what I can get from the book sources I have. I've just got the one that'll be useful for TOS, my TNG and DS9 stuff should be fairly thorough, and VOY is lacking too. All ENT stuff will be online only. Miyagawa (talk) 10:09, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've begun such a draft discussion (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Star Trek/List of recurring Star Trek characters). I've found as much as we already have, though I'm sure there's a lot more out there. — fourthords | =Λ= | 16:11, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion any named Star Trek onscreen character who has an article in Wikipedia or for which there is a reliable independent published source naming them as a Star Trek character should be included. A character who occurs only in one episode may still play a valuable role in the development of the Star Trek story. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe simply having an existing article demonstrates the significance of a character; that may simply mean they should be merged but haven't been...and if they should be merged, then it's possible they shouldn't have an entry at all. DonIago (talk) 14:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Straw poll[edit]

I'd like to more clearly get an indication of how editors generally feel we should proceed in terms of what characters qualify for inclusion. I'm listing my understanding of the options presented above, but feel free to add others if you don't see something listed that best reflects your feelings on the matter.

  1. Any character that's received attention from a third-party source.
  2. Any recurring character that's received attention from a third-party source.
  3. Any recurring character who appeared onscreen, regardless of third-party sourcing.
  4. Any recurring character who appeared onscreen regardless of third-party sourcing, non-onscreen recurring characters require sourcing.
  5. Any onscreen character who has a Wikipedia article or has third-party sourcing.

Discussion[edit]

  • My preferences would be options 1 or 2. DonIago (talk) 14:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm in favor of two. Any singly-occuring character who has reliable, third party sources can either (a) be summed up in the work in which they appeared (i.e. Tuvix in "Tuvix"), or (b) be spun off into a whole article of their own. — fourthords | =Λ= | 18:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on the normal Wiki approach, requiring third party coverage - I'd go with option one. But to say that simply having a mention in a series companion which talks about so and so being cast as x character shouldn't count. Otherwise we'll never reduce the numbers. That sort of thing would be appropriate to include in the actor's article as it is about the actor being cast and not specifically about the character. Also I'd like to say that we don't really have a great deal of coverage of recurring characters in individual articles - it's something that the X-Files project does well. But in order to ensure that they don't get speedily merged or deleted then they would need to be created as full standing articles initially and not simply stubs for later expansion. Miyagawa (talk) 14:41, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion[edit]

Based on the above discussion at the time I'm writing this, it seems that we at least have consensus for option 1, with the more restrictive option 2 possibly being acceptable. Given that even implementing option 1 will drastically reduce the size of these articles I recommend we go with that unless there's a significant feeling that we need to push further. Barring any opposition I'll adopt this approach in another week or so. DonIago (talk) 16:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where is Garth[edit]

Garth of Izar redirects here, but there is no information about the character. 69.70.27.42 (talk) 18:49, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So add some? Just be sure to provide a source as discussed above. Otherwise it might be appropriate to ask whether he should be linked here in the first place, but I would imagine some source somewhere has discussed him. DonIago (talk) 19:19, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Citations[edit]

I made an addition to the list "Ilhon Tandro" who is a character in the epidsode "Dax" (8th episode, 1st season of DS9). I gave two citations that an editor felt didn't hold up to standard. So this individual deleted my entry. Yet there are over 100 characters on this page that have NO citations at all (let alone reliable ones). So either my addition should be reinstated or the other 100 characters must be deleted.

Here's the list of characters with NO citations. Either reinstate my addition since this page clearly hasn't had the requirement for citations for anyone else or delete these 100 characters. You have to hold the same standard for EVERYONE.

-Colonel Philip Green

-Stephen Hawking

-Horta

-Hugh

-Captain Edward Jellico

-Cyrano Jones

-Kahless

-Lenara Khan

-Kamala

-Kang

-Rayna Kapec

-Kargan

-Anton Karidan

-Lenore Karidan

-Karina

-Walker Keel

-Edith Keeler

-Keenser

-Keevan

-K'Ehleyr

-Keldar

-Kell

-Captain Keogh

-Kes

-Kessick

-Harry Kim

-Kira Meru

-Kira Nerys

-Kira Taban

-Kira Pohl

-Kira Reon

-Aurelan Kirk

-George Samuel Kirk, Sr.

-George Samuel Kirk, Jr.

-James T. Kirk

-Peter Kirk

-Winona Kirk

-K'Kath

-Klaa (this one even has a tag for "original research" but hasn't been deleted)

-Klag

-Klingon Captain

-Klingon Amar Captain

-K'mpec

-K'mtar

-K'nera

-Kodos

-Kohlar

-Kol

-Kolopak

-Koloth

-Sirna Kolrami

-Komack

-Anastasia Komononov

-Konmel

-Konsab

-Kor

-Korax

-Roger Korby

-Korrd

-Korris

-Kortar

-Koss

-Amal Kotay (this isn't even a character but an alias of one of the main characters in Voyager, but it also has no citation)

-Koval

-Kozak

-Krelik

-Krell

-Kruge

-K'Temoc

-Kurn

-Kunivas

-Darlene Kursky

-Kuvak

-Kyle

-Edward La Forge

-Geordi La Forge

-Silva La Forge

-Lal

-Natima Lang

-Larg

-Sam Lavelle

-Leeta

-Robin Lefler

-Elizabeth Lense

-Leskit

-Leslie

-Janice Lester

-Li Nalas

-Abraham Lincoln

-Linnis

-L'Naan

-Nicholas Locarno

-Locutus

-Logan

-Gabriel Lorca

-Lore

-Lori Ciana

-Loskene

-Lovok

-Phillipa Louvois

-Lumba

-Lursa

-Lutan

-M-113 Creature

-Kieran MacDuff

-Albert Macklin

-Mallora

-Bruce Maddox

-Madred

-Maltz

-Mara

-Marayna

-Kila Marr

-Carol Marcus

-David Marcus

-Mardah

-Aamin Marritza

-Angela Martine

-Martis

-Martok

-Benjamin Maxwell

-Martus Mazur

-Dr. M'Benga

-Leonard McCoy

-Marla McGivers

-Mendak

-Jose I. Mendez

-Ki Mendrossen

-Mila

-Minuet

-Miral

-Korenna Mirell

-Miri

-Mirok

-Gary Mitchell

-Mogh

-Mora Pol

-James Moriarty

-Morka

-Morn

-Marrow

-Crell Moset

-Mot

-Movar

-M'Pella

-M'Ress

-M'ret

-Harry Mudd

-Anne Mulhall

-Mulcahey

-Kevin Mulkahey

RexxiA (talk) 18:07, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the very first line of this article reads "This article lists characters of Star Trek that received attention from third-party sources in their various canonical incarnations", I'd be okay with deleting the characters for whom said sources are unavailable. DonIago (talk) 18:23, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive Deletion[edit]

I understand that you have been curating this page for some time and feel quite strongly about the criteria you use to justify inclusion in this page. However it is not acceptable to delete content that is linked to from elsewhere on WP without first checking "what links here" and making sure you are not creating deadlinks. I am also curious what your definition of "third party source" is, and whether you are making any effort to find such sources before deleting (there is no evidence of entries being tagged for such improvement prior to deletion). One of the most recent revisions was returning Harry Mudd after deletion! I have trouble understanding what possible reason could be given for deleting a character that has been the subject of so much third party commentary? Jmackaerospace (talk) 16:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The obvious solution for characters you feel merit inclusion in the article is to provide a source; a third-party source is simply an independent source that establishes the character achieved some level of real-world notice. A review of an episode wouldn't constitute a third-party source because we would expect a review to mention the character. An article devoted to discussion of a character that goes into some detail might qualify though, as that level of coverage would be unusual. Books such as the Star Trek Encyclopedia wouldn't qualify because it would be more unusual if they did not mention the character. The Tao of Star Trek might qualify if it discussed a character in some level of detail.
I don't believe I was the one who inserted the phrase about third-party sourcing into the lead of the article, so please don't imply that they're my criteria. I'm happy to discuss the inclusion criteria if you feel consensus may have changed on what they should be.
Regarding your claim of whether or not it's acceptable to delete content, I don't believe there's any guideline or policy that requires any editor to do that kind of checking. If there is, please link me to it.
I'm not sure what you're talking about with regards to Harry Mudd; he's still on the page since being re-added. Unless you're referring to edits made over two months ago, in which case it seems like a long time to wait before raising a concern. DonIago (talk) 20:09, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Self-Links to this page[edit]

I deleted one that I came across, which was counter-productive in that it linked back to the top of this page. But then I noticed that many, perhaps a majority of wiki-links are the same unhelpful type. It would seem logical to remove them if they do not link to a different article. 2600:8807:4809:E100:C939:A8DD:13A0:4027 (talk) 03:26, 17 November 2021 (UTC) Dfoofnik (not logged in)[reply]

No Cyrano Jones?![edit]

You're gonna be in big tribble! Even a giant glommer may not be enough to save this page if it doesn't add this stellar character from three episodes in three series. 209.209.81.56 (talk) 14:21, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOFIXIT? But you'll need at least one independent source (i.e. not a Star Trek-related source) that's discussed him in some level of detail as a way of establishing that he has some real-world significance. DonIago (talk) 15:54, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Star_Trek_characters_(G–M)&oldid=1207815753"