Talk:List of Star Trek races

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents 1 Androids 2 Misc 3 Ktarians (again) 4 M for mention? 5 Races or species? 6 Circular Links 7 Enterprise final episode 8 Humans 9 Table 10 Inclusion criteria

[edit] Androids

What about Androids? Are they not considered a race or species?

Hmm, well they would have to meet some requirements in order to be considered a race or species, firstly they would have to be alive and sentient, which is debateable when concerning ST Androids, they would also have to be an independent society and able to reproduce.

Data might be considered alive, but I don't think his kind could be considered a species as there was only ever 3 or 4 of them ever made, and they were never an independent society.

There was a society of Androids in one Voyager episode that might make this list though (I can't remember what they were called though).

--Hibernian 17:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I would say 'no' to androids, because they're not really a race or a species (just as "humanoids" should not be listed). Marky1981 19:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Misc

Don't forget the Nausicans ...

Don't let anyone stop you: [1]

Cburnett 21:38, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Isn't there a Tholian article on Wikipedia? Ought to be linked from this page.

The Sheliak are one the list, but do not have an entry. DBBell 20:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

How did "Mitchelonian" manage stay on the page for so long? Looks like clear vandalism to me. -Shane Lawrence 23:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ktarians (again)

The segment about the Ktarians is almost completely inaccurate. Seeing as how Etana Jol is the only full Ktarian we've ever seen, I would be more inclined to believe that her appearance is typical of the average Ktarian (or at least the average Ktarian female) than that she is somehow an aberration or "not Ktarian". Since Naomi Wildman is part human, her appearance was likely affected by that human half of her parentage--meaning that she, not Etana Jol, is more likely the one with the aberration in appearance. Also, Naomi was a child, whereas Etana Jol was a full adult; it's possible that the spines on her forehead eventually fall off as a Ktarian child matures and/or that they are eventually absorbed into the large frontal lobes on their foreheads--Naomi's half-human genes may have prevented this from happening, as she was depicted as still having the spines as a grown adult in the Voyager episode "Shattered."

Furthermore, if there is any episode of ANY Star Trek series that specifically states that the Ktarians later joined the Federation after the events of "The Game," or that they were ever part of the Federation, please cite it here as I for one have never seen such an episode, and there is no reference to that being the case either in the Star Trek Encyclopedia or on Startrek.com. The suggestion that the actions of Etana Jol in "The Game" were those of some extremist faction and not the directive of the Ktarian government itself seems highly far-fetched, especially seeing as how Etana Jol was wearing an official military uniform in the episode and she spoke of "the Expansion" as if it was most definitely a directive of the Ktarian political leadership. The way in which Ktarians are never again mentioned as enemies of the Federation on TNG, DS9, or Voyager is more likely attributed to the producers simply forgetting that "The Game" ever happened and that the Ktarians were originally supposed to be enemies, instead only remembering various references to their culture that were common on The Next Generation and Deep Space Nine.

For an in-universe explanation, consider the following: clearly, in "The Game," the Ktarians seemed to be under the rule of some sort of militaristic, probably totalitarian (and possibly matriarchal) government. Perhaps Ktarian refugees have fled their homeworld and found sanctuary in the Federation, explaining their seemingly ubiquitous presence, the popularity of their food etc., and even how a Ktarian/Human hybrid could be possible in the form of Naomi Wildman. While this is conjecture, it's far more likely to be accurate than the fanon explanations of the Ktarians going from enemies of the Federation to members of the Federation in less than a decade, or that a single, small faction acting without the consent of a government that was subordinate to the Federation managed to concoct a highly sophisticated plan to take over the Federation, including the creation of at least one if not a whole fleet of miltary vessels (which the Enterprise crew seemed at least initially unfamiliar with at the end of the episode), without anyone knowing about it and while managing to give every appearance of their actions being taken with the official sanction of their government.

Also, I've seen no proof that their homeworld is in the Alpha Quadrant; in fact given that the episode took place in the Phoenix Cluster and taking into consideration the frequency of appearances by the Romulans in the first half of TNG's third season, I would be more inclined to believe that they are in fact a Beta Quadrant civilization.--Antodav 05:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll restate what I wrote about this in the Talk:United Federation of Planets page, read what this Website has to say about the Ktarians, http://www.stdimension.org/int/

I can't seem to post an address to the exact page of this site, But anyway, go to the Investigating Trek area of the site, and then go to the Biology section, down the bottom of that page is the section on the "Ktarians". The Page is a little out of date but their explanation of the Ktarians is spot on.

Oh and as for evidence that they joined the Federation, a quote from that site, ("The Ktarians were officially with the Federation but they sympathized with the Maquis", [VOY] The Voyager Conspiracy), enough said.

--Hibernian 02:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] M for mention?

How about adding 'M' for "Race mentioned, but does not actually appear."? Then you could wipe the slightly clumsy disclaimer about mere mentions not "counting" and add more info!

For the list of appearances, in addition to Y and N, how about M (for mention) or R (for reference) for species that have only been mentioned but not appeared in an episode. Marky1981 20:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Races or species?

The article should be renamed List of Star Trek races, since it doesn't deal with races, but species.

Shouldn't this page be called List of Star Trek species not List of Star Trek races? Marky1981 20:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Anyone got any thoughts on this? If no one has any objections I will move this page to List of Star Trek species in a few days. Marky1981 21:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Well I think the term Races is more often used by Star Trek Fans, though species would probably also be just as legitimate.

One thing I can think of against this, is that species may refer to any organisms in the ST universe like animals (i.e. Targs etc...), whereas "Races" does give the meaning of an intelligent life-form (although Race is not a very scientifically accurate term).

I'm not sure which is better, I think it needs more discussion before it's changed.

--Hibernian 22:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

OK I won't move it till it's been discussed more. I don't see any problem with listing animal species such as Targ (obviously we won't list all Earth's animals! Just the Star Trek made up ones - there's not too many anyway). I suppose an alternative could be humanoids but then that doesn't cater for things like the Horta etc. Will keep thinking! Marky1981 19:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Race is definitely the correct term both because it is used by fans and because of biological issues raised and addressed in the show. For example, the Romulans and Vulcans may be the same species and the borg are composed of many species. Similarly, Worf's 3/4 Klingon son and Tasha Yar's half-human, half-romulan daughter Sela, as improbable as they are, prove that many species in the Star Trek Universe are capable of cross breeding which raises enormous questions about "life in the universe" (this is however addressed in TOS and TNG), but removes designation as being a different species as two different spieces are incapable of breeding. Because Alexander's Mother was capable of producing offspring, this would give Klingons and Humans the same species designation according to current biological practice like white and black people.

Perhaps the most important aspect of the race arguement for certain members of this list is the fact they aren't exclusively biological at all, For example the Q or Borg. The Q is argueably not even alive according to modern practice of defining living things (which is completely useless to Star Trek, with silicon-based, anarobic, and multi-dimensional beings, and perhaps a current hinderance to Xenobiology and S.E.T.I.) and the Borg is similar to a virus. Is god a species for that matter? The use of species would require combining many of the humanoid races on the list as well as trying to superimpose science to science-fiction, a retroactive impossibility.24.23.193.49 15:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)LDHLontz

[edit] Circular Links

Surely you don't need the race names to link to this page. It's just pointless and bad form.

[edit] Enterprise final episode

Didn't Counselor Troi appear in the final episode of Enterprise? Yes, she isn't set in the time period, but she did appear on the series, so shouldn't Betazoids be considered appearing in ENT? Smeggysmeg 20:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Well that's a tricky one, she did technical appear in Enterprise, but it is said that that episode was really a TNG episode, so I don't know.--Hibernian 17:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I would say 'no' as she only appears in the series on a technicality, not really part of Enterprise. Besides, she's only half Betazoid :) Marky1981 19:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Humans

I didn't get any information when I clicked on the link to "Humans". Shouldn't there be a page describing how humans fit in with the rest of the races, i.e. how they first came in contact with the races, what impact that contact had on human technology and culture, and also how other races percieve humans. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.138.37.236 (talk • contribs) 01:51, August 6, 2006 (UTC)

I started a "Human" section with a link to Human (Star Trek). I did the same for several other races that have their own articles. UncreativeNameMaker 00:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Table

I am of opinion that the table can be different, with a "*" for Yes and left it blank if not, like below:

Race	ST:TOS	ST:TNG	ST:DS9	ST:VOY	ST:ENT
Race 1	*		*	*
Race 2		*		*	*
Race 3		*	*	*
Race 4		*	*	*
Race 5	*	*	*	*

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.138.37.236 (talk • contribs) 01:51, August 6, 2006 (UTC)

I think I prefer Y/N, as it leaves open the possiblility of someone adding a race, knowing they appear in ST:ENT, but having no idea whether they appear in ST:TOS. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, there's no way to distinguish between a definite 'No' and leaving one blank by just not knowing. You could possibly use '-' for no, so there are no blanks. I'd still also like to use another symbol to mean a race was mentioned in a series, but did not appear. Marky1981 08:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I was going to say I agree, but upon taking another look at the table in the article, it is very hard to distinguish the Ns from the Ys, with a quick glance. It actually might be better to leave a blank space or a '-' for No, and just leave the Ys. Right now the table is just a big block of text and is difficult to make out, blank spaces or '-' would make it much easier to see the information you're looking for. BTW I do agree, in theory, that there should be an M for Mentioned, however it might be difficult to implement.--Hibernian 11:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Having thought about it more, I would like the table of appearances to be removed altogether. Anyone who is interested in a particular race/species can navigate quickly using the newly-added A-Z contents table and read about them there. We could say which series they appeared in the description. I just find the table unsightly and not particularly useful, especially when they're mostly full of 'N's. Does anyone else want to get rid of the table, for whatever reason? Marky1981 00:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree with that. Although I think the table is a bit unsightly and something should be done to make it clearer, I don't think it should be done away with. The reasons being that even if we can navigate by the A to Z thing, it's not the same, there are many races on this list that most people will never have even heard of, so they can't find something on an alphabetical list if they don't know how it's spelt. We still have to have a table as an overview and an easy way to find what you're looking for, or just to find things you weren't looking for. --Hibernian 02:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inclusion criteria

Should we include races not mentioned in any of the broadcast media? I've noticed seem recent additions which claim to be only in (unnamed) novels. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, good point. There is defiantly an issue with that. There are lots of Races/Species that only appear in books and Computer games etc. I suppose it's an issue of Canon, and as far as I am aware non-canon books and stuff aren't really part of the Star Trek universe, though obviously they are of some significance. For instance I remember from the game Star Trek: Klingon Academy, that there was a race called the Sha'kurians, but I think they only ever existed in that game, so should they be on this list? Maybe we should have two pages, one for canon Races and for non-canon? --Hibernian 22:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)