Talk:Data (Star Trek)/Archive 1

Insipiration
sections on "inspiration" and "spiner on data" are far too short, too much fancrufty "data's lifestory" stuff. need to focus more on the character as a fiction.
 * I don't see very much fancruft, and it may not be possible to put more information into those sections without hardcore research, but nothing's stopping you. Just have sources. - Defunctzombie 03:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Data alive?
I don't think Data is dead. In science fiction, you can write pretty much anything, and perhaps lets say Kivas Fajo,who stole him in "The Most Toys" is back to his old tricks and has been stalking Data through a locator chip. He has pulled him out of the Nemisis explosion in time but Data cannot remember who he is so is unable to contemplate an escape. B-4 later finds him on shoreleave in an alien bar being shown off and contacts Picard. Fajo later in a twist ends up in a cage as an exhibit by an insect race who have never seen humanoids. nice? email me at                               rdhotz@webtv.net
 * In all fiction there is generally a possiblity to resurrect any character. Science fiction perhaps has a bit more leeway but then it also depends on the type of science fiction and the author/story type. Hard science fiction for example is much less likely to have wacky explainations for obvious reasons. Star Trek of course doesn't fall into this category and I don't think it'll surprise anyone if data is brought back 203.109.240.93 12:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Data Userbox
I made this userbox for me and for people whos favorite character is the loveable android Data...



HasBeenCorrected 06:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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


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


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


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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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


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


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

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

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


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


 * There should probably be a whole Article explaining why the Starfleet insists on American pronunciation. Of course we know that the real reason is because it's an American show, but there is something to be said for a less icky explanation. Especially the pronunciation of lieutenant.  Perhaps Starfleet lieutenants are "LOO-tenants" because Starfleet comes from an old Earth Navy background, and in fact today, the US Navy and Royal Australian Navy pronounce it LOO-tenant (though in the other Australian armed forces, it's LEF-tenant). Even the (British) Royal Navy pronounces it L'tenant, so it was settled by simple majority?  Also, though I personally prefer LEF-tenant (LOO-tenant sounds like someone in charge of the toilet to a Commonwealth English speaker!) the LEF-tenant pronunciation seems to lose it's meaning in Starfleet, where the lieutenant is seated on the bridge at the Captain's right-front, rather than the traditional left-rear position of a LEF-tenant of the Royal Navy.  Sinewalker 05:10, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * "Leftenant" is not from "left". The OED puts it best:
 * The origin of the {beta}type of forms (which survives in the usual British pronunciation, though the spelling represents the {alpha}type) is difficult to explain. The hypothesis of a mere misinterpretation of the graphic form (u read as v), at first sight plausible, does not accord with the facts. In view of the rare OF. form luef for lieu (with which cf. esp. the 15th c. Sc. forms luf-, lufftenand above) it seems likely that the labial glide at the end of OF. lieu as the first element of a compound was sometimes apprehended by Englishmen as a v or f. Possibly some of the forms may be due to association with LEAVE n.1 or LIEF a.
 * In 1793 Walker gives the actual pronunciations as (l{ope}v-, l{shti}v{sm}t{ope}n{schwa}nt), but expresses the hope that ‘the regular sound, lewtenant’ will in time become current. In England this pronunciation (lju{lm}{sm}t{ope}n{schwa}nt) is almost unknown. A newspaper quot. of 1893 in Funk's Standard Dictionary says that (l{ope}f{sm}t{ope}n{schwa}nt) is in the U.S. ‘almost confined to the retired list of the navy’.
 * --24.98.105.197 18:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

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


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

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

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

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

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

_____ Short answer: yes.

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


 * Did I miss something? I always thought it was Bashir.  --squadfifteen, 15/11/05
 * It is Bashir. And just to clarify, the episode where Julian remarks on Data's pulse and hair growth is the TNG "Birthright, part 1". This is the same episode where Data has his first dream. Defunctzombie 04:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

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


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

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

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

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

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


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


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


 * Whatyathink? :)


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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


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


 * The position of First Officer aboard the Enterprise was currently filled. How to justify the demotion of Riker?
 * Promotion to a commanding rank would require more than just X year's experience and exemplary service records. Data was an evolving entity, still unsure of himself.  Though the ability to "turn off" his emotions at will is admitadly a considerable advantage, through it and other behaviour, he lacked a certain "human" element of command.  Prejudice?  Probably, yes.  But when you are considering a senior command possition, probably these judgements are very prejudice by nature.
 * For instance, Commander Worf was promoted to First Officer of the Defiant, and then later came back to Enterprise as Tactial Officer after a brief stint as Federation ambassador to Qo'noS. He never made Captain, and his office on the Defiant could easily be argued on tactical grounds. Why was Worf not First Officer aboard Enterprise?  Prejudice? Because Riker was already there? Or was Worf found unsuited to the task in a non-combat mission?
 * Worf's lack of promotion came as a result of the episode "Change of Heart". He disobeyed direct orders to extract a cardassian operative to save Jazia, who was injured on the mission.  The result was the death of the operative, which was a huge loss to the Federation, and thus Worf was reprimanded by having it noted in his file that he would never promoted within Starfleet, and he and Dax would never be on the same mission again.  Thus, he can't really be compared to Data, since there are different circumstances regarding his promotions.


 * Where would Data be stationed? His promotion to First Officer would necessarily take him away from the Enterprise.  I can easily see how neither the Captain, nor Data himself, would like that situation.  Data's operational lifespan was undefined, but I feel Data would have had the patience to wait for a commanding role on his own starship, so long as Picard lived.  Data's own action at the end of his life would support this view.




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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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


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

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

Male?
Why is Data said to be male? He is an android...
 * Because he's technically "equipped" to be male, as the whole makin'-it-with-Yar thing apparently proved. His daughter Lal was also female after being converted from her prototypical android form, which was seen first - THAT form was androgynous (i.e. sexless).  Even without (ahem) 'equipment', his appearance and generally masculine voice would suggest male secondary sexual characteristics, so there's really not any room left for interpretation as to his gender, whether biological or mechanical.   TKarrde 23:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Add to that the fact that the other characters refer to him with masculine pronounces like "he" and "his", rather than "it" and "its". Regardless of whether or not you want to debate philosophically about which "human" terminology should and shouldn't be used in reference to the character, it's obvious that in that time, on that ship, he's considered to be male for any necessary purposes. - Ugliness Man 14:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe he was intended to be male, modeled after a younger Noonien Soong. I believe they first mention this during the episode "Datalore", I seem to recall someone saying he was modeled after the doctor in his youth. I may not be correct, so take it with a grain of sodium chloride. ;) --Defunctzombie 00:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

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


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

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

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

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


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


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

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


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

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


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


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


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


 * From WP:MOS-L:


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


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


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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

Data's ability to kill in cold blood
From the article:


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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Good luck!


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


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

Contractions
Is it true that Data cannot use contractions? Is this something that was more important in earlier episodes than later episodes? 151.203.178.253 00:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC) John1728
 * Yeah it's true. I was watching the other day (and for the life of me I can't remember the name of the episode) but it is the one where Riker is tricked by Romulans in their hologram room into believing that his memory essentially erased a large part of his life.  Data using the word "can't" was one of the tipping points at him discovering the deception. --Torourkeus 22:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Future Imperfect. It also comes up in The Offspring. &mdash;ptk⁂fgs 00:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Spot needs to be mentioned in the Relationships section
The section on Data's relationships shows a picture of spot, but does not talk about Spot. Does Spot have her own article? (We know Spot is female as she had a litter in the seven season.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Will Pittenger (talk • contribs)
 * Indeed, there is Spot (Star Trek). --Fang Aili talk 18:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

"Father" vs Father
This article mentions Data's family several times, in some places using scare quotes to indicate that he is (clearly) not biologically related to Dr. Soong, Lore, etc. Other times, there are no quotation marks. This ought to be consistent throughout - which should it be? I say don't use them, but that's just my take on what looks right to me. 149.43.x.x 05:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Standpoint with the Borg
In The Best of Both Worlds, Picard as Locutus looks over Data and comments that he is a "...primitive artificial lifeform...". However, in Descent, Lore states that the Borg regard himself and Data as "perfect" lifeforms. Seeing as the Borg wish to become the most advanced creatures both technologically and physically (Star Trek First Contact), Data and Lore could be viewed as analogous to Species 8472, the apex of their type of organism. Rajrajmarley 22:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * just a nitpick but Data and Lore arent Organisms but nice point71.131.12.205 05:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems clear to me that "type of organism" refers to Species 8472, not Data and Lore. Furthermore, based on precident set in Starfleet rulings, Data (and consequently Lore as well) is a life form, and has enough complexity as a life form to be considered an organism, in as much as it makes sense being fiction and all. Cheeser1 07:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I intended for the word "organism" to refer to Species 8472 and then use that analogy for Data and Lore. I agree with Cheeser 1 in that Data (and consequently Lore) have been classified as sentient life-forms, whether or not that is the same as an organism, I can't say.(The Measure of a Man). Rajrajmarley 10:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay awesome I get it now the their type through me off and I also agree that data and lore have been classified sentient life forms just not the organisms part but I am no expert. Anyways I get it now I was just a bit thrown by the phrasing and now I'm gonna shut up before I make myself sound stupider (too late) 71.131.12.205 19:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge Spot into this article
The cat doesn't have any real-world significance. It would probably be more appropriate to put the cat, briefly, in this article. Thoughts? --EEMeltonIV 10:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * To suggest such a thing is outrageous. To do that would be to diminish the pivotal role Spot played in TNG. I have made my conclusion: Spot stays with his own section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.143.11.55 (talk • contribs)


 * Spot did not play a pivotal role. The cat only appeared in very few episodes, and was important to even fewer. --Cheeser1 14:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

People don't randomly look up "Spot". People could learn about Spot if it was in the Data section, because more of a percentage will be looking up "Data" or "Commander Data". I am a fan of Star Trek, but I've never heard of TNG. Few Women Admit their Age, Fewer Men Act It Erin


 * This is true. The article on Spot could easily be merged here without losing anything important. Although, for the record, I can't imagine anyone who is "a fan of Star Trek" but has "never heard of TNG." Are you being serious here? --Cheeser1 14:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * TNG is "The Next Generation" but a lot of people miss this, I personally need to be reminded of it everytime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayyash (talk • contribs) 08:53, August 24, 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree I am a fan of Star Trek and I don't believe that Spot should have her own article, makes no sense, characters like Keiko O'Brien don't even have their own article, but a cat does!? It should be merged into Data's article.  And if anyone were to look up spot, just make it redirect to Data's page then, and that will solve that issue. Ejfetters 07:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree I think that since Spot is Data's pet, Spot should be merged in. ☻wilted☻rose☻dying☻rose☻ 21:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The consensus seems to be unanimous and the move seems exceedingly sensible. I've gone ahead and integrated the content here, but perhaps not very well (mostly a copy-paste job). Feel free to make or discuss further changes, and by all means, feel free propose unmerging the articles, should it seem prudent. --Cheeser1 09:00, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Data and Sherlockholmes
There are two things not mentioned in this article but I think aught to be mentioned, and that is Data's relationship with Sherlockholmes on the holodeck, and his love to play that multiple layered chess. SHUT 08:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Pictures in the article
This article seems to have an over-abundance of pictures. Perhaps a few of them could be removed? SpinyMcSpleen 16:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Many of them can be removed - take a look at the history in William T. Riker and Jean-Luc Picard - they had this issue also, and it was resolved. Ejfetters 19:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

First "potty mouth"
This is incorrect as in one episode of The Next Generation, Captain Picard can eb heard uttering Merde which is the French word for shit.

Sexuality
Is it in the film or the television show in which we learn whether Data is bisexual or not? Moreover, such a fact might reveal some of the facts about the the nature vs. nurture argument occuring amongst the human species. -- Teetotaler 26 September, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.81.197 (talk) 07:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Death?
In the Spot section, Data's death is mentioned. Why wasn't it explained/explored in the main article?98.24.122.5 (talk) 03:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Fictional twin
Since Data and Lore are, in a sense, identical twins, doesn't Data count as a fictional twin? Smijes08 (talk) 01:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC) The Mario Bros. are the bomb!, 9:14, 22 September 2009 Smijes08 (talk) 01:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Education
How about a section on Data's education and professional positions. For instance I know he was at StarFleet Academy from the books, and was Lucasian Professor —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vk2tds (talk • contribs) 05:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Countdown comic
I've restored the infobox reference to Data being the 1701-E CO in the Countdown comics. (I believe the comic makes a passing explanation of how Data is somehow "restored.") A minor bit of licensed material, but licensed nevertheless. The Wikiproject page, and several talk-page discussions, clearly explain that Wikipedia's coverage is not limited to canon content. Hope this clears things up for the folks add/removing this bit of detail. --EEMIV (talk) 13:50, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That's insane. I don't question mentioning it somewhere, but having it in the infobox without directly saying "this is from a comic book" leaves the distinct impression with the reader that it was from an actual movie/episode.  Nowhere does the rest of the article mention comics or books.  If they're not mentioned in the article, then including them in the infobox makes no sense whatsoever. --B (talk) 13:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:SOFIXIT. --EEMIV (talk) 14:16, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, you're incorrect: it looks like the article has had for a while a reference to the Countdown comic and Data's position in it. --EEMIV (talk) 14:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed, the infobox now says inline that he was only first officer and captain in the comics and the ref gives further explanation for users who may need further information. That should resolve the issue of confusion and provide information about his non-canonical life.  (Technically, I suppose, all of his life was non-canonical since in the obscenity that came out last year, they hit a reset button and declared all of Star Trek never happened.) --B (talk) 14:26, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Rank?
Wasn't Data promoted to Commander after Riker get's married in Star Trek: Nemesis? Rlinfinity (talk) 21:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * No. --EEMIV (talk) 01:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Possible fixes
Hi all

Can I suggest a few changes ?

The Depiction section could be changed to "Life" or "Career" or some such title. THe Charateristics could be broken down into sub-sections such as "Character", "Abilities" and "Emotions" or some such titles. This would greatly improve the section and remove the potted lists aspect. The article is getting very confused as it seems there are a few repetitions of the same material and I think a lot could be moved from Depiction to Characteristics as these are separate things

It should be more like a BLP than as it is lol

Chaosdruid (talk) 04:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Ode to Spot author
In the "Spot" section on the page, the following phrase exists:
 * (The poem was actually written by Clay Dale, the visual effects artist)

There's no citation at all on this, and the text was added by an anon December 2006 to the "Spot (Star Trek)" page before it was pseudo-merged here. While this bit of information may be true, what is the source for this, and how has it lasted this long without anyone questioning it until now? -- 130.15.49.33 (talk) 20:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Portrayed By Dora The Explorer
So happy to have stumbled across whomever edited it... I rofl'd —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.62.165.160 (talk) 17:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Way too "in universe"
Not encyclopaedic at all. Overly fanboyish.129.139.1.69 (talk) 19:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Data's Storage and Speed presently surpassed
It may add context to compare Data's 800 quadrillion bits of storage and 60 trillion operations per second to today's modern computer systems. These number still surpass personal computers by about 1000 times in speed, and 50,000 times in storage capacity. However, todays server farms exceed the storage by perhaps 10-100 times and the fastest super computer (around 10.5 petaflops sustained as of November, 2011) is around 175 times faster. (Data does have about 500 times the storage capacity of this one supercomputer that's 175 times faster, The "K computer", SPARC64 VIIIfx 2.0GHz, Tofu interconnect) Gatortpk (talk) 05:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

It is interesting to note that both the storage and speed progression of personal computers at the time (~1990) would have reached Data's figures around the year 2020-2025. At present, it appears the personal computers will have the speed of Data around 2025 and storage capacity around 2030-2035. (Though this is highly speculative as current technologies that have been around for around 4 to 5 decades may not useful in those future dates. I'm referring to HDD and silicon based transistors in integrated circuits – CPUs)   Gatortpk (talk) 05:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Using Wikipedia as a citation source for Data's computational abilities
There is currently citation that points to another WP article to support the claim about Data's computational abilities. It is wrong to use WP as a source, and is clearly stated in WP:RS policy. Using a cite like this is against the current WP policy. And more, the cited link does not even mention anything about the claim. To properly cite the claim an WP:RS must be used, from an external site.

If you want to use the linked WP page as an informative link then you need to clearly state that it is mentioned that episode and not make it look like a reliable cite that confirms the claim.

Because of WP:3RR I won't risk undoing this wrong cite yet again, but I hope that you can understand that the reference is being used improperly and needs to be undone and replaced with a proper source for the claim.

And yes, I've seen the episode and it does make such a statements but that is nowhere near a reliable source by just saying I know it to be true. HumphreyW (talk) 02:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The fact in question is, as you acknowledge, taken straight from dialogue. As the IP editor(s) and I told you in the edit history, the episode itself serves as the reliable source. That's the whole point of WP:TVPLOT (and related MOS articles like WP:FILMPLOT; that's why the plot summary for, say, Star Wars does not need any citations). In such cases, when there is a citation and/or episode-article wikilink, they are to 1) state what episode serves as the source, and 2) as a convenient way for the curious to read about the episode. That's it. The article on the episode does not, and is not meant to, serve as the cite for anything. Ylee (talk) 05:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I am the person who made this citation. Ylee has already explained it in what I believe to be clear terms, but just to make sure no doubt remains: Wikipedia is not being used as a source here. The citation is of the episode itself - which is, in fact, the primary source of the material in question.  The included link to the Wikipedia article on that episode is merely convenience.  Incidentally, you may note that other citations on this page (and lots of other pages) are of this same form: Citations of the primary source, with convenient links to the Wikipedia article on the page. 69.118.138.104 (talk) 02:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

What is the problem here? This is like citing The Sorrows of Young Werther page 102 where the article does not support the cite but the book does (if you have the right edition :-)) Agathoclea (talk) 06:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

"Sentient" / "Self-Aware"
The New American Oxford Dictionary defines self-awareness as: "conscious knowledge of one's own character, feelings, motives, and desires." It defines sentient as: "able to perceive or feel things." Two recurring themes of the series were: 1) Data's knowledge of his existence and actions, and his reflection on these. 2) Data's quest for emotional experience. Data was therefore definitively self-aware, and he was striving for sentience (whether he ever achieved it, or always had it, is perhaps debatable). The writers (and therefore the in-universe characters) commonly confused the two terms, but that doesn't mean we should. Startswithj (talk) 23:24, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Should Mr. Data be listed as under every fictional scientific profession category?
Mr. Data clearly knows every aspects of how to operate the ship and deals with a wide variety of space and terrestrial phenomenon; I think he should he listed under every appropriate category, fictional chemist, physicist, painter, linguist, engineer, musician, geologist, meteorologist; I'm sure physically he's capable of martial arts but he never demonstrates that skill unlike multiple sciences. CensoredScribe (talk) 01:06, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No. Categories should only be the most relevant to the article.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 13:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Asimov/ Dick
"The episode "In Theory" traces Data's literary roots to Isaac Asimov's and Philip K. Dick's exploration of the nature of artificial intelligence and the nature of reality and humanity. The episode reflects the ideas created in such works as The Bicentennial Man and Asimov's Robot series (which introduced the Three Laws of Robotics)."

In what way does the episode reference Asimov and/ or Dick? Missing the reference for that. 95.91.186.16 (talk) 12:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Pebibytes? Why?
Data's storage capacity of "800 quadrillion bits" was converted only into pebibytes (PiB) instead of petabytes (PB), which is an infinitely easier conversion, more relevant, and more familiar to the majority of people. Since there are 8 bits in a byte, and 1 quadrillion bytes in a petabyte... it's easy enough to just convert to 100 PB. I didn't remove the original "88.81784197 PiB", but simply added petabytes.

Bzzzing (talk) 21:50, 15 April 2016 (UTC)