Talk:Jean-Luc Picard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jean-Luc Picard is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

Contents

[edit] Captain Jean Luc Picard of the USS Enterprise!

Does anyone think there should be a reference to picard.ytmnd.com? It's quite prominent among the YTMND community and the internet as a whole. In the interest of completeness, I say we include a section.

--What is YTMND? The page just goes to pictures of Captain Picard and some music plays. I don't get it. --Darth Borehd 17:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe... I only say that because I'm more familiar with picard.ytmnd.com than Star Trek in general (I didn't even know his name before seeing it on YTMND!). However, there's not really anything to say about it except for the pop reference itself, which I can only see fitting in a trivia section and trivia sections are discouraged. - Rocket000 22:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
What about the song? What's that from? - Rocket000 22:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
No, it should not be included. If you look at "Finding Forrester" on wikipedia you'll see that it makes reference to YTMND since that is what provided the inspiration for the site. The Picard Song on YTMND is just a successful fad, but it certainly wasn't very inspired. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.92.1.121 (talk) 03:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re-added after bieng deleted

I just notied this page no longer includes a link to the Picard YTMND and Music Video's. I dont see why they were deleted i think the were excellent. I added them back i hope this is not a problem. They are under Picard in Web-Meida twords thew bottom of the page

Hello! I'm neither here nor there regarding this (someone else removed it); there is a plethora of media online, so I think some may argue that a case has to be demonstrated as to why this content/links is noteworthy. However, I've made some editions and reorganised the appropriate sections. I trust this is sufficient. Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 22:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

They are entirely relivant! it is all about Picard in Pop Culture outside of strictly trek. I would just make it agin but then it would likley be deleted agian. I dont see why it should be...


NVM, it wasnt deleted, just moved to the bottom of the page, i diddnr see it. lol

[edit] Bilingualism

He is bilingual in English & French, n'est pas? --Menchi, 29 Jul 2003

Well, presumably, but then maybe France in the future has been taken over by the English, which explains his accent :) Adam Bishop 03:43, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I cannot recall him speaking even a complete sentence in French, but Q often say things like, "Mon capitaine!". And Picard did sing that French song to those kids he was trapped with in the turbolift, "Frère Jacques", I think, a popular song even to the English speakers. --Menchi 04:03, Jul 30, 2003 (UTC)
I can't recall that either, now that I think of it. Maybe the Universal Translator translated it for us :) I remember Data speaking French (in Time's Arrow, I think), but not Picard. Adam Bishop 05:13, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I am quite sure, that there is one episode where Picard speaks fluent French. I have all STNG-DVDs, I will have a look ;-) Fantasy 08:02, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)
One place to look is the episode with the binary number title in the first season. The Bynars create a woman, Minuet, in the holodeck to entice Picard and Riker. She speaks French to Picard and he is amazed by this. In another episode, Data remarks that French is an extinct language, but Riker cuts him off before saying anything further, and Picard looks vexed.
He only speaks a word of french though

Federation Standard is the language used by those in Starfleet.

I always presumed he was bilingual. As to his accent, we may argue he was educated at Oxbridge, and it rubbed off, or the translator matrix renders his cultured and educated French into cultured and educated English. (I've never been quite clear about how that works.) (Or we may all agree we're full of shat, but I don't expect that to happen...) --trekphiler, 16/11/05

P is unquestionably bilingual: it's just that French is a rather archane language, not commonly used, in the late 24th century, as Data mentions in that Yar-she male combat episode (whose name escapes me! Code of Honor? Argh!). Perhaps Picard was language-trained on the Chunnel, and Data in a porta-potty? ;) E Pluribus Anthony 16:18, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
P actually speaks quite a few lines in French with Mini. Actually, Picard cut Data off in that Yar/she-mail combat episode (I think) (something about French representing "civilisation") and R recommended D drop the matter. All of this is obviated with the universal translator, though, but I presume it achieved a level of sophistication to translate a foreign language for a native user, etc. E Pluribus Anthony 18:27, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Yet again, you've raised an interesting issue. {Stop! We're using enough space here now. ;)} I recall J-L speaking Frech to her, too. I had the sense the UT had gotten turned off; perhaps its default is "off" when the speaker replies in the same language? (I do wonder why it failed to translate some common Klingon words; we may presume there is no English equivalent.) I'd say Memory Alpha should be informed, too... Trekphiler 19:19, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

speaking of klingon...some starfleet types will point out picards skill at speaking klingonese -Lordraydens 07:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

He also speaks Latin, an even more archane than French. He spoke Latin to Wesley when he (Wesley) came back to the Enterprise after the Acadamey 132.16.115.15 13:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

There's an episode of DS9(don't remember the title), where the entire Ferengi 'family'(that is, Quark-Nog-Rom) lands on 20th century Earth. Since their UT seems to be broken, nobody can understand them and they speak a language that should be 'Ferengi'. What we heard as english in the series was in fact ferengi all along. That would mean then that everyone, on DS9 or on the Enterprise, may speak the language he wants to speak since the UT is able to translate it into english for the audience. But then again, there is a paradox, since we hear sometimes other languages such as klingon, french, romulan(I assume Jolan True is romulan),... So if we say that Picard has been speaking french all along, what about the sentences we hear first in the episode with the Binars, then in the episode where he sings Frère Jacques...--Stormy Ordos 12:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

It's exactly this kind of uncertainty/inconsistency and subsequent desire to "fill in the gaps" that necessitates the use of published, secondary sources for this and every other article about fictional people, events, etc. --EEMeltonIV 14:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

His French is obviously accented when he uses it. He clearly pronounces the words to Frere Jacques wrong when he sings it to the kids in the turbolift - "Sonnez la matina" instead of "Sonnez les matines". Seems like he speaks the language, but it isn't his first and he's not totally fluent at it. Not that any of it really makes sense at all considering the UT so I suggest we stop worrying about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.230.114.91 (talk) 01:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

But most importantly, there hasn't been an explicit statement in any of the episodes which explicitly says "Picard speaks fluent French." Anything in a "published, secondary" source would be pure speculation on this matter which could very well be contradicted if Picard ever again appeared in Star Trek. Cromulent Kwyjibo (talk) 17:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

However, in TNG: "Chain of Command, Part II" he does prenounce "Yvette Gessard" with a typical french prenounciation rather than in an english manner. (Ivette Chessarr-d rather than Yvett Jessard) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.243.152.55 (talk) 15:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright... but can you point to a line of dialogue in an episode which even says "Picard speaks French? Or maybe to a behind-the-scenes featurette where Patrick Stewart says anything on this matter? Cromulent Kwyjibo (talk) 22:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] As Captain and Locutus

The latest edit (as of the time when I post this) says "As captain of the Enterprise, he was captured and assimilated as Locutus by the Borg". As captain, then as Locutus? Is this the best that can be done? I'll try to fix it, but it's hard to choose the right words. Tjdw

I would say, you found them ;-) Fantasy 08:02, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)
PS: Don't forget to sign with ~~~~

Thanks. Tjdw 13:59, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)


Could someone upload a picture of locutus so we can make a locutus page?

We don't need a picture of Locutus to make a Locutus page. We could make the Locutus page and just upload the picture later. -Branddobbe 23:49, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)
Well make the page then if you want to...--Timo 23:50, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)
If this is a request that I make the page, I think you should find someone else. I haven't seen the Locutus episodes since they originally aired when I was a little kid. -Branddobbe 23:52, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)
I would think that Locutus wouldn't really require a separate page, just a separate section within this article at most. ==Locutus==, and then the Locutus-specific stuff. Bryan 23:53, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
There is a link to a locutus page now though... --Timo 23:55, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)
We also need to think about the movies with Enterprise E, ie, First Contact, Insurection and Nemesis.

[edit] Anon problem

Sigh.. some anon keeps changing the initial paragraph (and removing any indication that this is a fictional character), and adding a timeline of Picard's life in rather poor English... Can somebody do something about him? Ausir 15:12, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Bad EDit

Dunno who did it, but someone has but in a huge timeline (half of which I've already deleted), with loads of erroneous info. Five year missions? There was never any evidence of Picard doing five year missions, it wasnt mentioned anywhere in any episode. Do we even need the timeline anyway? Some of it has nothing to do with Picard himself.

Also, the films. Should they be there or in separate articleS?

--Tim 17:54, May 1, 2004 (UTC)

Edits by user 66.99.2.147 should be simply reverted as vandalism, as has been done in the past. Niteowlneils 18:08, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Alternate timeline?

What is this -A stuff? Where do you see the timelines diverging? Is this some sort of perverted wish on your part that the 1701-D was never destroyed?

--- Deleted previous comment. I should learn to read. 193.167.132.66 12:47, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I must say, editing startrek entries in wiki is really nerdy

yeah oh yeah, i don't tell my friends i do this stuff.

Heh. Hanging out in an enyclopedia is pretty nerdy in general. But I have no problems with my nerdiness; all my friends know about both my love for Star Trek and my obsession with Wikipedia. — Knowledge Seeker দ 23:29, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Nerdy? I altered "armada" to "flotilla". My sense of naval language is offended at the thought of 39 ships being called an "armada". --trekphiler, 16/11/05

That's OK: it needs to be described accurately (though 'flotilla' is less known as a word). The DS9 waves of ships can acccurately be called armadas. E Pluribus Anthony 09:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

The waves of ships in "DS9" can be called ridiculous; you already know my opinion of those numbers.... (And that's beside the absurdity of battles on planets and the slighting of convoy duty, which would be critical. I'm waiting for some novelist to recognize a Ferengi would be the perfect senior logistics planner.) --trekphiler, 16/11/05
He he; agreed ... on both counts! :) E Pluribus Anthony 17:07, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
I feel especially nerding just for having understood this conversation. RichMac (Talk) 10:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hair Color: Gray !?

Jean-Luc Picard doesn't have hair. How is it gray then? MessedRocker 22:20, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

He actually does have some hair; he's not completely bald. If you look at the pictue in the article, you'll see some hair behind his left ear. — Knowledge Seeker দ 23:26, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
In the Star Trek: New Frontier novels, Picard accuses Mackenzie Calhoun of splitting hairs. Calhoun replies that at least he still has hairs to split. — JIP | Talk 09:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

He has a small amount of white/gray hair in the back. Also He Used to have brown hair, Like in the following links, Picard at 11:

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Image:Picard_teen.jpg

Him as an ensign... whith somthing through his heart.

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Image:Jean-Luc_Picard_stabbed.jpg Captain Eric 22:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I remember an episode of TNG in which Picard appears getting his hair cut (what little of it he has) by the Bolian barber, Mot. I don't actually remember which episode it was though, maybe someone can enlighten us? John1701 00:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Ensign Ro. Incidentally, the article includes a picture that clearly shows Picard's remaining hair. 82.95.254.249 11:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Birthday

I'm not entirely sure where I'm getting the info, but I had always believed Picard's Birthday was the 14th of July, not the 13th. The reasons I remember this is 1- It's the same as my own and 2- It's the french Bastille Day, which I'd thought was an 'added tie' to being French?

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty positive it is.

Close but – supposedly – the characters' birthdays were derived from the actors who portrayed them (and appear in some on-screen bios in "Conundrum"): thus, Patrick Stewart was born on 13 July (1940); thus, Liberté, égalité, fraternité! E Pluribus Anthony 08:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Merci beaucoup, mon ami. I had no idea. (Check out a young Patrick in BBC-TV's "I, Claudius"....) --trekphiler, 16/11/05
I have the complete set of "I, C" on VHS, and books too. :) E Pluribus Anthony 17:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
You got me beat. I've seen "I, C" 3-4x, & I've got the first book--never managed to read it.... --trekphiler, 16/11/05

[edit] Birthplace

Captain Picard WAS NOT born in Lesbos, Greece! He was born in La Barre, France. I don't know who keeps changing it back, but plase don;t.

Taken from startrek.com:

Place of birth: Labarre, France, Earth Tim 12:51, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Events of "First Contact"

In the section about "First Contact," the Picard article states, "After defeating the Borg cube, a Borg sphere ship was released from that ship. This sphere created a temporal anomaly and went into Earth's past to try to assimilate the human race. Their plan to do this was to prevent first contact, a historic event in which Zefram Cochrane tested the first warp drive and in doing so made contact with another alien race for the first time. Due to Captain Picard's and the Enterprise's efforts, this was not allowed to happen. Earth was not assimilated and the Enterprise returned to the year 2374."

Actually, Earth was assimilated. After the Borg sphere left the 24th century but before the E-E did, Worf noticed that Earth's continents were all metallic-looking, and Data said the Earth's population consisted of 9 billion beings, all Borg. Call it an alternate timeline or whatever you want, but it appears that the Borg did travel back to the 21st century, prevent first contact with the Vulcans, and assimilate Earth. The Enterprise-E arrived in the 21st century at a point after the Borg arrived there but before they could carry out their plan and prevented those events from taking place.

Also, "After defeating the Borg cube, a Borg sphere ship was released from that ship" is a dangling or misplaced modifier -- it reads as if the Borg sphere ship defeated the Borg cube.

True: I think it is safe to say that Picard and co. averted one cataclysmic outcome, or facilitating a reality in which most future events in the Star Trek universe take place in. E Pluribus Anthony 06:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Baldness, in the 24th century?

Just a bone for Trek fans (like me) to chew up on. Anyway, it surprises me that there's no apparent cure for baldness in the 24th century. Weren't there times when Picard (though slightly & briefly) seemed to lament about when he once had a full head of hair? Mightberight/wrong 22:39, 30 October 2005 (UTC).

Hi! Yes: you'd think that a cure for alopecia would exist in the far future; then again, for a society as open as the Federation, I presume any stigmas about baldness would be little to none. As well, take a peek at the Quotes section, where he humorously warns his supposed "son" about the issue. :) E Pluribus Anthony 04:40, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

"Bald is sexy". That pretty much sums it up.

-G

I can't recall my source for this at the moment, but someone once asked Gene Roddenberry, "Wouldn't they be able to cure baldness in the 24th century?" Gene Roddenberry replied, "In the 24th century, they wouldn't care." Perhaps inconsistently, I think many would agree that Stewart may be better-looking bald than with hair.--72.150.38.54 (talk) 22:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Court Martial

Not a criminal proceeding? It most certainly is. Non-criminal is a Court of Inquiry. While I admit I'm not conversant with RN law (upon which Starfleet's is presumably based), UCMJ calls a non-criminal inquiriy an Article 32 (as I recall, after years of "JAG"). That he was cleared in a court martial is not news. Recall, after WW2, an RN sub commander and former POW, Commander Rupert Lonsdale, was court martialed for surrendering his ship, Seal--and cleared. We may compare Picard's situation. --squadfifteen, 15/11/05

Makes sense to me: even 'idols' are human. :) E Pluribus Anthony 06:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Mabye it good looks good

[edit] Career

I altered the court martial section to remove "not criminal". I also altered "service aboard a space station" to "got a new ship". Given no wrongdoing or culpable error in the court martial, Picard would have gotten a new ship. (It is possible he would have gotten a JO slot, say 2d Lt or XO, aboard a bigger ship, such as a Constellation -class.) Starbase service seems ruled out, since he has commanded a ship 22 years, and "ST: The Original Series" (...) established Starbase officers were not line qualified. --trekphiler, 16/11/05

Again, nicely put. However, I would probably remove any speculation about him being assigned to command a ship comparable to the Stargazer: this may be reasonable to you and me, but if it can't be cited, it should probably be left out. Who knows: perhaps he went on a looong horseback ride? :) E Pluribus Anthony 06:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
lol That explains why he was so stiff: still saddle sore. Seriously, though, I think a reference to him getting a new ship (deleted, I see) is appropriate, if not strictly necessary; as it is, it seems a bit bare. I'd also say we have to ignore the recent book Valiant, which has him 2d Lt of Stargazer & LtCdr (as I recall); I always pictured him more junior then, and a LtCdr would have about 20yrs in service already. More than that, a small scout like that would be commanded by a jaygee or Lt, not a full Captain (contrary to the book). (I really do wish writers would do elementary research on organization before starting...) On a side note, I would have liked to see a mention of the Stardate J-L got Enterprise. (And I just saw "All Good Things..." a few days ago. Ah, well.) --trekphiler, 16/11/05
I hear ya; the piles have it. :) I applaud recent edits/discussions to enhance the article/text: I've tried (trying to edit so-so text rather than adding a plethora of new text), and have also added some images, but there's always room for improvement and need to step back somewhat.
As well, I don't disagree with the logical assumption that Picard was assigned to command a comparable ship: just cite a (canon-esque) source and we can include it. It's equally likely he took a sabbatical after Jack's death, sought treatment for his baldness, engaged in more 'horseplay', or developed some bigger piles. ;)
As for research: no argument here. :) Take care! E Pluribus Anthony 07:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, my bad. I was complaining about no Stardate for assumption of command. I hadn't read that far yet when I posted that.... --trekphiler, 16/11/05

One dumb question: is it canon Jack Crusher met Picard aboard Stargazer? My impression from fuzzy memory is he was one of the three Ensigns when the Nausicaans did shish kabob practise. --trekphiler, 16/11/05

Nope: he, Ensigns Corey Zweller and (chic) Marty Batanides were the ménage à trois at Starbase Earhart. It is canon that Picard later met Jack (and Bev) while serving aboard the Stargazer and that J died in an away mission; P returned J-kabob to Bev for ... roasting (i.e., burial). I wonder if J was ionised? E Pluribus Anthony 09:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Merci again, mon ami. That whole episode was Nausicaating. Old Picard was so dumb he couldn't divert his friend by being devious? He learned nothing in 30-some years of ship command? Old Picard might not have been so brash as Young (or Riker, or Kirk), but subtle he certainly was--and frankly, I don't believe he'd have ended up an elderly science officer. He had an adventurous soul, crazy- brash kid or no. (If you can't guess J-L was the main reason I watched "STNG", turn in your commbadge.) --trekphiler, 16/11/05
I think that 'near-death' experiences like P's (and by this I mean visits to the river Styx, not tunnel vision) can and do have life-changing effects. I've so far had three of them (ask me privately), so I speak with some experience about Charon and the boat. ;) And I would never turn in my commbadge. E Pluribus Anthony 17:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't disagree. He's not only had a Nausicaating experience, he's since seen good friends turned to crispy critters. Evidently I wasn't clear. I meant to say, our J-L (as I presume he was, as transplanted by Q) should have been able to outwit a green cadet, & the writer couldn't figure it out. Even after what he's seen, our J-L is still eager to be on the frontier: adventurous soul, I submit, not dampened; Picard would not, could not, turn into "boring science guy". Would he be youngest Captain in Fleet history to that time? Not anymore. Would he be Captain? Oh, yeh. Not to be would be death on him. --trekphiler, 16/11/05
Hi! Perhaps bald P tried to re-enact events as much as possible (as the follicled P did) prior to his kebabing to see where things would lead: what they lead to (by him not getting stabbed) eventually/alternatively made him as much a (lowly) officer of ability as of circumstance. And as Q was the intervenor, he might have done so with his perpetual fortitude in mind ... going out on a colloquial limb and charting new frontiers. To employ another national motto: liberty or death! Anyhow, that's it for me ... take care! E Pluribus Anthony 20:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Hmmm. "Minimum change" Picard is an intriguing notion. My own bias in favor of the character is, I confess, too strong to give it fair treatment. It occurs to me Ol' Baldy might feel bound by the Temporal Prime Directive (presuming it existed; given V/A Janeway {ex-Voyager?}, whose Captainess quoted it, I'm guessing it does), unable to change much before. And I'm back to defending him: "BSG" Picard, by not becoming Captain, changes more, and Baldy's bound to recognize that--regardless the direct effect on his own life. As I said, I'm too biased to be fair. I wish I'd created Picard. --trekphiler, 16/11/05
Given P's knowledge of Q's ability to mute time easily, and given the fact that he was 'dead,' I don't think P was too concerned about this. He was also assured by Q that his actions would not undo anything. I'm just posing options: in all respects, P is a role model whose commbadge I would gladly trade with mine. ;) Ta! E Pluribus Anthony 23:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
I'd forgotten Q promised. (Personally, I'm with Worf: "Die.") If J-L's whole objective is to avoid getting stabbed, I come back to my bias: this shows a lack of moral courage that isn't true to him--which, I guess, was the point of the episode; I just can't believe he'd ever quail. I wouldn't trade my commbadge; I'd follow him anywhere, and if I got turned into a crispy critter for following, it'd be worth it, 'cause it's sure to be interesting getting there. --trekphiler, 17/11/05
I can believe P would opt for a different choice, and at the last minute too: the entire situation was somewhat illusory anyway; remember - he was 'dead'. Also, when he and red-head were attached telepathically (when they truly learn they have feelings for one another), Bev comments that (despite P's apparent rationalism), he sometimes makes arbitrary decisions. And I would gladly follow P into a warp core, subspace inversion, or macroscopic digestive tract (with some reluctance) any day. Speaking of which (as Q once said to Worf): eat any good books lately? :) E Pluribus Anthony 18:16, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pet Peeves

Am I the only one who thinks the replicators were stunningly stupid? Picard is famed for "Tea, Earl Grey, hot", yet you'd think the blasted replicator would know to make it hot, by recognizing his voice.... Also, doesn't the Federation have spies? I find it fantastic Fleet officers keep being detailed to covert missions... (What happened to Section 31? Or is that reserved for insane assassins that escaped from "X-Files"?) --trekphiler, 16/11/05

Fuzzy logic notwithstanding, I guess there's a possibility of Picard or someone ordering Earl Grey iced tea? Perhaps he should've brewed "Alopecia-specific-CO-polymath blend number 666, hot"?
I hadn't thought of Picard ordering it iced; voice recognition should still play, I'd argue. Also, wouldn't the ship's mainframe know his ordering habits? --trekphiler, 16/11/05
You'd think, but perhaps he disengaged the replicator input waveguides to practice his orders and golden oratory? E Pluribus Anthony 09:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Dunno bout his golden oratory; maybe he got paid by the line? (Am I sloooow to get the joke, or what?) --trekphiler, 16/11/05
Q noted P's knack for making speeches, so perhaps he was 'practising.' Or perhaps he was paid by the word. Wurd.  ;) E Pluribus Anthony 15:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
"All the universe's a stage, and all the Starfleet officers merely players"? (Apologies to Mr. Will. Or Bacon, or whoever's getting credit this week.) --trekphiler, 16/11/05
There are several episodes I believe (At least one where Barcley (Sp?) orders water) and the computer replies 'specify a temperature please'. There are probably a number of other instances where there is a drink ordered without a temperature and the replicator didn't mind, but the argument can be made that the computer, if he just said 'tea, earl grey' would reply 'please specify temperature' (perhaps it could be only for drinks that are commonly ordered in different temperatures so if it was a glass of a certain red wine, for example, there would be a temperature it 'should' be at by default.) Either way, perhaps even though the computer would know his order, he has gotten into the habit of ordering this way throughout his life, by having to order it at replimats, or on various assignments where the computer wouldn't recognize his voice etc.
It's also possible that the Federation has built many thousands of ships since its inception, only a few thousand are in service as of TNG, etc. Use the analogy of human population: even though more than 6 billion people currently live on Earth, this is said to be only less than 1% of the humans that have ever lived.
Not a good analogy, I don't think. All ships in the Federation would not be Starfleet ships (unless I am much mistaken), and shipbuilding would be very much reduced, I'd argue, due to increases of complexity, capability, and cost by orders of magnitude. My supertanker example, I think, stands: in the '30s, dozens of ships would be needed to do the job one VLCC could do. The entire Task Force 58 at Leyte Gulf in 1944 would be overmatched by CVN-65 Enterprise. (Which makes nonsense of the "thousands" of ships in fleet actions of "DS9"...) Picture a ship a thousand or ten thousand times more complex and capable than a modern nuclear aircraft carrier, and multiply it by 74000; do you believe that? I don't. --trekphiler, 16/11/05
As it was the only analogy I could think of (I'm heading off to bed): it perhaps is still appropriate. Federation vessels comprise those of Starfleet, civilians, and others; perhaps they all draw on the same number scheme but retain different letter prefixes (NCC, NAR, NX, etc.)? As well, if Runabouts (as being small crap-casings'starships') have NCC numbers, perhaps a great many of them or similar ships have been constructed and obliterated. (A stretch, I know!) And given the supposed size of the Federation/Starfleet and the multiple number of fabrication facilities mentioned or implied (I can talk about this later), it's possible. E Pluribus Anthony 09:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Don't know about smaller ships; if every spacegoing craft, down to the transport pods, wears a registry number (which I can't believe), it might add up to 74000 at that. I reject your premise civilian ships are included, though; they'd have a Fed registry number (comparable to Lloyd's), but not a Fleet one (which I've always thought equal to the hull number, say CVN-65, or SSN-688 of the attack sub Los Angeles). I still think the greater performace capacity argues for low numbers; Starfleet shouldn't need thousands of ships, when each Constellation, "Galaxy" (a ridiculous class name) or Defiant has more capability than all the navies of 20th Century Earth combined. Even given numerous yards and automation, complexity and cost tell, too; it would take the complete resources of a rich planet to build a ship like J-LP's Enterprise. My impression was, only a handful of yards (Earth, Vulcan, Andoria Prime in "ST", plus Mars in "STNG") built Fleet ships, & I recall reading Gene presumed just 12 Starship-class vessels (an analogy to USN fleet aircraft carriers). Also, wasn't warp capability supposed to be difficult to achieve--comparable to the Manhattan Project? I've always thought of starships as comparable to CVNs or FBMs, rare, expensive, precious, prestigious. Having thousands turns them into kitsch. --trekphiler, 16/11/05
I think we can agree to disagree. I'm not suggesting that every spacecraft had an N-etc registry; however, it was established that the DS9 runabouts, small scout-like ships, did so others could and were (e.g., Data's scout in Star Trek: Erection). Moreover, the distinctions between the various prefixes and numbers was never made clear, and I do not think the numbers for civilian vessels ever exceeded those for 'ships of the line' (NCC), so it's possible they drew on the same number base.
As well, this rationale makes sense if one considers that initial testbeds/prototypes (e.g., the USS Galaxy, NX-70637, whose class moniker has grown on me somewhat, there are other examples in 'semi-canon' too) are reclassified to being active ships sometime afterward (NCC-70637); note on-screen ref in Star Trek: Emesis.
You are right about the original Enterprise class moniker; Picard reindicated C to Scotty in "Relics". This was also intended when
  • (a) Gene originally indicated (at least according to the TNG tech manual) only 12 Galaxy class ships were built: 6 were activated, the others were constructed partially, and broken up as a security measure. With the onset of armed hostilities later, though, they most probably were reintegrated, activated, and more built.
  • (b) other versions of the titular ships of the various series were intended to appear only sporadically, if at all.
As for fleet size, I think it's completely legit that Starfleet numbers (as of 2375ish) in the many hundreds, perhaps low thousands, of active ships and even more in cumulative totality/storage. I'm not going to get into the map and inferred volume of Federation space, but Starfleet would need to be a significant org to patrol that much space effectively (perhaps it's not patrolled effectively). There are other fabrication facilities: recall the TNG tech manual, and the mutli-Worf ep "Parallels" mentions more. As well, the quality vs. quantity argument is evidenced if you consider the fact that a great many 'older' ship types (Excelsior & Miranda class) still exist in the TNG and later era. Besides: this is all not a matter of fact/dispute in the current article, right? :) E Pluribus Anthony 15:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
I looked at Enterprise's spec herein and was surprised at the number of auxiliary craft (shuttles and pods) she operates. It made me think two things: one, Galileo 7 had no independent registry #, and contemporary battleships have boats that serve comparable purposes that don't, either. On the other hand (just to prove I'm intellectually completely dishonest, not even willing to stand up for my argument), how many worlds are there in the Federation? How many are building Fleet ships? And how many small (destroyer or scout) ships are there? You're right, there. I'd suggest civil ships don't draw from the same registry base, any more than they do on Earth, and for much the same reasons. Persistence of older designs figures in; I still do not believe 70000 ships between Kirk's Enterprise and Voyager. (For Gene's pos on it, I was going back to "STTOS": 12x1701-type.) And, no, it bears on nothing in dispute... It has been entertaining, tho. I'm inclined to seek an "ST" site and post the entire exchange onto it. Objection? --trekphiler, 16/11/05
I think Galileo 7's reg number (if I infer things correctly) would've been NCC-1701/7. In 'modernity', there are at least 150 members in the Federation, but it supposedly contains a great many more colonies and outposts. As well, smaller ships deemed starships have been accorded NCC registries, so the possible number of ships is potentially huge. Besides: a count of all Federation worlds and 'units' would easily last until I have another near-death experience. :)
I suggest that civilian ships may draw fromt he same number base, but we cannot know precisely.
Just look at the blueprints for the Enterprise-D, and the TNG tech manual, and you'll realise its main shuttlebay (one of three) is easily as large as an aircraft carrier. One ship contains more than 35 auxiliary craft, not including the Captain's Yacht, or special purpose craft carried on occasion (like the Runabouts in "Timescape").
Yes: this has been interesting. I've no general objection to posting this elsewhere, but would like to prune it; moreover, I'm sure these discussions have occurred on ST websites, no? Anyhow, gotta go! E Pluribus Anthony 23:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
I meant to say Galileo would have an indentity number that connects her to Enterprise, but not a registry number. Think of the side numbers on aircraft of a carrier. (She'd also have a hull number that identifies her type within Starfleet BuShips, but let's not make this any more complicated...) It seems to my fuzzy memory warp-capable ships as small as shuttles wore registry numbers, where the likes of transport pods or Galileo didn't. --trekphiler, 17/11/05
I hear you! Actually, it appears only starships receive unique registry numbers throughout; this includes runabouts and scouts that have a degree of autonomy and can rather readily fly from star A to star Z. Shuttles, shuttlepods, etc. are known as (auxiliary) craft: they are rather short-range craft attached to mother ships (or units) and cannot function adequately for extended periods on their own; these have IDs harking of their mothership's reg numbers and appropriately appended (like Galileo 7 – NCC-1701/7, named Galileo). E Pluribus Anthony 16:00, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Thinking about your numbers, I'd say the civil must outnmuber the military, just as they do terrestrially, & for the same reason. There seems to be a parallel, supported by some canon evidence in "ST:E", with East Indiamen, or sail-era ships armed against pirates. This argues for a small Starfleet; a large one would make space safer. I've always presumed the registry was limited to Starfleet; you've made me wonder if NCC numbers don't refer to all ships in Fed registry (like under the Liberian flag). I don't recall ever seeing numbers on civil ships in the canon, so I can't support it; it's been that lack leading me to my initial position. If we presume the Federation expanded significantly between "STTOS" & "STNG", it might explain the expanded Fed registry and the high numbers, but I can't offer canon support for that, either. Ah, for an "ST" site... --trekphiler, 17/11/05
I think the Federation has expanded enough to legitimately expand the numbering system, but I can cite nothing to support this other than with sporadic mentions (largely in non-canon, but note young Seven of Sixty-Nine's ship)) of different reg numbers. E Pluribus Anthony 16:00, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
69? You wish. (I wish!) Resistance? Who's resisting? --trekphiler, 18/11/05
It's futile! :) E Pluribus Anthony 18:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
It's stupid! (But yours is funnier.) --trekphiler, 18/11/05
If I wasn't such a big fan of Picard, I'd say she's the best thing to happen to Trek in the history of the franchise. As it is, 2d. (Worf, 3d. Jadzia 4h. Shelby & Riker tie, 5h; smoothface boy, a dweeb {term defined in the Data talk page herein...} just above Cdr Pinocchio.) --trekphiler, 18/11/05
Oh, was there a ship # in Seven's past? All that spandex kept distracting me. --trekphiler, 18/11/05
Can you say if the NX and NCC numbers fall in the same series? I recall Defiant on "DS9" was an NX, not NCC, which was contradicted, as I recall, by later appearances of same-spec ships Valiant and Saõ Paolo (? renamed Defiant in a preposterous ceremony). I got the impression Defiant was one of a kind, or at least class ship; Valiant wore an earlier hull number, didn't she? (And how big a Trekker technoweenie am I to be bugged about this?) --trekphiler, 16/11/05
I believe that the Defiant, if produced widely, would've had its NX registry changed to NCC eventually. Head on over to the USS Defiant article; the sh*tfacedwonky reg numbers for the ship(s?) are explained rather succinctly in the article.
There is some overlap of numbers across the later series: rarely were registries mentioned or seen clearly on screen, in any event. An episode of DS9 highlights the USS Bellerephon, an Intrepid class ship dispatched to Romulus, with Bashir on it.
I know, often the writing is shoddy, but what's good for the goose may not be for the gander. I actually intend on writing a manual about all this someday. ;) Anyhow, I think that's it for me, though. Merci! E Pluribus Anthony 15:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Good luck on ya, brudder. If you can straighten out this ball of twine without goin' Section 31, yer a better man den me. --trekphiler, 16/11/05
Evidently, I wasn't clear, before, either. Memory Alpha, I've since learned, claims NX# went to prototypes. No prob, there. My prob was, Valiant being lower #. (But I'm relying on memory, & it's proven less than Reliant...) --trekphiler, 18/11/05
As for secrecy, it appears to be reserved for the insane. ;) E Pluribus Anthony 08:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
lol Well said. --trekphiler

Isn't it possible that they just don't number the ships sequentially? 74656 is not necessarily the 74656th ship, maybe the numbers mean something else, or they are just random. (They don't give out telephone numbers or license plates sequentially either, do they?) Adam Bishop 15:42, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes! :) E Pluribus Anthony 15:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, no. Take a look at the Constitution page (& Great Bird help me citing it after all the criticism I've leveled!). Constitution & Enterprise are sequential, as you'd expect, being sister ships (implying from the same yard, too); so are Kongo & Lex (ditto). (See the discussion page, too. It tries to clear up the evident contradiction in Constitutions.) It's less clear class ships would have close registry numbers (whereas hull numbers are closely sequential by type in USN, except where large numbers of contracts are let at once, or cancelled, such as during, & at the end of, WW2; large gaps in hull number sequences of submarines were common). I see no reason to conclude the registry numbers, referring entirely to spacefaring ships, would not be sequential, absent information on (type-specific) hull numbers, which need not be. Neither have I seen anything in the canon that suggests the numbers are random; in fact, given Archer's Enterprise is NX-01, and at least five known Constitutions are in close sequence, I'd say it's implied they are sequential. Of course, it's most probable the model makers or somebody picked the numbers out of thin air because they looked good, paying no mind to what it implied about the Fleet or the Fed...just as they accepted individual stories involving transporter technology, each good in itself, that made it more and more fantastical each time, paying no mind to overall consequences. (Thanks to David Gerrold for pointing out that last bit.) As I mention above somewhere, I'm inclined to lift this exchange entire and post it on an "ST" site; objections? --trekphiler, 16/11/05
It is possible: I didn't say it is impossible or 'gold.' I generally agree with you that the ST registry numbers are generally sequential; however, nothing in canon (methinks) specifically confirms this and there are glaring exceptions (e.g., USS Prometheus in ST:V, with an NX-5xxxx, implying it was conceived of long before TNG, and later reclassified to NCC-7xxxx). To use a modern-day example: the USN Seawolf class submarine (few they are) were christened beginning with SSN-21, even though other recent subs have registries of SSN-7etc. This was again resumed with the following Virginia class subs.
Memory Alpha has a post that argues for non-sequential, based on Excelsior. My impression was, she was a troublous design (given how easily Scotty crippled her transwarp) that might not have entered service for years, if ever. (I have no canon evidence either way.) A single example, when earlier ships all have lower numbers, and when known sister ships like Enterprise and Hood are sequential, is a thin reed; I'd say they all are. --trekphiler, 18/11/05
Feel free to place this text elsewhere, God forbid!, but I'd like to edit it slightly before you do (with more authoritative references, as we've been largely chatting in jest). Agreed? Even I have "performance anxiety." :) Let the Prophets guide you. E Pluribus Anthony 22:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
If you feel a need to edit for authority, don't let me stop you; if you've full set of DVDs & can keep me from looking a total fool where Defiant's registry, or some such, is concerned, far be it from me to stop you! I'm generally content to statim. When you're satisfied, fire a phaser into Data or something, to let me know. --trekphiler, 18/11/05
You make in interesting point with Seawolf; unfortunately, it argues for lower registry numbers, not higher ones. Politics are also a factor (& let's not get into Federation politcs; there's too little evidence.) Also, re Seawolf, beware mixing Virginias (SSBNs) and SSNs (or did I miss Los Angeles-class, with numbers into the 700s, being redesignated?). I'd missed Prometheus' registry number being reclassified; it suggests to me protracted design problems, or a contract that "sat on the shelf" for years, much as Defiant was putatively supposed to (if canon evidence of Valiant didn't contradict). --trekphiler, 17/11/05
Actually, I contend Seawolf argues for different numbers, not necessarily lower ones. You missed it: Los Angeles and Virginas (which are SSNs, successors to the expensive Seawolf) have much higher numbers, so do the only SSBNs (and SSGNs, actually) in the USN inventory: the Ohio class. I agree the Prometheus probably had a long gestation period, but its original reg number infers this to be a decade or two long; I recall it getting an NCC number later somewhere in print. And I think the Defiant backstory is till sound given the events of the problematic Valiant.
I did miss Virginia (Merrimack?); the state name implies an FBM (see my whines about naming systems on the Miranda page), & I don't keep apprised like I used to. Seawolf smells like a political move, reminiscent of "great reconstruction" (USN; late 1880s?), with hints of the aircraft renumbering of 1962; could be Prometheus, Excelsior, and others were like moves.
My prob w Defiant isn't the back story; it's the aired Valiant story contradicting it. (If it does; as I think of it, she may've had a later registry #...)
(As a sidebar, I'm unaware of any SSGNs in USN service; Growler and her sisters were all diesels, SSGs. I won't disagree Tomahawk- and Harpoon-equipped 688s should be; USN sez SSN...) --trekphiler, 18/11/05

Re posting elsewhere: I started with a need to vent, and things got a bit out of hand; even the site editors are getting concerned. On a pure Trek site, this is less a problem. I'd copy most of this page whole, and certainly delete from here my most verbose posts (with the replies); I'd leave behind the most local-relevant. (As for E Pluribus Anthony, most of your gags I'd leave up, here. Let people enjoy them as much as I did!) I'll do the same on the ship pages, to include the related information. Anybody wants to edit, feel free. I await your pleasure. I'll mention the site (and let somebody better qualified than me hyperlink it) when I find it. --trekphiler, 17/11/05

Looks to me like Memory Alpha (already hotlinked somewhere here, which is how I found it...) is the ideal site to move this babel to. I've pulled some of my early comments; I await clearance codes from the responsibles to move the rest. --trekphiler

Hi there! While we really shouldn't be chatting at length like this on Wp article pages, I don't object to it: we have, after all, discussed Cue Ball and Co. We can do it on personal talk pages instead. And I don't necessarily intend to edit out humour (except for wholly inappropriate quips that may be perceived as 'hero trashing') but more to round out stated facts, like registry numbers, etc.; I'll get back to you. E Pluribus Anthony 16:00, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Hey again, I'm back. I've noticed no trashing, & I'm a rabid J-L fan. (I've mellowed, I suppose, from the days when Shat PO'd me with that "Get a life" gag on "SNL".) I sensed no malice. Leave 'em up. --trekphiler, 18/11/05

Agreed we're not too appropriate. Nor, I now note, is Memory Alpha; they're too unwelcoming (my first impulse was to say "narrow-minded"). I'm proposing to move all as noted to Trek BBS. If any Trekker reading this has a better idea, feel free to pre-empt me; I'd ask you copy all the related posts from Memory Alpha, too. I plan to. --trekphiler, 18/11/05

How did all the above spring from a discussion of stupid replicators? I can't see how hip numbers and replicators link up at all... WikiReaderer 00:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Episodes

I don't recall a transporter accident being involved in turning Picard, Guinan, et al. young in "Rascals". (I do recall the stupid invasion of Ferengi, and juvenile jumping on the bed, which threw away a magnificent opportunity to examine character relationships and reactions to their Captain being turned into a teen...)

An aside, talking of age. I get the impression Trek characters age much as we do. I would have presumed, given 24h Century medical tech, Picard was over 100--yet McCoy's 137 was noted as unusual. --trekphiler, 16/11/05

Yes: the youthful conversion to Picard, Kiki, et al. did take place. As for age, I'd imagine at that time the average age exceeds 100, but perhaps not much beyond that. Remember: Picard is still bald in the 24th century. Perhaps he likes that shiny look, and an aged McCoy that ... bifurcated look in his senescence. ;) E Pluribus Anthony 08:47, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
No argument it took place; I recall a shuttle and a temporal anomaly, not a transporter accident. I wasn't clear, I guess.
As for baldness, I'd guess it's genetic, and after the Eugenics Wars, probably tampering to fix it isn't on. Perhaps there was radiation exposure, or some exotic disease, that makes surgical fixes impossible. --trekphiler, 16/11/05
Yeah, or maybe he just likes having perfect albedo. :) E Pluribus Anthony 09:17, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Works for me... --trekphiler

Okay, somebody made a mistake. (I'd bet it's my memory...) The Enterprise page calls her Constitution-class; I recall her Constellation -class (which would explain the "Galaxy" nonsense, by ignorant writers who don't know Connie was a ship...) So? --trekphiler, 16/11/05

Starship class in original series; Constitution class later and in TNG. I read somewhere that, in the ep where Picard is returned the Stargazer, La Forge originally said Constitution, but they dubbed in a new class name for that (markedly different) vessel. E Pluribus Anthony 15:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
I spotted that, too; the Miranda page, I think, referring to Stargazer (obviously not the same as NCC-1701, so requiring redubbing). I had the sense "Starship" class was more in the way of "battleship" or "cruiser" than a class name, which is what I was getting at. (I confess I'd forgotten; I always think of 1701 as a Constitution.) --trekphiler, 16/11/05
I think your battleship/Starship comparison may be valid. Also remember: the Stargazer is a Constellation class ship (dubbed by La Forge, who referred to it as Constitution), Reliant/kubla Khan in ST:II a Miranda class vessel. E Pluribus Anthony 22:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Correction noted and logged. I was a bit groggy, I think. Keeping things straight when the names are so capricious, & I couldn't, underlines why navies use naming systems, I think... --trekphiler, 17/11/05
Re: Rascals - Pretty sure there was an anomaly in play, but also pretty sure they were down-aged due to the attempt to beam them off the shuttle (O'Brien notes a 40% (or so) drop in mass during the transport and that he may have lost one of the members) TheHYPO 22:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Spelling, oops, sorry!

I'm drafting a revision for Bowdoin College, which boasts Pickard Theater - my edits on "Jean-Luc Pickard" didn't even seem odd to me! Apologies.--TurabianNights 18:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

No worries. Mistakes happen. You are forgiven.  :-) -- CALQL8 18:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] where is he in the other star trek series?

Is he even metetioned in deep space 9 and vogayer? I Mean he was an important captain but dose not appear in those 2 series. But he was doing the films so he was around.

I believe that Worf mentions him in DS9 but I am unsure

He was mentioned several times in DS9; keep in mind that TNG and DS9 ran concurrently for a couple seasons. The Enterprise docked at DS9 in DS9's series premiere, "Emissary", and Picard briefed Sisko on his new assignment (he was also featured in flashbacks as Locutus). He is mentioned several other times; one time that comes to mind is when Sisko punches Q ("Picard never hit me!"). Also, in the two-part TNG episode "Birthright", the Enterprise visits DS9 and Picard and Dr. Crusher stroll along the promenade. I cannot recall if Picard is mentioned much in Voyager; keep in mind that that series took place later and in a different part of the galaxy. I'm sure he's mentioned a couple times but I can't think of instances offhand. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Just a guess, I imagine he's mentioned by Q and/or in some Borg-related context. Just a guess. --EEMeltonIV 22:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, he finally comes face to face with Kathryn Janeway (Captain of the Voyager) in the feature film Nemesis. And I'm quite sure he was mentioned a few times in Voyager. --84.86.23.99 12:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

If he was mentioned too many times, it wouldn't seem realistic considering the number of other ships and captains in the fleet. Why would he get specialist acknowledgement? Marky1981 14:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, just to play devil's advocate, he is the caption of the flagship. That right there is a perfectly valid reason for special acknowledgment. That said, I would imagine that most characters have better things to do than sit around and talk about Picard. EVula 16:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Main character?

In the introduction, Picard is said to be 'the main character' of TNG. This is, as far as I'm concerned, totally incorrect. There is no protagonist of TNG. In fact, there is no protagonist in any Star Trek series. The crew of the Enterprise are the main characters of TNG, even if one or more characters are the focus of each episode.

I'm going to delete the sentence that says that Picard is the main character of TNG.

[edit] Enhanced or Better Than Nomral Hearing

In Star Trek: Nemesis, Picard is able to detect a misalignment of the Enterprise-E's torqe sensors. Goerdi asks him how he could hear the torqe sensors. We also learned that Picard suffers from Shalaft's Syndrome whiched caused hypersensitive hearing. Could it be assumed that although the disorder was treated, it lead to him still having "better than" normal hearing?

No. First, Picard hears the torque thing in Insurrection; his improved hearing is attributable to the de-aging business going on. More importantly, the operative word in your question is "assumed", which is problematic for Wikipedia. Why not assume he has a hearing aid? Or that Geordi is hard of hearing? etc. --EEMeltonIV 13:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
That's not entirly correct either. In Insurrection, after Geordi said that the torque sensors were out of alignment by 10 microns, Captain Picard says that when he was an ensign, he could detect a 3 micron misalignment. Later, in Nemesis, Shinzon says that after he was treated for Shalaft's Shyndrome, he could hear as well as Picard could. Both of these scenes seem to indicate that Picard has better than average hearing at least or enhanced hearing at best. I am not sure what the torque sensors are, nor how a 10 micron misalignment would sound, but Geordi's and Perim's reaction seem to indicate that hearing such a misalignment is very uncommon. Hope this helps. ----Willie 08:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
"Torque Sensor Misalignment Detection" just reeks of technobabble and an overly complicated way of the writers to hint at Picard's de-aging. Stop clutching at straws here, people.143.92.1.40 (talk) 03:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Origin of name

Does anyone know if Picard was named after the 17th c. astronomer Jean Picard, or if it's a coincidence? Daibhid C 21:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The only reference I've ever found as an origin for the character's name was in the Star Trek Encyclopedia years ago, and that was merely speculation. Roddenberry supposedly named Picard after the famous Piccard (two c's) family of record-breaking explorers and scientists, particularly the balloonist Jean-Felix Piccard. There have been numerous hints that the character is a 24th century decendant of this family. Serendipodous 12:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm fairly certain that the first edition of the TNG Companion backs up Serendipodous's assertion (and also talks about the origin of Guinan's name). Don't remember, though, whether it cites interviews or papers or whether it just points out the happy coincidence. --EEMeltonIV 16:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Milestones

The milestones segment mentions an episode "Who watches the watchers?" where Picard espouses atheism, but any attempt to add him to the under-populated "fictional atheists" category meets with deletion. Therefore, someone should either delete that from the milestones or he should be added permanently to the list.

[edit] Quotes Section

This was deleted some time ago, and I think deserves reinstatement. Patrick Stewart is an actor of shakespearian schools. Famous quotes are his bread and butter, and I think what endears him to a large portion of the Star Trek fans despite his series not being "the original"

Perhaps we can agree on an upper limit (4 from the series, 1 from the movie) and try to keep the number in that frame for this article? I think there's really no better way to describe the star trek universe for casual readers than in quotes. Not to make this post a "best of" list, but try this on for size:

Picard: "We are what we are, and we're doing the best we can" -- stating the essential creed of the United Federation of Planets. Liu Bei 03:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

According to Darkmateria's website, the Picard Song was released in 2001, fixed

[edit] Pronunciation?

Does the character of Picard produce the word lieutenant the American way (Lu-tenant) or the Britsh way (Leff-tenant)? I'm confused because the actor is British, but the character is French.

I'm a bit picky in my old age so I corrected your spelling of pronunciation. Anyway to the best of my memory he always pronounced it the American way (instead of the proper way!! ducks for cover!) which would also be appropriate for a Frenchman but I always found it particularly grating in a British accent. AulaTPN 21:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Main Picture

This is an extremely unflattering picture of Picard, and it also has the gray uniform from the movies rather than the red one from the show, where he was most well-known. Surely someone can find a better picture than this? I would add one, but I usually end up violating copyright rules somehow, so I just leave it to people more skilled than me. Mnpeter 04:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree - There was a good image of him in the red uniform sitting on the bridge of the Enterprise-D, I suggest we revert it back, it was a much better looking image. Ejfetters 06:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ensign Picard

Who is playing Ensign Picard in the picture presented in the article? JIP | Talk 19:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia

The trivia section seems to contain no material that contributes to the article in an encyclopedic matter, that is, nothing you would find in a encyclopedia about the character. I propose eliminating this section to help clean up the article, as it is supposed to be an encylopedic article. Also, none of this information is found in the Star Trek encyclopedia, so I don't think it should be here either. Ejfetters 07:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image placement debate

It was suggested previously, and there was only 1 response to the suggestion, in agreement with the proposer, that the image in the infobox be changed to a better image of the subject from the more noteable television series that he was in for 7 seasons. After the change another user commented on the image at my talk page, so I will bring the discussion here as should be done, as discussions for the page should be in the page's discussion. So, the question is, Captain Picard came to be known in ST:TNG, where the character was created and came to be notable in popular culture. Because of the success of the television show, 4 feature films were spun off from the television series. Images of several ST:TOS and ST:TNG have images from there notable roles in the television series. I propose that the image in the lead off infobox for the character be one from the television series. An image of the character from his film roles can be inserted where the films are discussed in the article. This will also suit the flow of the article's timeline better. I propose both images of Captain Picard remain, though the image in the infobox be in the red uniform from TNG. Furthermore, if someone has more knowledege of image editing, could you please edit both images so the conform to fair-use screenshot standards on resolution and size. If it is needed I can look this policy up and list it here, or to any user who requests it. Thank you.
Begin voting below
Agree for the reasons stated above. Ejfetters 00:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Furthermore, this subject has been listed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Star Trek to draw attention of more users, because it was noted on my talk page that I was the only other user, besides the initial topic starter that commented on it. Ejfetters 00:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree that the infobox image should be from the TV series. Furthermore, I doubt any shots solely of Picard in the film elsewhere in the article would qualify as fairuse, since visually he doesn't change all that much; the image wouldn't meet the criteria of substantially aiding in readers' understanding of the subject. --EEMeltonIV 01:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
    • You're probably right about fairuse for the images. We should leave them both for now until this consensus runs its courses though, don't you think? Ejfetters 02:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - clearer, more dynamic shot of him in the one that has been there.

[edit] Ejfetters reversion of the image

Ejfetters, please stop reverting the image on this page. You've already made it look like there was a big discussion on the subject in your first edit summary where you revert it, when there wasn't. One user had made a comment and that was it. Just because you two don't like the image doesn't mean it gets voted out. It was NOT adequately voted out, so it stays until it HAS been voted out with a consesus that's done correctly. One person going on a talk page and stating an opinion about the image looking unflattering, followed by your saying 'agreed', does not count as a consesus or a discussion. There's a specific way to go about trying to remove something that's controversial, and you've been doing it incorrectly and continually adding your image. Further, if you thought a consesus had been reached and the discussion is closed, you are supposed to make that known, which also don't know how to do it correctly. Please see [[1]]. For these reasons, I am reverting back the image back. For the record, I oppose the change. However, it's not important until you request removal in the correct fashion where everyone is aware that you are requesting removal by the title. Not main picture as your title. Tratare 01:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

  • User initiated discussion per Wikipedia:Consensus on talk page, I responded, and waited 2 months to see if others would comment. Never implied there was a huge discussion, pointed out discussion in edit summary so users could see why the change was made. Now there is another discussion per the current revision that I made. Please wait till the consensus has gone through its process before editing again. Please add to the discussion above - as per the policy quoting:
  • Note on use of discussion page

While the consensus process does not require posting to the discussion page, it can be useful. Edit summaries are short and can be misinterpreted. Discussing your edit may help it attract consensus. Posting a comment before editing is the best way to avoid misunderstandings. If you are unsure about an edit someone has made, wait a reasonable amount of time to allow them to post a comment. Also, when considering edits, be sure to check the discussion page to see if there are any open or closed discussions on the area you were about to edit. But once you have checked and contributed to the discussion, don't be too timid, BE BOLD. Thank you for your cooperation and good faith edits. Ejfetters 01:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

    • Here is the above discussion the user is referring to for anyone's interest. Notice I made the comment on July 31 2007, but waited over 2 months before making the change:
  • Main Picture

This is an extremely unflattering picture of Picard, and it also has the gray uniform from the movies rather than the red one from the show, where he was most well-known. Surely someone can find a better picture than this? I would add one, but I usually end up violating copyright rules somehow, so I just leave it to people more skilled than me. Mnpeter 04:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree - There was a good image of him in the red uniform sitting on the bridge of the Enterprise-D, I suggest we revert it back, it was a much better looking image. Ejfetters 06:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC) Ejfetters 01:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


Howdy, I've protected the article. Let someone know when a consensus is reached. Best regards, Navou banter 02:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

    • Please look at the article further, no images have been removed, they have only be moved around. The original image is in the article still, so that way it won't get speedily deleted. Ejfetters 03:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Can anyone tell me in a nutshell, are there any unfair use issues with any of the images in question? ShutterBugTrekker 22:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • No, there is no real issues about the images being non-free use. The character is a fictional televsion/film character, therefore, there cannot be any free use images, so proper use of fair use (non-free) is permitted. Only thing that is being contested is the placement of the images. Three users have agreed now (including one in an earlier conversation) the infobox image should be from the more notable role in the television series, where the character came to be and became very popular. The movies were spun off from the TV show because of the populartiy. Therefore I myself, along with 2 others above think the infobox pic should be from TNG-era. Furthermore, as another user has commented, the pic of Picard from the film series is questionable in his opinion, and I think it can be solved if we can come up with a more panoramic view per say, of Picard in command of the Enterprise-E and a critical moment in a film, that is talked about in the article per say, then it should fit. No one has proposed removing or deleting either images, they haven't been nominated, just placement of the images is up for debate, please, feel free to comment in the discussion above, and if you find better images feel free to upload them, as long as you cite the source, and give FU rationale, and they meet criteria set forth. We can't have clearer original versions of the images, they must be scaled down per fair-use criteria, that is why they might appear lesser quality than you may find. Ejfetters 00:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Triavia / pop culture section?

Should there be a 'references in popular culture', or trivia section? I'm thinking here of referring to the dual meaning of the 'Picard Manuever', also the Picard Song.

WikiReaderer 00:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Trivia sections are frowned upon, and relevant information should be integrated into the proper place in the article. If the article ever is to achieve good article or featured article it needs to have primarily real-world info, i.e. casting, character development (writing), critical commentary, reception, etc. There was a trivia section here but it was proposed to be removed, and there were no objections so it was removed, as has been done throughout Wikipedia. If you want to add relevant information, try to integrate it into the article in it's proper place. It should be noted that the article's condition right now has too much in-universe information, and much should be condensed and the real-world information greatly expanded. Ejfetters 04:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] In-universe

Tagged as in-universe because there is no information about casting, development, merchandising, critical reaction, or coverage by outside third-party sources. All of this is implied by the presence of the in-universe tag in general, which provides a link to the fiction-writing guidelines, but User:Anton Mravcek‎ apparently wants this spelled out on talk pages -- which is not a requirement for posting the tag, despite what the editor's edit summaries imply. Well, here it is. Trimming of plot summary is appreciated, but what's left is still...plot summary. --EEMeltonIV 04:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

That way we know you actually know what you're talking about, lets us know that maybe you aren't tagging stuff just for the heck of it. It's so easy to tag stuff. To actually do something about it, that's not so easy. Plinth molecular gathered 22:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I totally agree. It's almost an epidemic here in Wikipedia: "Why should I do it? Somebody else will do it." But no one is stepping up to the plate to be that somebody else. The article already has one warning tag. Let people deal with that before deluging them with all the tags you can think of which barely apply. I'm reminded here of a technique lawyers sometimes use: they deluge opposing counsel with document production so that the relevant data will become a needle in a haystack. Robert Happelberg 02:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
If an article both is in-universe and requires citations, then it should be tagged as such. "It already has a tag" is not a compelling reason to delete another. Again, I don't understand why people view these tags as somehow detracting from the article; again, the point is to attract more-knowledgeable users' attention. --EEMeltonIV 02:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Any jerk can put on a tag. It takes slightly more skill to explain it on the talk page so others understand that one has actually read the article and has assessed the tag correctly, and not simply put it on out of a whim. But what really takes leadership is to show how to fix the problem. To take a single article and fix it up, and say to others: "I am now part of the solution, I am showing the way to fix these." Michiganotaku 20:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Please maintain a civil tone and assume good faith. I've read the article, and in fact spent a long time months ago editing it. I'm also familiar with the WP:WAF guidelines, and this article simply doesn't meet them. If I had the resources to provide a real-world perspective to the article, I'd do it -- same as I've done with plenty of other articles about fictional topics -- but I don't. So, I've tagged it hoping that someone notices and offers their own two cents. --EEMeltonIV 20:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Just my two cents' worth: I think the word "jerk" is just right for anyone who keeps complaining even after others bend over backwards trying to satisfy the plaintiff. Even if it isn't, Michiganotaku has been a lot more civil than the minimum expectation. As for Cromulent Kwyjibo, it's not at all surprising to me that a Simpsons fan would show up here and show Trek fans how it's done. Another Slappywag Among Petorians 23:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, I don't particularly care about whatever epithets you want to fling. I'm glad that people have added more real-world content to the article rather than simply removed the tag because they have an uninformed notion that a maintenance tag is some sort of blemish. Whether these additions stem from the flag's presence or the spat about whether it should be there in the first place -- I don't really care about that, either. Still, it continues to mostly be, and to focus on, plot summary. Plot summary and an in-universe structure are what Memory Alpha is for. I hope the same people who've done the research and have the resources to provide more real-world info continue to add more to these others. For my own part, I'll start cutting more plot summary from this plot-summary-heavy article. --EEMeltonIV 04:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Maybe you can read an entire paragraph at a time. But think about those who read only one letter at a time. Before their minds can determine the precise flaw of the article, the shrill yellow tag nonverbally tells them: "There is something fatally wrong with this article and you shouldn't rely on it for any purpose." The next message as their minds decode the top of the tag might be: "These people don't know what they're talking about. Let me check EB instead."
Also I'd like to respond to something you said in an edit summary: "people adding tags do not have the onus of finding sources for the article." No, they don't, but they do have the onus of showing they're not lazy jerks who simply like putting tags on stuff, they have the onus of showing that they think there might be a way of improving the article. Otherwise they'd better either nominate the article for deletion or just plain shut up. Anton Mravcek 20:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Livingston

Should this article contain a sub-section about Picard's fish. I am not sure there is enough "out-of-universe" information or RS, but I just followed a See Also link to here and I am not sure how appropriate the link is under that heading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ursasapien (talk • contribs) 07:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Picard Song

If The Picard Song is going to redirect here instead of being its own page or a page which collects and describes viral media, there should be content here. Towards that end, I put together a short section regarding it and sourced it appropriately. If you can expand it or split it off to its own page, great. I kind of doubt that there's enough information or notability for it to justify its own page, though. There does seem to be more than enough notability for it to merit a mention, though. EvilCouch 02:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Information about "The Picard Song" should go on the YTMND article. Even though it was/is a popular internet meme it does not provide any valuable information about the character Jean-Luc Picard. I'll move this information if I do not see any objections to doing so. Gh5046 (talk) 11:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't know about it not providing "any valuable information". That a very popular meme was based off of him demonstrates that the character has had a notable influence on popular culture. I'm not totally opposed to the content being moved; I just think that it's a better fit here. Rather than moving it, I'd like to propose to expand the section, not with more information about the song, but about other notable influence the character's had. I don't mean that I'd like to see an actual trivia section, as those invariably lead to ridiculous cruft about one-second cameo/parodies; just the highlights.(i.e. novels that center solely on him, notable pop culture references, etc.) EvilCouch (talk) 02:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a Lyric sheet to the song, but it is more than just mere lyrics; it also sources the episodes that the picard sound bytes are taken from, is that of use to anyone or anyplace on wikipedia? Zulto (talk) 02:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It's probably not notable enough for an explicit mention in the article's text, however it could definitely be used as a reference for the fact that it used Star Trek samples. EvilCouch (talk) 02:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
The lyrics make reference to [TNG:219 'The First Duty'] [TNG:104 'Code of Honour'] [TNG:251 'Timescape'] [TNG:113 'The Big Goodbye'] [TNG:172 'Ménage à Troi'] [TNG:202 'Darmok'] [TNG:175-175 'Best of Both Worlds pt.1&2'] and [TNG:237 'Chain of Command'] So in effect the song is a pretty epic piece of work. Zulto (talk) 03:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation of "Luc"

I have always thought it was funny how everyone, including Picard himself, pronounced the "Luc" part of his name. Pronounced as English speakers would pronounce it (based on their closest approximation of the French pronunciation), not as French speakers would. The correct pronunciation of the "u" in French is not a sound that is available in English. Of course, this could always be "explained" by saying that so many years in the future, the French pronunciation itself has changed, but still... 67.8.55.66 (talk) 15:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced statement on Locutus

In the section about Locutus, the article currently reads, "His name, Locutus is a clever nod to the Roman professional poisoner Locusta who is suspected of many deaths, including the Emperor Claudius, which ultimately resulted in the ascendency of Nero to Emperor and the historical burning of Rome." Where is this from? Because it seems to me that the name is much more likely to be derived from "locution," which is 1) A particular word, phrase, or expression, especially one that is used by a particular person or group and 2) Style of speaking; phraseology. Essentially, a "locutus" would be a person used by a particular person or group to speak for them, hence the name. This explanation seems to make much more sense in the context of Picard's relationship to the Borg than the current one does. While there isn't a source for this either, as far as I know, it is a reasonable alternative to the current unsourced explanation, which should probably be removed without a citation. Thoughts? Newsboy85 (talk) 05:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)