Talk:List of Star Trek characters

Who compiled this list?
B'Etor is a main character? Ayala is a main character?

What the heck?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.16.126.55 (talk) 00:02, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Split apart proposal
It has been proposed that this page be split apart, such as per series and movies.


 * Partially oppose. On the one hand it's nice to have one place that lists all the characters, and even as knowledgeable about Trek as I am, I do occasionally get characters from different series mixed up, and some of the characters have appeared in more than one series (most notably O'Brien and later Worf, but don't forget about Lwaxana Troi, Kang, etc.) On the other hand, this article has gotten very big and is starting to become unmanageable. What I propose is that we make sure all the information here is duplicated at the appropriate list of TOS chars, list of TNG chars, etc., then we whittle this list down to just name, series and (for recurring characters only) episodes appeared in. ShutterBugTrekker 23:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support as the article is large, but I agree with ShutterBugTrekker that splitting by series would not be a good idea for the reasons he mentioned. It would probably be better split alphabetically. Marky1981 20:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support per above. A 102-kilobyte list is far too large. An alphabetical split, with several letters per subarticle, would work. J I P  | Talk 17:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Remarks to copy to talk archive
Anton Mravcek did slightly more than copy the list of secondary and tertiary characters I had on my user page, but I don't know if he's aware that my list is incomplete. It lacks all the important recurring characters from Star Trek: Enterprise, and it's still missing characters from the previous series.

I don't know about the TOC, maybe this page should have the TOC hidden by default. ShutterBugTrekker 20:33, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

To link or not to link secondary characters?
I think we should only link main characters, important recurring characters and memorable one-episode principal guest stars (such as Edith Keeler in "City on the Edge of Forever", TOS). Minor characters that still get billing in the opening or ending credits should be listed here, but not linked. And characters cast by extras or only mentioned but not shown need not be listed here.

Also, some characters may need disambiguation, such as Sela, an important figure in the Holy Bible, and in Star Trek the daughter of Tasha Yar is at Sela (Star Trek). On the other hand. On the other hand, we need not append "(Star Trek)" to the title of every article on Star Trek characters, especially in the case of characters with fairly unique names, such as Lwaxana Troi. I for one would rather err on the side of not appending "(Star Trek)", and if there is an entity or concept with a stronger claim to the name then the Star Trek article can be moved. ShutterBugTrekker 20:33, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't think we should make articles for characters who only appeared in one episode. Robert Happelberg 22:00, 27 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I think we should decide which characters get their own pages based on how much important content we could write about them, not solely based on the number of episode they appear in. Take for example Edith Keeler as mentioned above: despite only appearing in one episode, she is an important character in that episode. Conversely, some 'background' characters that appear in many episodes may not warrant a separate article. I think a good overall guide would be to ask oneself "Can I write any more than 2-3 sentences about this character?" If the answer is no, a separate article is not worth it. Marky1981 15:34, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with the 2-3 sentences criteria. As it stands, some valuable content has been deleted to make way for redirects to the list, where little information is to be found. Commander 16:23, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * I have reverted the redirects for the characters with sufficient information to warrant keeping the page, and the rest I have left alone.
 * Duras doesn't warrant a separate article for the character, but this page already had links to two other Duras'. This should probably be cleaned up into a proper disambiguation page.
 * Also Ardra (Star Trek) doesn't need an article, however it contains good information to transfer to the one TNG episode in which this character appeared, "Devil's Due." It should be merged there. Commander 21:17, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * Redirects were made to this page from those minor articles because of an ongoing process at VfD. Minor Star Trek related articles kept getting put up for deletion, and although the deletion nominations were invariably defeated, consensus was almost always reached to merge the article in question with this page and redirect. So, to save VfD from being flooded, and since it was pretty clear what everyone thought should happen to these articles, i was bold and redirected them myself. I think the problem these articles face to general opinion is being "trek-cruft", showing systemic bias towards "young male entertainment", and the fact that Wikipedia isnt supposed to be just a list of all facts ever. Its true that some biographical information was lost when the redirects were made, but only biographical information that was considered "non-notable" by the majority. It was also mentioned at VfD that "we must remember Star Trek is a fictional universe" and some were unimpressed that it seemed as though there was a lower bar of notability in the fictional star trek universe than the real world.Jdcooper 17:43, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Tabulating characters
Hi

Just a thought: how about tabulating the list of characters to make it a bit like the List of Star Trek: TNG episodes? Here's one possible way of doing it...

Let me know what you think! Marky1981 21:51, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Too many columns. How about


 * &mdash;wwoods 22:27, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I think these kind of tables are the way to go for a lot of this stuff. I just added the nowrap as a bug since right now browsers wrap, like above, after spaces when it's not desired. Cburnett 22:08, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * I threw in my 2 cents worth on the trial table under A. Mine is the trial #1.  I like it because it removes more of the white space between names and description. Cburnett 22:16, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * Not had any protests so we might as well go with the trial #1 - only thing that concerns me is that it does take up a lot of vertical space! Marky1981 12:50, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll opt for more organization of tabular data for more vertical space. Cburnett 16:35, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

I think it's about time we got on with converting the lists to tables! Anyone sparing a few minutes, let's try to get them done! Randomly pick a letter and work on those characters - if there are a lot for that letter, it might be worth mentioning here which one(s) you are doing so no-one else starts the same letter! Other notes - stick to canon sources; if we don't have a pic of the character, put No pic, meaning we don't have a pic yet. Put Not seen on-screen if they have never been seen on-screen, so no-one tries to look for a screenshot! I will do a letter some point later on - let's go for it! Marky1981 17:14, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I was just looking at this article aftert going through WikiPoject Star Trek and thought that the no pic written where others have pictures is quite ugly. There must be a better way..perhaps no text at all..maybe some sort of Star Trek logo (ie: for Ardra use the picture [Image:Star Trek TNG title credit.jpg|50px] (not sure if that many fair-use images would be appropriate though)). See example below. In any case, I believe that there should either be a pic or nothing, no text.

Chuck 10:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Found an orphaned ST character page
"Random paging" and found Sonak. I don't know enough about Star Trek to know what to do with this. This article is very lonely and could use some TLC. Thank you. Soundguy99 02:58, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Not sure he deserves his own article, but I did a little formatting and added it to the list anyway. Robert Happelberg 23:50, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

List of Starfleet officers
There is a new article called "List of Starfleet officers" which should probably be incorporated with this page somehow. I suggested a merge, but the creator got rather upset and reverted the merge notice. Perhaps link the two together somehow. -Husnock 23:44, 18 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Perhaps these two articles should just cross-reference each other for now. ShutterBugTrekker 8 July 2005 21:45 (UTC)

Dr. Loews's mutants
The DS9 episode "Statistical Probabilities" introduces four genetically engineered individuals who unlike Bashir don't lead normal lives. They are Jack, Lauren, Patrick and Sarina. Is there a canon source establishing their last names? ShutterBugTrekker 8 July 2005 21:47 (UTC)
 * No, they were only listed by their first names, even production notes don't give a "trustable canon" name, except for Sarina, who is given the full name of Sarina Douglas in their second appearence. But any other last names found would be fanmade. - AJHalliwell 04:33, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll add Sarina Douglas to the list if she's not already there. ShutterBugTrekker 20:53, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Riker and Laforge Bios
I have noticed in all of the character bios for both Laforge and Riker they both attended and graduated from Starfleet Academy at the same time 2353-2357, yet their characters never seem to refer to the fact that they knew each other or even of each other at the Academy. In the episode The Tin Man Riker is talking to Laforge about an incident where some of his classmates were killed which seems to denote that they where not at the Academy at the same time. I saw for the first time that in some Star Trek novels there is mention that Riker and Laforge were freinds at the academy. I know this is a very small and trivial part of the Star Trek cannon.
 * There are 100s or 1000s of students at Starfleet Academy so they wouldn't likely know every other student in the same year. Did you know everyone at your school/college/university? I certainly didn't :) Marky1981 00:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Rank insignias.
It might be nicer to display characters rank insignia with caption. -- Cat out 23:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

TOS minor characters
I noticed that there is no section on minor/recurring characters in TOS, and as far as I could tell, no list of such characters on wikipedia at all. I think that a section here or a stand alone list would be usefull; especially as a merge target for characters that are not notable enough on there own but should be mentioned somewhere like Vincent DeSalle. I've thrown together a quick table in my userspace at User:Eluchil404/Test or permalink and would link comments before adding it to the page. Eluchil404 08:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Vincent DeSalle
Please merge relevant information from Vincent DeSalle, per Articles for deletion/Vincent DeSalle. Thanks. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-28 10:48Z 

Lo-fi images
If no one objects I shall add missing TNG character images. They are pretty lo-fi, tho, i have TNG in 512x384 video. It shouldn't be hard to update them with better, when such happen to apper. EdwardHades 20:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Why clean up?
I removed the clean up message because no reason was given here. The page looks neat as of today. If anything, clean up has already occurred and probably gone too far. As I remember this page, it was pretty close to being a fairly comprehensive and enlightening list. Robert Happelberg 15:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Deleted list of characters
Is there a particular reason why the alphabetical list of characters was deleted on 28 November 2006? Has it been moved elsewhere? Marky1981 20:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Articles_for_deletion/Alphabetical_List_of_Star_Trek_Characters --EEMeltonIV 21:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I didn't mean the separate "Alphabetical List of Star Trek Characters", but the list that was deleted from this article. Marky1981 21:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Images do not comply with fair use
I only checked a couple of these images but I suspect most or all of these images violate fair use because their image description page does not specify the rationale for their use on this page. Remember, EACH USE must have rationale &mdash; see Fair use rationale guideline. RedWolf 16:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I will continue removing images from this article unless someone provides the required rationale. RedWolf 22:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ishka.jpg
Image:Ishka.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Too bloody big
Folks,


 * You may wish to split the article up by series / movie, or some other division.
 * You may wish to cut down severely on some of the fictional biography for minor characters. Almost all of it is redundant with the episode articles in which they appear; because they only appear in a few episodes (maybe only one), there is not really much "coherent thread" worth preserving that is separate from the episodes.

My motivating example is Tomalak - [ this] is what it looked like before AfD. Perhaps this is not representative, in which case never mind.

Regards, --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 13:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I have done this for [ Sela], who was also named in the AfD. There was no active discussion on the talk page, archived discussion [ here]. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 20:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Sela
For the record, I oppose the merger of Sela. Any other thoughts? Robert Happelberg 23:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Nothing really to add beyond what I said in the previous section. Like the other article, this one describes a minor character by means of a collection of a few episode summaries. I felt it was reasonable to merge it as well, but it's not a strong feeling. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 15:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a crappy list already and I oppose adding anything other that citations and clean-up to it. However, I'd endorse the creation of a separate List of Star Trek: The Next Generation characters article akin to the decent List of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine characters. --EEMeltonIV 16:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * As it happens, I already did the merge, and Robert only reverted the redirect, which means I've already included here all the information that I intended to. The rest I felt was redundant. As for a separation, I've affixed a split-apart. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 16:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I oppose the merge but at this time express no opinion on crappiness or not of the list. ShutterBugTrekker 18:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Dept. Color Identification with Cast
In this revision, I added red, blue and gold to the rank column of the cast table. It seems appropriate to not only identify their rank but their department service color. Especially with the new movie coming out and this being such a major identifier as to the characters. No where else in wiki does this information appear. My changes were reverted once, so I improved them. In the event they are reverted again, I put this argument forth to general wiki consensus as to whether they should be kept and improved upon. Garish is in the eye of the beholder.--75.51.184.49 (talk) 23:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That is exactly the problem, the eye of the beholder. What you added looked simply garish and that wasn't just my opinion alone. If you want to mention the uniform colours, why not simply add a line instead of adding colours (for no apparent reason) in the information boxes. The pictures for the most part already indicate uniform colour.
 * As an aside, the yellow uniforms in TOS were actually a slightly green colour rather than plain yellow and Kirk sometimes wore a green uniform top to boot, so the colour scheme you decided upon is slightly out. Alastairward (talk) 23:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Once again an unsigned opinion that happens to use the same word: "garish" that you do Alastairward. Further, I did NOT decide upon the colour scheme as you incorrectly state. THe franchise has officially adopted the colour gold as the definitive colour used for all cases where the uniform appears, gold, greenish-gold or green. Until quite recently the original prints almost all registered the uniforms as gold in appearance. Why is it do you think that Paramount has issued the DVDs in the exact same shades of yellow, blue and red that I have chosen. The department colours are one of the defining aspects of the charaters and the series. But rather than argue your misguided, argumentative and elitist points, I would prefer to see how many more of the  wiki community who are willing to sign their opinions feel the same way as you. In any event I have tried to address the legitimate concerns expressed in thes objections and propose the following below: --75.51.184.49 (talk) 02:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Regular crew of the USS Enterprise NCC-1701 *department color: gold=command, blue=science, red=support


 * All very pretty, but if I am not mistaken, we are an encyclopedia, and not a coloring book. Color-coding selections is a fan preoccupation; it doesn't belong here. Feel free to discuss these sorts of sweeping changes before you make them, please, so as to achieve a consensus for doing so. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  03:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah another friendly wiki invitation. Do you so-called editors realize you are creating the very antagonism you claim is unwarranted? You make no valid arguments, you use inflammatory language to belittle and patronize other's opinions. And Wiki states to take bold actions, without necessarily discussing, since there was no previous discussion of coulour it seemed the idea had not come up. Nevertheless, I don't see how this is any different than this example, of which numerous such can be found all over wiki: List of Governors of Ohio, do the colors make it easier to see the groupings of party affiliations or are they merely garish distractions applicable only to in-universe politicians? Since Wiki is NOT a coloring book, none of these colour codings are necessary. I would view a different opinion about such entries as hypocritical.--75.51.184.49 (talk) 18:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * As I pointed out on yet another talk page, the Ohio governors list offers a key for what the colors mean, and what those colors represent actually matter to the real world. It's also a useful way of quickly gauging patterns in election outcomes. The color/department of fictional characters' fictional jobs is in-universe trivia. What you read as antagonist from other editors is probably more likely exasperation. --EEMIV (talk) 20:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * First, If I had included a key, you all would have still rejected it on the grounds of your second position. So why even bring it up? This is why I say there is an air of vindictive elitism here. Second, the colors used in that Ohio table are completely arbitrary, they don't relate to anything except the conceit that they are making the able easier to read. Really? They don't tell the reader any more information in the "real world" than a colorless chart and as some of your other editors have suggested make the table harder to read, especially on some browsers. Since you seem to tbe the only editor weighing in on this position, presently we must wait for some more unbiased opinions. However, based on your recent in-universe change, please explain why I shouldn't delete the rank column from these character tables Star Trek: The Original Series#Cast. Since this is clearly NOT the real world, these ranks have absolutely no meaning in the description of the characters, which already have suitable descriptions of their positions in the series. To additionally label a fictional character Lt. Commander is totally in-universe fan stuff. In the case of Spock, he is credited as Mr. Spock. He is described as the second in command and science officer. To additionally call him Lt. Commander, without understanding the command structure of the Enterprise, is superfluous fan-boy info, particularly when the character was rarely if ever referred to in that title.--75.51.184.49 (talk) 00:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Good idea. As a matter of fact, the entire crew of the Enterprise, as well as the ship itself, are entirely fictional and don't exist in real life, and are extremely unlikely to ever do so. Therefore, mentioning that Spock is the second in command and science officer of the Enterprise is entirely in-universe fanboy trivia, and therefore has no place on Wikipedia. J I P  | Talk 21:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Where are the Characters of the "Deep Space Nine" ?
I want to know where are the characters of the "Deep Space Nine" ? In the page has the actors/characters of other series and I missed that it hasn't the DS9 !!! Thanks eortolan@uol.com.br —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.0.122.192 (talk) 18:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal
The List of minor and major recurring characters in Star Trek: The Original Series article seems to exist solely to address some very minor characters who don't seem to be of any notability outside the episodes and few lines of dialogue they provide. I propose that they be merged here to their respective alphabetic sections of the character lists, where a link to their Memory Alpha pages will suffice for more in-universe information. Alastairward (talk) 00:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. Too lazy to do it myself :-/ --EEMIV (talk) 01:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Boredom trumped sloth. I've carried out the merge. --EEMIV (talk) 16:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The List of minor recurring characters in Star Trek: The Original Series article seems to exist solely to address some very minor characters who carry out a supporting role in the series and are culturally signifigant. A propose merged with 1 talk page response and less than a few days to carry out the merge by yorself due to boredom shows a lack of care and understanding for the purpose of this page. Please restore the List of minor recurring characters in Star Trek: The Original Series page as the character profiles have not at all been merged at this time just deleted. User:Bryankreutz 77 12:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Bryankreutz 77


 * They are not at all culturally significant; they have nothing approaching even minor significance *within* the show, and matter not-at-all to the real world. Consider the merge a WP:BOLD. --EEMIV (talk) 17:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Problem with an administrator misinterpreting the WP:REDIRECT to mean 'they can blank any page when they feel like. These are very minor characters who carry out a supporting role and are not subject to a poor lazy redirect with no target and none of the content saved. Your sole decision without any discussion on a proposed merge is not grounds enough to carry this out as a redirect. Article arbitrarily open for discussion again. User:Bryankreutz 77 11:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Bryankreutz 77
 * I think the redirect was actually a good idea, and so I've restored it. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * And I'll restore it again. An appropriately short blurb about this extremely minor characters was, in fact, merged to their respective alphabetical list. --EEMIV (talk) 1:29 pm, Today (UTC−4)

No problem again. Re-writing based on original script and new page name Bryankreutz 77 12:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Admiral Nakamura
This was listed as a TNG char as played by Clyde Kusatsu. If anyone has any information, could you redirect that link to where the character is described? Right now there's a red link on Nakamura (surname). Thanks for those who may know. Tyciol (talk) 04:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

List(s) of Characters in Star Trek Movies
If I could find it (assuming there is one), I'd add the lists of characters from the movies to the "see also" and to the list of lists of Star Trek Characters. Originalname37  (Talk?)  18:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Pictures
Why do neither this page or any of the alphabetical listing pages no longer contain any pictures of the characters? Because of copyright reasons? If so, then shouldn't the entire picture columns be removed? J I P | Talk 21:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There was a meta-discussion a while ago that largely concluded non-free images in lists like this are "decorative," hence violating WP:NFCC. The "picture" column should be removed if it still has that header, but the column itself has been retained (at least on a lot of the alphabetical sub-pages) because the present of a two-row black line helps "unify"each entry, which is composed of two lines of information. (Sorry, I imagine this second part isn't especially clear; and, I confess I'm writing it without going to the onerous trouble of actually opening the list :-/). --EEMIV (talk) 21:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Alphabetical
Do we have a standard for alphabetizing non-alphabetic characters? For example: does K'Ehleyr go before names starting "Ka" or is the apostrophe ignored? --Khajidha (talk) 23:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

alphabetical list - colours
sorry if I've missed something, but what do the colours in the alphabetical list mean? 90.193.159.73 (talk) 19:54, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * If you missed something, then so did I. Considering it's been over a month without an answer to that question, perhaps we should set the colors to something consistent, that those of us with colorblindness can make sense of. --Rob Kelk 21:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Sortable table
I've just made an edit to turn the main table into a sortable table. I believe this is a minor change which greatly increases the usefulness of this article; it can be very helpful to 'filter' the table by species or position, for example, when one is trying to identify a forgotten character. It may increase usefulness further if the 'Appearances' column were either reformatted to list the series initial-ism first, to allow sorting on that variable as well, or, as some characters appear in multiple series, perhaps a separate column for each series, such as in the sample below. I will however hold off on this change and ask others to weigh in on its usefulness. Perhaps some think it makes the table unnecessarily wide? Walkersam (talk) 04:48, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

NA = No Appearance The problem here is that there's a huge difference between a character who's a regular in one season (e.g Dr. Pulaski) and one who makes a single appearance in a series (e.g William Riker in the Voyager episode Death Wish). And the table is already too wide, adding this would make it wider. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.186.46.16 (talk) 18:55, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Trials and Tribble-ations characters
Shouldn't the characters from Trials and Tribble-ations be listed as such? Some of them are certainly necessary to understand this episode, and from the audience point of view they are certainly characters there. 109.186.46.16 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:50, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

BSCD128
Please, stop duplicating tables. All of them can be transcluded from main articles. And there is no need for duplicating characters in the table (TOS). Two rows for characters is good. An why are you adding titles of series in Main an Reccuring cast sections of table (like this: Star Trek: The Next Generation Main Cast), it's absolutely unnecessary. Lado85 (talk) 08:24, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Standards for inclusion in "shared cast" table?
The "shared cast" table is pretty cool, but it's also huge and there's a lot of characters in it. Some of them are minor characters or guest stars who appeared in multiple series but never in a substantial number of episodes, such as Daniel Dale as Moriarty (2 episodes of TNG and a cameo in one episode of Picard) or Bruce Maddox (1 episode each of TNG and Picard, played by different actors).

I think those criteria for inclusion are much too broad, and there are many other characters who could or should be included in the big grid by those standards but aren't: for example, Charlie Brill as Arne Darvin (1 episode of TOS and 1 of DS9); Barbara March as Lursa (3 episodes of TNG and 1 of DS9); Richard Poe as Evek (3 episodes of DS9, 2 of TNG, and one of Voyager).

I propose restricting the "shared cast" table to actors who appeared in either regular or at least major recurring roles on one or more series, rather than just including every actor or character who ever made an appearance on more than one Star Trek series, no matter how small. We could have the big table for major cast members, and then perhaps a small text paragraph saying "and there are also many guest actors who reprised roles across multiple series, such as" and then one or two representative examples. Thoughts? AJD (talk) 16:23, 31 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Having seen no objections, I've trimmed some minor guest characters, condensed some unnecessary rows, corrected some errors (Alice Krige never appeared on TNG), and tried to mark uses of audio-only archive material as such. AJD (talk) 07:06, 15 April 2023 (UTC)