Talk:Data (Star Trek)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Data (Star Trek) is within the scope of WikiProject Robotics, an attempt to standardise coverage of Robotics. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
This article is currently being developed or reviewed.
Some statements may be disputed, incorrect, unverified, biased or otherwise objectionable. Please discuss on the talk page before making substantial changes.
Film Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film 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.
B
This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
???
This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.
Star Trek Portal
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.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
Archive
Archives
  1. Jul 2006 – Sep 2007
  2. Oct 2007 -

Contents


[edit] Gutting the article

Gutting the article is a bold edit. It has been reverted. Instead of repeatedly reverting the revert, which is not how you build consensus, why don't some of you who insist on gutting the article try talking about it on the talk page. That's what it's here for. I'd also recommend not reverting a revert on the basis of consensus. That doesn't make much sense at all. --Cheeser1 02:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The blanking campaign appears to be the work of a select group of users or perhaps the same person with several accounts. As it hasnt been discussed (or even explained) I've viewed it as vandalism. In particular since there was a personal attack in one of the edit summaries where a user called another "a lazy tagger". The matter was reported to the admin noticeboard. I'm sure they won't put up with this either. -OberRanks 04:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
What would you call someone who puts a tag on an article without reading the article at all? Thought so.
I wouldn't call any other user anything per WP:NPA. Please note I've never edited this article for its content, only reverted what Ive seen as vandalizing accompanied by personal attacks. And yes, calling another user a "lazy tagger" is a personal attack. -OberRanks 12:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
So people complain the article is written "in-universe" and that it contains way too much plot summary. What do they do when someone removes all the plot summary stuff and takes great pains to hammer the point that this is a fictional character? They complain! You can't have things both ways. You either have to choose a long article which will only attract plot summary additions, or a short stub that will attract scholarly citations. Anton Mravcek 23:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
That's an interesting point. Unfortunately, it is not shared by everyone. Stop making bold edits that are disputed until consensus is established, or you are working against the consensus-building process (essentially edit warring). --Cheeser1 00:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
There are two viewpoints, both shared by several users. One of them is that the plot summaries are "plotcruft" and they should be discarded in favor of real-world perspective, like actor casting and critical reception (this viewpoint is held by many users who have the energy to tag articles but no energy to do anything about it). The other viewpoint, also held by several users, is that by cutting so much detailed plot summary, others are encouraged to add the real-world perspective which is supposedly what the first group (the taggers) want. Look at Worf's article. To which version were the two scholarly journal citations added? Anton Mravcek 23:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
And please do not repeatedly add bold edits marking them as minor. They are not minor edits, and marking them as such is deceitful. --Cheeser1 00:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The edit warring needs to stop. Please discuss the issues here on the talk page and find consensus for the disputed changes to the article. I recommend creating a sandbox to present proposed versions or changes to the article. Perhaps a mediator should be consulted to assist in sorting out and resolving this dispute. Dreadstar † 04:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I wish we didn't need a mediator to get people to follow the basics of the consensus building process. --Cheeser1 05:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
What I don't understand is why when people do something about the tags, they get reverted. It's as if someone wanted the tags to stay on the article for some reason, to hold back the very improvements the tags ask for. Robert Happelberg 17:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
What I don't understand is how you don't grasp the consensus building process, and the fact that those tags say Please rewrite this article not Please delete most of this article. Let's try to be a bit more constructive, instead of forcing your changes onto the article without consensus. --Cheeser1 20:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
There already is concensus but for some reason you don't want to see it. Bob Happ, edgarde, Melton, Michiganotaku, BuffyScholar (and supposedly even the taggers) all agree that excessive plot summaries need to be removed, and that citations from scholarly journals need to be added. Michiganotaku and BuffyScholar have actually added citations (but only to the stubs, not to the long plot summary-heavy articles, for some reason). That's a concensus worth following. Maybe there's an opposing concensus to make sure these articles stay bogged down with excessive plot summary and tags that scare off anyone who would be able to improve them. Cromulent Kwyjibo 23:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I'd suggest conducting a non-binding straw poll to gage where everyone stands. Dreadstar † 23:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I'd suggest we follow consensus policy instead of a rejected guideline about voting. I don't see why we need to gut the article before we improve it. Improvements can be made. The fact that people are refusing to add improvements to articles until they are gutted makes no sense to me, nor to people who are even suggesting that we gut the article. Improvements can me made to the article as it stands. I see gutting it as an unhelpful and unproductive bold edit. "It will motivate people to stop holding out on improving the article" sounds a bit like a self-fulfilling prophecy. --23:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheeser1 (talk • contribs)
A straw poll can be a means of gauging what consensus or opinions there are, per WP:Polling. Thanks for pointing out that I linked to the degraded article, I've changed it to the latest version. Obviously one party believes they have consensus for their changes, do you agree with that assessment? Dreadstar † 00:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Do I agree that one party is acting as if they have consensus? Yes. Do I agree that there is consensus? No. Article clean up is a gradual process that can take place with or without this material in it. The only difference is that if it's gutted, there's less to work with. So there's a disagreement, and I don't see consensus one way or the other. That means the bold edits aren't supposed to be repeatedly added to the article (and yet I count at least 7 instances of "reverting the revert" here). --Cheeser1 01:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm unclear on what you mean by "bold edits" being repeatedly "added to the article", are you talking about the mass deletions of the content or something else? A straw poll will help gauge consensus, right now I'm not sure either way on that count; a mediatior may help define and resolve the issues - but both those avenues have been declined thus far. The current method doesn't seem to be working and the discussion appears to be going in circles- and the article is suffering for the reverts. Dreadstar † 01:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree, but I don't understand why you (seem to?) say that as if I'm not well aware of it. I'm pointing to the consensus building process, in which there is (supposed to be) exactly one revert. It should have been 1) gut article 2) revert 3) discussion. Instead, it has been 1) gut 2) revert 3) revert the revert (a no-no) and then repeat 2&3. The fact is that at step 2, things should have stopped - the article is supposed to be left as it was before step 1 until a discussion has concluded on this talk page and a consensus has been reached. --Cheeser1 02:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Here's my two cents for the straw poll: Gut it. This particular article has not one but two maintenance tags, and one of them has the word "may" in it! It's so long. I've only watched a few episodes. How am I supposed to know whether Data's command of the USS Sutherland is important or not? Or whether it's important that his skull is made of cortanide and duranium? Past history indicates that even if I was knowledgeable and tried to sort out this mess thoughtfully, my efforts would be rewarded with accusations of vandalism and a warning that I'm going to be blocked. Past history of some of the related characters also indicates that people are willing to step up with improvements if they don't have to deal with a massive line-by-line review first. I'm sure I'm not the only one who looks at a very long, messy article, and just winces and says "Not my problem." Wiping the slate clean is what's needed here, in my opinion. Plinth molecular gathered 00:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
My opinion for the straw poll: Gut "Depiction," "Relationships," and "Specifications" sections. Cut them down to the bare minimum. Right now they're discouraging those who'd like to add "real-world perspective" (which the taggers supposedly want) because they would like to review the entire article before making their additions. Right now these articles (at least the ones the taggers have insisted on keeping faulty and tagged) are just too long and painful to read. Cromulent Kwyjibo 21:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree. A knowledgeable Trek fan needs to whittle plot summary down to the bare essentials to allow scholarly-minded Wikipedia editors a more effective means to identify potential journal citations. The article suffers as long as it bears two different stigmae. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BuffyScholar47 (talk • contribs) 23:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Me too, whittle this down. I've watched a lot of the episodes but I think ShutterBugTrekker might be the most qualified to do this. And of course there probably are a lot of other Trekker Wikipedians who would also be knowledgeable in whittling down those aspects of Data's character development most relevant in a general knowledge encyclopedia. Anton Mravcek 21:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Gut it. Verification of concensus seems to be a tactic to delay improvements. Gut it, then if any "inappropriate or misinterpreted citations which do not verify the text" still remain (and they might not even exist today) then delete them, too. Robert Happelberg 22:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Gut the plot summary and let users like Michiganotaku and BuffyScholar47 continue to add "real-world perspective" to these articles like they already have with a few others. This is supposedly what the in-universe tag calls for. ShutterBugTrekker 19:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Now that people are talking, I'm going to gracefully depart the issue. We original reverts were against what was seen as blanking and it didnt help the parties involoved were making personal attacks. It seems there is a more mature crowd in the house now. Good luck to you all. -OberRanks 00:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

"I'm going to gracefully depart the issue." I'll hold you to that word. Please make sure your friends get the memo and stop delaying the improving of these articles. ShutterBugTrekker 19:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
You know, if you wanted to make improvements, you could make them without gutting the article first. Or, if you refuse to, that's no cause for personal attacks, rude comments, or threatening to hold someone to his word to keep him from returning to a discussion. You and others may consider your contributions to be well-informed, but that's not an excuse to behave rudely. --Cheeser1 20:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I think it's extremely rude to say "this article needs such and such" and then to revert someone who adds precisely the "such and such" that one said the article needed in the first place. That's my two cents. Michiganotaku 21:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
And I think it's extremely rude to assume that I was acting in bad faith. Up until very recently there were no additions to the article, just a mass-deletion, in the name of some unforeseen future improvements that were supposedly going to happen. No matter how necessary you people think it was to gut the article before the improvements were made, edit warring is the way to make things happen. --Cheeser1 21:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
If we were more thin-skinned, we'd cry "personal attack" at your saying "more mature crowd." But speaking just for myself, I'm more thick-skinned, and if it was directed solely at me, it would just roll off my back. Anton Mravcek 21:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

First, everyone needs to stop making comments about other editors, and instead keep the focus on the editorial content of the article. Secondly, everyone should read through WP:MOS writing about fiction, in particular, contextual presentation which can be applied to writing about the charcter's fictional history. Both the "scholarly" real-world content as well as an appropriate summary of the character's fictional history are suitable for inclusion. For comparison, here is one of the recommended articles to pattern other fictional character articles on: Pauline Fowler. Dreadstar † 22:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Speaking only for myself, I don't care for your Pauline Fowler example. She's a soap opera character and not everyone outside England gets the BBC channel. Can you hold up an article about a Star Trek character as an example? That's a rhetorical question because I figure the answer is no; that would make it easier for those who oppose you to develop the other Trek character articles in a way that would not allow those articles to stay tagged. Anton Mravcek 21:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
You're more than welcome to pick from any of the listed exemplary articles to compare with. The Flowler article isn't really my example, it's a random example that I picked from that list which shows how fictional character articles are structured - all the examples are valid regardless if you've seen the show or not. Dreadstar † 21:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I'd be willing to "stop making comments about other editors" if the record clearly shows that additions of ""scholarly" real-world content" have been reverted in favor of versions consisting almost entirely of plot summary. Cromulent Kwyjibo 23:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't need an apology, but the following users are owed an apology: edg, Michiganotaku, BuffyScholar47. Especially the last: he's new and he might not come back on Monday, he might decide "I don't need this kind of treatment!" Anton Mravcek 21:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Now that the stigmas are being lifted from the TNG characters and various users have added the real-world perspective which the in-universe tags call for, it's time to keep the momentum going and expand this to the other Star Trek spinoffs but most importantly, the original series. Plinth molecular gathered 22:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed the recent improvements to this article — there's hope for some of the tv show character articles. Good job. --Jack Merridew 16:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFC

I’ve put in an RfC to see if we can attract more editors to this discussion. The discussion is about how much content should be in the articles from a “scholarly” out-of-universe view and how much should be stated from the character’s “in-universe” history. Dreadstar † 01:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Response I don't see a problem. Could you be more specific in describing exactly what part or parts of the article are in dispute? Dlabtot 20:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the above discussion he wants to dispute requesting for comments.--Kimguanson 19:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spot

I notice that Spot (Star Trek) redirects here but the article currently does not mention Spot by name. This seems inconsistent. --208.76.104.133 (talk) 00:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Out of Universe perspective

It is missing vital info on the role his character plays as a whole -- eliciting human emotion despite his lack of emotions, i.e. pathos. It merits more than a sentence as it is one of his character's central theme. The 'character arc' section could be significantly reduced and written from an out-of-universe perspective, concentrating on plot significant to character development, such as his exploration of relationships, various almost displays of emotion, and more description of his overall rather than a series of things he did.

I would be happy to do this, but I have no secondary sources to back up my opinion on the plot devices etc. so I guess it would count as original research. Unless, of course, everyone agreed with me, which I can't see happening in a hurry. Does anyone have any secondary sources describing Data's character? The piece is littered with primary sources and the opinions of Brent Spiner and as such it already does not stand up to wikipedia's specs on articles, so i am tempted to update it to out-of-universe perspective anyway. Does anyone have any radical opinions/argumants against me doing this? Info151. 10 April 08. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Info151 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)