Talk:Data (Star Trek)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films and film characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. Unknown This article has not been rated on the importance assessment scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot overview, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film. We are always looking for new members! Join us today!

This article is part of WikiProject Star Trek, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to all Star Trek-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Star Trek Portal

sections on "inspiration" and "spiner on data" are far too short, too much fancrufty "data's lifestory" stuff. need to focus more on the character as a fiction.

I don't see very much fancruft, and it may not be possible to put more information into those sections without hardcore research, but nothing's stopping you. Just have sources. - Defunctzombie 03:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Data is dead. In science fiction, you can write pretty much anything, and perhaps lets say Kivas Fajo,who stole him in "The Most Toys" is back to his old tricks and has been stalking Data through a locator chip. He has pulled him out of the Nemisis explosion in time but Data cannot remember who he is so is unable to contemplate an escape. B-4 later finds him on shoreleave in an alien bar being shown off and contacts Picard. Fajo later in a twist ends up in a cage as an exhibit by an insect race who have never seen humanoids. nice? email me at rdhotz@webtv.net

Contents 1 Data Userbox 2 Was Data "killed"? 3 Pronunciation 4 'After death' tense 5 Aging 6 Data's specifications, compared to contemporary computers 7 Deserved a Promotion 8 Graduation 9 small edit. 10 Male? 11 Good article nominee 12 Lal - android vs. gynoid 13 Data's ability to kill in cold blood 14 Just wanted to wander on by and complement w./ a bit of a critique 15 Contractions 16 Me Nitpicking Like a Punk - Literary Present 17 Spot needs to be mentioned in the Relationships section

[edit] Data Userbox

I made this userbox for me and for people whos favorite character is the loveable android Data... {{subst:Userbox |border-c = #000 |border-s = 1 |id-c = #fc0 |id-s = 10 |id-fc = #fff |info-c = #fff |info-s = 8 |info-fc = #000 |id = [[Image:Dataspot.jpg|70px]] |info = This user hearts [[ Data (Star Trek) | '''Data''']]!}}

HasBeenCorrected 06:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Was Data "killed"?

From the article: "he was killed when that ship exploded".

Was Data "killed"? Or merely terminated? Did he ever live..? -- Tom- 20:28, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Obviously *there are always possibilities* within Star Trek, but given that there were real-world reasons that Data was killed off (including Brent Spiner getting too old to convincingly portray a non-aging android), I think that if anything, it will be confirmed in future productions that Data is no more. -Pomegranate 23:18, 31 July (UTC)

Er, I think you slightly missed my point. If I turn a machine off, it doesn't die. If my PC blew up, I wouldn't hold a funeral. Data was destroyed in Nemesis, but was he killed? Tom- 23:09, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't read what you said very carefully, my mistake. Well, that's a fairly philosophical question. The only suggestion I can make is that he was "so sophisticated that he was regarded as a sentient life-form with full civil rights" (Star Trek Encyclopedia, 3rd Ed.) by the (admittedly fictional) judgement of the Federation. I think beyond that, it is a personal call... pomegranate 22:35, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)

Data was declared an individual as opposed to property. As an individual he was killed. May be in reality can't exist live-robots, but StarTrek world has a lot of mechanical/carbon based/plasma/etc life entities, so Data was killed not only destroyed.

Data could have kept his memory on some computer somewhere. Let us not forget that he was destroyed in one timeline in Generations. In one episode there is a time interuption with Enterprise-D in the future the Enterprise D still exists and has an extra warp nacell but Generations contradicts this. Dudtz 9/28/05 2:49 PM EST Dudtz

Hello! I'd like to think that Data was surreptitiously beamed away by the Romulans (e.g., Cmdr. Donatra of the Valdore, etc.) as they returned for relief operations the instant before the Scimitar exploded in emesis – er, Star Trek: Nemesis – was abducted, and has been restrained and studied (for cybernetic research) since. Perhaps there'll be an army of 'Romulanoids' / 'Romunoids' (?) as a result of this, or some other resulting maelstrom (e.g., working with Spock for reunification, or even espionage)?

And Lore, while disassembled, was not destroyed. Moreover, I'm sure Photoshop or another similar programme can enhance or replace Spiner's/Data's/Lore's/B4's ... 'crow's feet' or digitise/simulate his 'younger' face altogether; if CNN can do it (to reporters), why not Star Trek? ;)

Ah well; thst's my two ... credits worth. :) E Pluribus Anthony 19:18, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I like the idea of a digital actor for Data. At least then Paramount could extend Data's existance until Brent is too old to play voice talent. Though even after Brent dies, Data could still play small roles with canned speech, or maybe there is enough recorded Data dialogue to produce a convincing synthetic voice a la MBROLA or similar technology?

On the (same?) hand, I think metaphisical questions about whether Data was really "killed" belong in the same basket as the old debate over whether someone who is "beamed" to a planet is still the same person, particularly with the mystical references in Trek canon to things such as Vulcan sole's etc... Arguments such as "Data is too complex, is therefore unique and simply must have been killed at the end of Nemisis" sort of don't work then. Sinewalker 05:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree; didn't I say that? ;) I just noted what I wish would (have) happen(ed) ... in a somewhat disappointing movie. :) Data is dead; long live Data! E Pluribus Anthony 05:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Was he? Good riddance! He was a dweeb (an archaic term for someone who should have been pushed out an airlock at the first opportunity). It's never been clear to me how an android who lives among humans and has the capacity to cope with normal language can be incapable of understanding common idiom. (Yes, I know--it's because the writers were idiots.) His Pinocchio complex was boring. What's so great about being human? He was superior in countless ways. Can you picture Spock wanting to be human? The concept of the character was flawed from page one, and he should never have made it to the screen.

He he; granted ... but poppycock: great character, not-so-great-at-times writing. However, Spock was half-human: he disowned that part of himself. In this and other things, to each one's own. :) E Pluribus Anthony 02:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but you can't separate lousy character from lousy writing. If the character was good, the stupid things could not happen. Can you picture Worf becoming ship's psychiatrist? (I'll leave aside the fact Troi went to that role from consiglieri or protocol officer, as established in the pilot...) You hit on my point exactly. Spock disowned humanity, when he had the choice. Data also had the choice. --squadfifteen, 15/11/05

Red herring. Sure you can; we agree to disagree. D. aspired to be more like his creators, but didn't -- couldn't -- forego his circuitry and phallic implant (if he had one?). Spock made a choice and even (later, in ST VI to Valeris and to Data in "Unification") embraced his human abilities to see beyond mere logic. And tell me that the ep "Spock's Brain" is anything but ... 'cerebral'. E Pluribus Anthony 10:37, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation

Should mention be made of why Data's name is pronounced the British English way instead of the American English way? Does anyone know why, too, as it seems a little bit of an odd thing to do? violet/riga (t) 10:22, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I thought a lot of Americans pronounced it in the English way too? Hurrah for that I say, It would get crazy being pronounced DAT-ah all the time. After all, you should never follow Pulaski's example

I agree! There was a refence to this I remember seeing in one TNG episode, where Data is offended when some officious ambassador or other (or was it the doctor who replaced Crusher?) refers to "it" as DAT-ah. I remember being amused by it, because being a Commonwealth English speaker myself, I'm sensitive to things such as DAT-ah/Data and LOO-tenant/LEF-tenant. But I can't recall the episode.. :-( It was something to do with Data being a sentient entity, as opposed a thing.

There should probably be a whole Article explaining why the Starfleet insists on American pronunciation. Of course we know that the real reason is because it's an American show, but there is something to be said for a less icky explanation. Especially the pronunciation of lieutenant. Perhaps Starfleet lieutenants are "LOO-tenants" because Starfleet comes from an old Earth Navy background, and in fact today, the US Navy and Royal Australian Navy pronounce it LOO-tenant (though in the other Australian armed forces, it's LEF-tenant). Even the (British) Royal Navy pronounces it L'tenant, so it was settled by simple majority? Also, though I personally prefer LEF-tenant (LOO-tenant sounds like someone in charge of the toilet to a Commonwealth English speaker!) the LEF-tenant pronunciation seems to lose it's meaning in Starfleet, where the lieutenant is seated on the bridge at the Captain's right-front, rather than the traditional left-rear position of a LEF-tenant of the Royal Navy. Sinewalker 05:10, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

"Leftenant" is not from "left". The OED puts it best:

The origin of the {beta}type of forms (which survives in the usual British pronunciation, though the spelling represents the {alpha}type) is difficult to explain. The hypothesis of a mere misinterpretation of the graphic form (u read as v), at first sight plausible, does not accord with the facts. In view of the rare OF. form luef for lieu (with which cf. esp. the 15th c. Sc. forms luf-, lufftenand above) it seems likely that the labial glide at the end of OF. lieu as the first element of a compound was sometimes apprehended by Englishmen as a v or f. Possibly some of the forms may be due to association with LEAVE n.1 or LIEF a.

In 1793 Walker gives the actual pronunciations as (l{ope}v-, l{shti}v{sm}t{ope}n{schwa}nt), but expresses the hope that ‘the regular sound, lewtenant’ will in time become current. In England this pronunciation (lju{lm}{sm}t{ope}n{schwa}nt) is almost unknown. A newspaper quot. of 1893 in Funk's Standard Dictionary says that (l{ope}f{sm}t{ope}n{schwa}nt) is in the U.S. ‘almost confined to the retired list of the navy’.

--24.98.105.197 18:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'After death' tense

A recent edit has changed the tenses from present to past, e.g. "Data is a character" to "Data was a character". I know Data is now destroyed but should that change the tense for the whole article? Personally I would still use the present tense, as he still is a character in the series. That also brings up the question of whether all Star Trek: Enterprise characters (etc.) should be referred to in the past tense as they would all be dead by the 'current' Star Trek date of the 24th century! What do others think? Marky1981 17:08, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

What you said - he's still a character. A person doesn't have to be alive in the continuity to be a character. TaintedMustard 14:48, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aging

"However, Brent Spiner has noted that he has visibly aged out of the role and that it would be implausable for him to continue playing an android whose appearance should not change with time."

In one episode ("Inheritance", season 7), a conversation between Geordi, Data, Riker and Crusher implies that Data does, in fact, "age".

Geordi: [Referring to the android version of Data's "mother"] Part of her aging program. Not only does she age in appearance like Data, her vital signs change, too.

The writers probably snuck it in to explain changes in appearance (no doubt anticipating a long movie career), but maybe it was mentioned before this episode? Anyway, should this information be added? TaintedMustard 14:45, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

_____ Short answer: yes.

I recall a moment from the beginning of DS9 when the Enterprise is docked there where Dr. Basheer saying something to the effect of it being remarkable that Data's hair grows. Sorry that I don't have specifics right now!

Did I miss something? I always thought it was Bashir. --squadfifteen, 15/11/05

It is Bashir. And just to clarify, the episode where Julian remarks on Data's pulse and hair growth is the TNG "Birthright, part 1". This is the same episode where Data has his first dream. Defunctzombie 04:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Data's specifications, compared to contemporary computers

Sinewalker 04:28, 20 October 2005 (UTC): I just added a couple of paragraphs in the Specifications section of this article, comparing Data's capacity to BlueGene/L. I am not sure if there is too much POV in it, perhaps it belongs here in the Discussion instead?

Hey there; thanks for your effort. This may be excessive: much of this information is already in FLOPS (and I added a note about Data there for comparison/trivia) and your contribution may be too point-of-view; perhaps you should move the text here and we can massage it? E Pluribus Anthony 04:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Sinewalker 04:43, 20 October 2005 (UTC): Moving... especially since on reconsidering: comparison of "positronic ops per sec" to FLOPS is probably bogus anyway... :-)

Sinewalker 04:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC): Here is the text of my comparison, for discussion.

It is interesting to compare [Data's computational speed] with contemporary supercomputers. Data's specified 60 trillion positronic operations per second is probably equal to 60 000 GFlops. In 2005, the world's fastest supercomputer had a measured peak computational speed of approximately 183 500 GFlops, already eclipsing Data's linear computational speed more than three-fold. Yet, though some of the work performed by BlueGene/L might be Classified, the computer itself is not reported to be sentient.

This apparant discrepancy could perhaps be explained by speculating that in the Star Trek Expanded Universe, with protagonists' frequent dealings with truly astronomical distances and sizes, it was common to use the long scale system for trillion (which is 10¹⁸), rather than the short scale which is common today. This would put Data's linear computational speed at 6¹³GFlops; well beyond the capability of contemporary super computers. Alternately, the online memory storage available to BlueGene/L is 2¹⁶ x 4 megabytes or about a quarter of one terabyte. This is significantly less than Data's 88 petabytes, again putting the comparison in Data's favour, without resorting to the long scale use of "trillion" (using long scale would arguably contradict the Star Trek canon).

E Pluribus Anthony 05:10, 20 October 2005 (UTC) - Here is my synthesis:

It is interesting to compare Data's specifications with contemporary computer technology. As of 2005, Data's storage capacity is at least 17 times that of Google; after Data's specifications were initially noted on-screen, TNG began referring to quads (and derivatives) as the basic units of computer storage capacity. As well, BlueGene/L, the world's fastest supercomputer, has a measured peak computational speed of approximately 183.5 TFLOPS, apparently tripling Data's initial computational speed (and potentially 'dating' "technology" on TNG). However, contemporary machines are presumably larger, much less advanced (e.g., employing electronic, vis-à-vis positronic, circuitry), and not at all sentient.

Whatyathink? :)

Sinewalker 05:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC) Do you have betazoid blood?  :-) I have been trying to work a reference to quads into your first cut but got stymied... This is nice. Let me mull it over for a few minutes ... :-)

Sinewalker 05:51, 20 October 2005 (UTC) Another cut: (puting here so we don't lose yours)

It is interesting to compare Data's specifications with contemporary computer technology. As of 2005, Data's storage capacity is at least 17 times that of Google; after Data's specifications were initially declared on-screen, TNG began referring to quads (and derivatives) as the basic units of computer storage capacity. As well, BlueGene/L, the world's fastest supercomputer, has a measured peak computational speed of approximately 183.5 TFLOPS, apparently tripling Data's initial computational speed (and potentially 'dating' "technology" on TNG). However, contemporary machines are physically larger, not at all sentient, and much less advanced (e.g., employing electronic, vis-à-vis positronic, circuitry, and even BlueGene/L has less than a terabyte of storage).

I'm not sure if this is entirely "better", but I wanted to leave the storage comparison in, somewhere....

Sinewalker 06:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC) I'm going to stick this in and see how it fares... thanks very much for your help!

Thanks; no problem! I think my blood is more Bynar than anything. :)

My edition, though, already includes the capacity of Google (as it is well known), and that sentence also nicely segues into TNG measures of quads. BG/L is already mentioned later on in terms of speed (and is not as well known); I think one mention is sufficient, the second note regarding BG/L is extraneous and an 'orphan' statement. I'm opting for the prior version; let me know if you've any questions. Ta! E Pluribus Anthony 06:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd suggest a synthesis of both. It seems to me "quads" implies a different architecture, with probably four (or eight) times as many possible connections; a single "flop" in such a system, then, must be commensurately faster. I don't recall if Data's architecture was ever discussed; we may presume Soong used Daystromian (if I may call it that) architecture, which is (presumably) current in Starfleet. (Or has Daystrom been superceded by "quad" systems?) --squadfifteen, 15/11/05

In the episode with Scotty, La Forge indicated to him that duotronic (or multitronic?) processors ('Daystrom'?) were replaced long beforehand with isolinear optical chip assemblies ... and these chips (according to the ST:TNG Tech Manual) were measured in quads. We should probably limit these bits and bytes to on-screen and other appreciable mentions (crystallised in the current edition); anything else would be supposition and extra. E Pluribus Anthony 10:29, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Is there ever any mention of Data's power source? He doesn't eat and never seems to need to regenerate like Borg. Just curious. (Nec)

There is a reference in Insurrection, where he says "my power cells continuously recharge themselves." Kinda inplies that he's a perpetual motion machine! Though in reality, he doesn't actually say that they recharge themselves from nothing, only that they recharge. Some speculate that his skin acts as a kind of solar panel, though that wouldn't provide a whole lot of power. You could speculate that he recharges periodically from the ship, and uses solar energy as a "top up" to justify the quote while keeping it reasonably real. BobThePirate 21:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deserved a Promotion

Was it prejudice against an android? If anyone deserved a promotion, it was Data. However when he's finally about to get it, (and replace Riker as Enterprise First Officer), Data gets blown to bits. (Other then not wanting to loose Brent Spiner during the 1987-94 series), how does Starfleet explain not offering Data a promotion for so many years, He would have made someone a great First Officer; Captain Edward Jellico would have taken him easily. It didn't help that Picard & Riker turned down promotions during the series (I know, TNG didn't want to loose Stewart & Frakes). Mightberight/wrong 02:58, 30 October 2005. (UTC)

Sinewalker 21:59, 30 October 2005 (UTC) That's an interesting question. Certainly the tradition of Trek has been to promote equal rights, and much has been made of this in Trek fan writings. I think the short answer is one word: "Riker".

Personally I would have preferred Commander Data being "promoted" to the role then taken by Commander Riker, as Riker is frequently rash in his command. However there would be more to consider than this alone, and though I don't like Riker's modus operandi, he has done nothing to deserve a demotion. Other things to consider in Data's promotion are:

I feel that the egaliterian history of Trek has not been let down by this oversight of Data's promotion. Promotion to a command position needs to be considered on a pragmatic basis. How well would Data function in a command position, especially given his defferential nature? How would his crew react (Starfleet training is good, but it is better to find a crew that does not need to rely solely on tradition to maintain chain-of-command)? How would his vacancy on the Enterprise be filled? I think these questions probably acted to delay Data's promotion, however deserved it was.

After the Scimitar encounter, Riker was made Captian and left the Enterprise for his own command. I like to think that, had Data survived, Picard would have offered (or ordered?) him First Officer aboard the Enterprise.

I made a big mistake, I didn't mean to suggest a Riker demotion. No no ,I meant to say (1987-94), since Riker was staying on as Enterprise First Officer, perhaps Data could have gotten a promotion (accompanied by a transfer). I would never have tried (as a script writer) to push Riker, out of his position. Though Lt.Cmdr Shelby tried. Mightberight/wrong 22:18, 30 October 2005 (UTC).

Ha ha! :-) Shelby would!!! Shelby has her own strong (and sometimes misguided) opinions on how a commanding officer should behave, and definately Riker does not fit her narrow view. I'm enjoying reading Peter David right now. There is strong similarity between Riker and Mackenzie Callhoun (sp?) and Shelby doesn't like his command either... It's fun to watch her opinions change.

Sorry, I'm dominating the discussion... A transfer for Data would have been bittersweet I think. It would have been gratifying to see a well deserved promotion occur, but TNG would have lost one of it's most loved characters. Perhaps this is how Picard felt too? Sinewalker 22:32, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I never thought of that. Picard might have been (secretly) selfish enough to keep Data as Enterprise Second Officer. But like I've noted earlier ,obviously ST:TNG couldn't let Brent Spiner leave, nor did Brent want to leave. Mightberight/wrong 01:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC).

Hello! I agree that Data was the most deserving of a promotion. I believe if Riker left (e.g., upon one of his many promotion attempts, only realised with his promotion to the Titan), Data would've taken his place. This is also supported in "The Pegasus" when Picard, exasperated at being duped by Riker, says something to the effect that he may have to re-evaluate the command structure aboard the ship. I personally believe that systemic prejudice might've prevented Data's promotion: e.g., if reactions from Cmdr. Maddox ("Measure of a Man"), Adm. Haftel (in "The Offspring"), and Lt. Cmdr. Hobson (in "Redemption, Part 2" on the Sutherland) are any indication, et al.; but not from Picard or Riker, since they worked with and highly valued him (and likely wanted him to stay because of his superior abilities and service); as well, this is validated by Picard's promotion of him in Star Trek: Emesis. Remember, Data was built to be long-lived so a promotion so early-on in his existence might've limited him to a fast Starfleet career, and Picard in his wisdom and tutelage likely had that in mind.

Besides, if you see my post above about Data's fate, he may not be dead. (Wishful thinking!) :) That's it for me! E Pluribus Anthony 05:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

"Star Trek: Emesis" Oh, that's a beauty! Sinewalker 05:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Message received and acknowledged. :) E Pluribus Anthony 05:34, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Don't forget seniority. Riker would have had years on Data. Also, don't forget the size of the fleet. XO slots wouldn't come up every day, and CO slots even less often (as I recall Riker was warned...); for Data to become XO, somebody else had to get promoted (or killed...). I'd also raise the issue of command qualification, if "ST" writers had any concept of it. Data would (or should) have had to pass a Prospective Executive Officer test, then a Prospective Commanding Officer test, to qualify as XO; he had to prove he was qualified to take command at need. Given that "ST"'s writers used the USN system, where seniority qualified someone for command, not the British system (implied by the uniforms...), where an officer had to be in the command line to ever qualify, we can't exclude Data. (When Picard initially refused him command {the episode title I don't recall...}, this isssue could & should have been raised & settled; as usual, the writers were stupid...)--squadfifteen, 15/11/05

Granted! :) I think Picard offered Data a command (of the USS Sutherland), after he requested it and pointed out the shortage of commanding officers, prior to the Federation blockade of the Romulans in the Klingon Civil War in "Redemption, Part 2." E Pluribus Anthony 02:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Acknowledged. That situation does raise doubts as to my premise (& the stated case) of a dearth of command positions available, however. My understanding was, shortage of qualified officers applied only locally, and only at that time, in "Redemption". It seems clear to me the show bible didn't settle the issue. I would have denied Data as not in the command line. For the same reason, Crusher should never in a sane mind have been given the Big Chair. And Troi should have been denied her chance to become "a bridge officer" (a singularly stupid term), having flunked the test the first time. The Brits call their PCO exam "The Terminator" for a reason: you get one chance to pass, because in life, often one is all you get; fail, you will never command a ship at sea. --squadfifteen, 15/11/05

Yes: locally. The fleet P assembled was a short-notice thing, drawing upon starships whose construction was still underway (Sutherland). I would argue, and it appears, that an officer of any branch can qualify as a 'bridge' officer, but perhaps those of the command branch take precedence over sci-ops. I agree that Bev and Twat should never have been accorded the privilege of commanding the (flag)ship; perhaps they should have been shown bigger chairs with stirrups instead? (Forgive me if this is crass!) "Your clothes ... give them to me, now!" (quote from T) ;) E Pluribus Anthony 10:23, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Can you imagine Dr.McCoy in command of the Enterprise (ST:T0S), "Dammit Jim, I'm a Doctor not a C.O.": formerly Mightberight/wrong, Now GoodDay 00:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Indeed ... "Damn it! Fire prophylactics over there ... somewhere!" :) E Pluribus Anthony 00:08, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I definately think Data deserved a promotion (before he died...). He was an exemplary officer; I think the only reason he did not get one was that he was an android and some people did not think he was fit for command. Troi got promoted, so why couldn't Data? Why should the ship's counselor have a higher rank than the second officer?Avaleur 19:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Graduation

I was disappointed to note the article mentions Data graduated Academy, but omits the year (2278?). (And to think, I just saw his appearance in the "Riker's dreams" episode a few days ago. Ah, well...)--squadfifteen, 15/11/05

I know, I think the graduation 'year' Data mentioned in the the first part of the TNG pilot episode was before they (he) established the common year 2364 in "The Neutral Zone", which was also before Riker's near-death 'vision' quest in the 'mediocre' "Shades of Grey". There have been been fandom explanations that "class of '78" means something other than year, like the number in a specific class or other cryptic identifier. (And before you ask why I can handily mention episode names/details: I'm a fan, and have 'elephantiasis' of the brain ... though a life as well.) :) There you go! E Pluribus Anthony 04:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] small edit.

There were some links at the bottom of the page that were frankly disgusting (see also: mildly entertaining flash movies which really had little to contribute to an honest bio of Data, or anyone else for that matter). I deleted them for taste's sake. -Nonregistered User (EDIT: ...and then they reappeared, and then I deleted them again. To restate, they add nothing to the actual entry and I guarantee I'll remove them on every occasion I remember to care. Also I'm no longer 'nonregistered'. Feh.)--Bombfish 07:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Male?

Why is Data said to be male? He is an android...

Because he's technically "equipped" to be male, as the whole makin'-it-with-Yar thing apparently proved. His daughter Lal was also female after being converted from her prototypical android form, which was seen first - THAT form was androgynous (i.e. sexless). Even without (ahem) 'equipment', his appearance and generally masculine voice would suggest male secondary sexual characteristics, so there's really not any room left for interpretation as to his gender, whether biological or mechanical. TKarrde 23:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Add to that the fact that the other characters refer to him with masculine pronounces like "he" and "his", rather than "it" and "its". Regardless of whether or not you want to debate philosophically about which "human" terminology should and shouldn't be used in reference to the character, it's obvious that in that time, on that ship, he's considered to be male for any necessary purposes. - Ugliness Man 14:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe he was intended to be male, modeled after a younger Noonien Soong. I believe they first mention this during the episode "Datalore", I seem to recall someone saying he was modeled after the doctor in his youth. I may not be correct, so take it with a grain of sodium chloride. ;) --Defunctzombie 00:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good article nominee

I've nominated this as a good article. Now that I'm thinking about it though, it might be missing a "Data in popular culture" or somesuch section. Perhaps there's something that can be said on Data's affect on scifi or popular culture in general. Did Data influence the creation of other characters? Also, is anyone else interested in trying to improve this to Feature standard? It'd be pretty cool to see Data on the main page. --Fang Aili 18:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll take a crack at it. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 21:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lal - android vs. gynoid

Dante Alighieri deleted the comment about Lal actually being a "gynoid" instead of an "android" on the grounds of its not necessary to be prescriptive. I guess I have to disagree with that. Technically speaking: she's a gynoid. The show used android and I'm sure most people refer to all of them as androids regardless of their gender.

So here's the question: is an article the proper place to state something is wrong?

One way you can take that is that such a statement is basically commentary, but the way I see it is a matter of making the article more complete. Cburnett 23:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's debatable that Lal being referred to as an "android" is 'wrong'. Of course, "gynoid" is the more accurate term. However, I think this is an overarching term that is analogous to referring to women as belonging to "man" or "mankind" (as opposed to "humanity" or "humankind"); the former terms are deprecated but not wrong per se. Moreover, arguably, the assignment of sex to neutered cybernetic automatons – whether 'male' or 'female' – is questionable to begin with: they're all droids made to resemble humans (hence the name).

Thus, I think it is sufficient to effectively wikify relevant terms to address this inconsistency while not harping about these details in this article that should be addressed (more) in detail in other relevant articles. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 00:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not particularly adament about the current wording, but how about this:

Desiring to reproduce, Data created an android daughter (or gynoid), Lal, in 2366.

That's much less intrusive. Cburnett 01:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Even less intrusive would be this, wikified as such: "android daughter". E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 01:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I thought of that except bad linking since someone might expect it to link to android, not gynoid. Cburnett 01:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Nope: that's what wikifying is for. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 01:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

From WP:MOS-L:

However, make sure that it is still clear what the link refers to without having to follow the link.

Linking "android daughter" to gynoid isn't a clear link. Cburnett 01:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course it is, hence "android daughter": details are in relevant articles ... and most importantly (should be) in Lal's. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 01:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Heh, didn't think I'd ignite such a firestorm. I dispute that gynoid is more "correct" than android or female android. I'll consult the OED and report back though. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 01:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

As per the OED (and commentary above), an android is "a robot with a human appearance" (p. 62); other dictionaries hark of this too ... ergo, referring to Lal as an android is not incorrect. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 01:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

*sigh*, so it's resorted to quoting dictionaries. Sad.

That said, calling Oprah Winfrey "human" wouldn't be wrong but calling her a woman is more correct. Unfortunately, android performs the double duty of "human" and "man" for anthropoids but it still makes little sense to do this: Oprah Winfrey is a human. Does it? While not incorrect, it's bad linking practice to hide the true page from the display text. Woman has nothing to do with the human article and such a link is bad practice. Cburnett 02:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, you thought it wrong ... the above indicates differently. Perhaps you should've consulted or cited something similar beforehand. Sigh. Anyhow, I don't mind a parenthetical above as proposed but I see little need for it and otherwise disagree: "android daughter" is explicit, even if it is a contradiction as would be other terms. And let's remember that Lal, when created, had no gender initially and chose it.

Moreover, I've since added sorely-lacking details to the Lal article regarding this. Thanks. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 02:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

"thought it wrong"....WP:CITE....you lost me there chief. Cburnett 02:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

"is an article the proper place to state something is wrong" ... as cited above, it isn't. And I'm not a chief so refrain from said references. Anyhow, enough of this discussion. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 02:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Having just read WP:CITE, I find nothing applicable. Cburnett 02:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, the OED has no entry for "gynoid"... if we are to accept the OED as a reliable source (which I tend to do) then gynoid cannot be more accurate than "android" when referring to Lal because gynoid is not a recognized word, regardless of how much Hajime Sorayama might wish it were. ;) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 02:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Given that gynoid is a neologism of sorts, I oppose using it unmarked in the article. By referring to Lal as: "an android daughter (a gynoid)", we give a certain degree of credence to a word that doesn't appear to be commonly accepted as legitimate. I do not dispute that the word is in use, but it appears to have the status of slang (or at best, jargon within the appropriate "community"), and shouldn't seem to be used as if it were the "appropriate" way to refer to a female android. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 16:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree: I thought the current edition was an apt conciliation, but – given that no popular dictionary lists the word – I won't lose sleep if the parenthetical is nixed whilst retaining the wikified text. If an authoritative citation indicating the validity/currency of the word can be made (read: applicable), however, I can be convinced otherwise. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 16:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Since no one disagreed, I've made the change. The relevant wikicode now reads [[gynoid|android "daughter"]]. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 16:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Fine with me! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 23:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Check that again Dante, my disagreement was stated previously (absence of comment does not mean rescindment). Cburnett 23:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Well for now, two oppose including "gynoid" in the article text and one supports it. Unless there's a groundswell otherwise ... E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 23:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Ummm, OK. I raised a NEW issue based on information that wasn't available when you disagreed previously, and offered a suggestion as to how to act on it. You chose to remain silent. Forgive me for assuming that you had no problem with my reasoning. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 04:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Data's ability to kill in cold blood

From the article:

Data was thought lost in a shuttle accident in 2366, but had in fact been kidnapped by fraudulent antiquities dealer Kivas Fajo. Fajo was subsequently arrested and Data released ("The Most Toys"). This episode also revealed Data's capacity to kill in cold blood, as he holds a modified disruptor on Fajo at the end of the episode, but is transported back to the Enterprise before his shot could connect. (emphasis added)

I just watched this episode, and the ending is too ambiguous to make the bolded statement. A summary of the pertinent events for those who have not seen or cannot remember the episode:

Data, after being kidnapped by Kivas Fajo and watching him murder one of his slave-employees, obtains a disruptor pistol and holds Fajo at gunpoint. Fajo states that Data's programming (revealed earlier in the episode) does not allow him to kill in cold blood, and that Data's threat is empty. Data appears troubled and after thinking about it for a few seconds, states "I cannot permit this to continue." He raises his weapon toward Fajo, causing him to recoil in fear, and then raises his weapon further as he is transported away. The weapon is not actually seen discharging. When Riker greets Data in the transporter room and asks him why the disruptor was detected to be in a state of discharge, Data hesitates briefly and replies, "Perhaps something occurred during transport, Commander."

I see two possibilities.

1. Data, as a result of the extraordinary results, was able to ignore or partially overwrite his "respect for all life" parameters, and did fire the weapon with the intention of killing Fajo. The "something" that occurred during transport could have meant him pressing the trigger. Although Data is not known to evade the truth, perhaps this is a result of him altering his programming.
2. Data, seeing that Fajo was not falling for his threat, made a more aggressive posture to intimidate Fajo. The disruptor malfunctions during transport and discharges, and Data is telling the truth to Riker, as he always does.

As I said, I believe the writers intentionally left the ending ambiguous. If this is the general consensus, then the paragraph in the article should not conclusively state that Data is able to kill in cold blood. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 17:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I, too, was similarly concerned by the assertion – it's clear that he rationalised and (to oneself) justified what could've been the murder of Fajo. In fact, "cold-blood" implies that none of that occurred and is some sort of indiscriminant act. Everything else is either unproven (Riker's 'suspicion') or speculative. I think it should be revised and wouldn't lose sleep if it were nixed. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 17:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I've restored the tidbit about Data's capacity to kill, but not in cold blood, which have wholly different meanings. While I do not disagree with the assessment above, it is supposition: even the ep script reveals Data's intention/actions before firing, Data self-rationalised his action beforehand and was mum with Riker when confronted by him about the weapon being in a state of discharge upon being rescued. Of course, the events in the "The Most Toys" follow those in "The Hunted" when he states to Roga Danar that he is "not programmed to kill" ... arguably a learnt behaviour between the two eps.

Currently, the note expatiates about his ability "to kill if necessary" and can be further, namely in self-defence (e.g., Borg strangulation in "I, Borg" and Star Trek: First Contact). E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 21:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just wanted to wander on by and complement w./ a bit of a critique

I want to comment on a few things, to whomever might be interested. In general, I think this is a wonderful article. I also sense that it has the potential to become a featured article with a bit more textual content, research, and some visual aids.

I think that the stability of this section (or, at the very least, the editing and monitoring) is fantastic. It seems that, unlike some of the other wiki articles I've come across, good ideas and good prose are maintained within the article. I don't see any of the 'erosion' which is so typical @ wikipedia. On the other hand, I also have noticed that what isn't good or what needs a rewrite is taken care of.

I find reading through the article (as an admitted Star Trek fan, so YMMV) to be enjoyable. Like I said earlier, it could use a bit more depthful content -- perhaps I'll contribute -- but, in general, the article is informative and it paces well.

A particular mention: the discussion of Data's specifications, and then the comparison to modern day computing capacities is fantastic. I even appreciate the speculation as to the implications of the emerging convergence between what was seen in the 1980s as 'hi tech' and what is available now in the early 21st century.

Just wanted to share this. I would encourage anyone who is reading this to please take the time to continue to refine the article and then submit it for possible featured article status. It definitely needs work, but the kernel is there.

Good luck!

On behalf of all those who've contributed to the article, thanks for the feedback! :) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Ditto; more to come! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 23:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contractions

Is it true that Data cannot use contractions? Is this something that was more important in earlier episodes than later episodes? 151.203.178.253 00:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC) John1728

• Yeah it's true. I was watching the other day (and for the life of me I can't remember the name of the episode) but it is the one where Riker is tricked by Romulans in their hologram room into believing that his memory essentially erased a large part of his life. Data using the word "can't" was one of the tipping points at him discovering the deception. --Torourkeus 22:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Future Imperfect. It also comes up in The Offspring. —ptk⁂fgs 00:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Me Nitpicking Like a Punk - Literary Present

This is just me nitpicking, but if anyone has a chance the entire article should probably be reworked into the literary present. What I mean is... characters in art "are" always in existence in the present, with the exception of every single version of the thing being erased. Data "is" an android because I can always turn on the scifi channel and see him doing things still. --Torourkeus 22:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spot needs to be mentioned in the Relationships section

The section on Data's relationships shows a picture of spot, but does not talk about Spot. Does Spot have her own article? (We know Spot is female as she had a litter in the seven season.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Will Pittenger (talk • contribs).

Indeed, there is Spot (Star Trek). --Fang Aili ^talk 18:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)