Talk:Reginald Barclay

August 2006
At one point Barclay becomes a genius from an accident on a probe and uses the holodeck to hook himself to the computer.

This episode is not mentioned in his summary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.144.78.249 (talk • contribs) 00:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It is. That epidode is "The Nth Degree" mentioned here as Reg getting his brain taken over. I agree that that should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.86.101.209 (talk • contribs) 00:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

February 2007
I changed "a Star Trek fan." to "a Star Trek fan". As the period is meant to end the sentence, the quotations are not being used to quote a sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.126.215.24 (talk • contribs) 21:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

April 2007
Waht level in Elite Forces 2 do you get to fight alongside Barclay? I didn't see him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.167.39 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

June 2007
And what about his guest appearance on the Voyager episode Projections in one of the earlier seasons? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.20.239.232 (talk • contribs) 07:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Too few sources
I am familiar with both series this character is in, as well as the character. I will attempt to look for sources from some Star Trek Wikias. I will look on the Netflix episodes if I can’t find any sources on wikias. I will edit the page accordingly. SmileyTrek (talk) 14:12, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Character image
Until recently this article included a character image in the Infobox. It is not clear why anyone would think it was a good idea to remove that image. It is not clear why anyone would think it was necessary to move that image out of the character Infobox.

The availability of a free image of Dwight Schultz the actor, does not mean we should exclude the image of the character Reginald Barclay. The Tasha Yar article is a Featured article and includes images of both the character and the actor. Other character articles such as Miles O'Brien (Star Trek) and Deanna Troi include images of both the character and the actor.

WP:NFCC "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."

An image showing the character in costume adds to the readers understanding to this article about the character. An image of the actor (from more than a decade later) is not the same as an image of the character. Removing the character image makes this article worse. Putting the character image anywhere else besides the Infobox makes this article different from most of the other TNG character articles for no apparent reason. -- 109.76.200.100 (talk) 07:11, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * At MOS:IMGLOC, we're instructed that "an image should generally be placed in the most relevant article section". If any argument is to be made towards meeting WP:NFCC for the appearance of a fictional character, then the relevant section is the one with sourced prose regarding the subject's appearance.  Duly, I have replaced the NFC.  —   Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 08:33, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The character Infobox is the most relevant section for the character image. user:fourthords has not given a good reason to put it anywhere else.
 * WP:IMGLOC comes after MOS:LEADIMAGE "It is common for an article's lead or infobox to carry a representative image—such as of a person or place, a book or album cover—to give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page." WP:IMGLOC explains what to do with other images after than the Infobox image. There is no good reason to ignore MOS:LEADIMAGE.
 * WP:NFCC requires relevance. It does not require images to be moved out of the Infobox. It simply does not say any such thing.
 * User:Fourthords seems to have a unique interpretation of the guidelines that does not fit with the rules actually say or the reality of what character articles actually do. Clearly I'm going to have to get other opinions. -- 109.76.200.100 (talk) 12:40, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It's entirely possibly I'm not communicating well, because your replies are non-sequitur to what I'm trying to say. Please let me try again:There is specific and sourced prose about the character's appearance.  If there's to be any hope that File:Reginald Barclay.jpg meets WP:NFCC, then that's the context that's going to do it.  While it may be "common" to place images in the infobox (MOS:LEADIMAGE), they "should" placed in the relevant section (MOS:IMGLOC).  That's what I'm seeing written at Manual of Style/Images.  —   Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 17:17, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * To recap for for anyone else trying to follow this discussion it should be noted that as part of his rewrite User:Fourthords deleted the image from the Infobox where it had been since 2005 without any problem (WP:STATUSQUO). I restored the image to Infobox. He then moved the image down into the article text.
 * The root problem is that User:Fourthords rewrote an article in a single large edit. It would have been better if he had done so gradually in smaller edits and included meaningful edit summaries to explain his changes. Problems could have been avoided if he had followed the WP:SIMPLE rules and explained changes with meaningful edit summaries.
 * User:Fourthords is making a choice to put more weight or emphasis on MOS:IMGLOC instead of MOS:LEADIMAGE. I see that the guidelines could and should be clearer and more definitive, but I think his interpretation is incorrect and that he is making an obtuse choice to read the guideline that way and to quote it so selectively. I think the first part of the guideline MOS:LEADIMAGE has more weight, and MOS:IMGLOC applies to any of the other images after the main character image. It seems strange to ignore what so many other character articles do.
 * User:Fourthords claims that to have "any hope" of passing WP:NFCC the image must be in the article context. That is his interpretation, but the text of the WP:NONFREE policy does not say that. The reality of many existing Featured articles also suggests no such requirement. It seems clear to me that including the character image in the Character Infobox does meet the context and relevance requirements for a character image. It is not clear why User:Fourthords thinks this article is any different from so many other character articles. Common practice is not the only thing, but conversely common practice should not be ignored without any clear reason. I think User:Fourthords is creating an unnecessary complication here, and that a reviewer is unlikely to interpret WP:NFCC as strictly as he seems to think, but even so it it would be better to wait until someone actually does raise a challenge and then address it instead of preemptively removing the image because of that unlikely possibility.
 * Please restore the WP:STATUSQUO and put the character image back in the Character Infobox -- 109.76.200.100 (talk) 23:34, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * My apologies for writing so very verbosely and unclearly that it required a recap. Unfortunately, it's not quite spot-on; let me try a third time, I'm sorry.    What I tried to explain amounted to two points: (a) I said that to keep the NFC added to the article, only the context[ual significance] of the prose is currently doing that work.  (b) It then follows&mdash;based on logical association and Manual of Style/Images&mdash;that those two elements be joined in the prose for readers to have the context at hand when encountering the copyrighted material necessary to understand it.  Just one example: if the NFC were atop the article, then a reader who followed this link to read about the appearance of the character would lack the image needed to increase their understanding thereof.  —   Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 02:05, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm waiting for for a Third opinion any other opinions really. I believe I understand what user:fourthords was trying to say and even why he thinks it is correct, but his narrow interpretation of the guidelines seems obtuse, and his moving the image out of the Infobox unnecessary. I don't believe that this article was wrong to have an image in the Infobox since 2005, and I don't all the other Star Trek character articles have been doing it wrong all this time either. -- 109.76.193.171 (talk) 02:35, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I hadn't seen 109.76.200.100's imprecise request for further input; thank you for linking to it. Similarly, I've inquired at Wikipedia talk:Citation templates about language parameters in citation templates.  Lastly, I'm unsure whether you and  are using obtuse to mean "Intellectually dull or dim-witted", but I want to clarify that the possibility is unappreciated.  —   Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 02:49, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Obtuse primary meaning refers to a wide angle, the opposite of acute, and your particular interpretation of the guidelines seems imprecise, from an unusual angle, overly broad, awkward and not helpful (oblique is another word I could have chosen but it too is overloaded with meaning you could misconstrue, choosing to subjectively interpret the worst possible meaning of obtuse is another unnecessary choice, you don't have to pick the worst possible interpretation). I am glad that user:fourthords wanted to improve the prose of the article but I am very disappointed that he deleted a good image from an article, an action that did not improve the article, and I did not appreciate that at all. I do not appreciate his awkward unnecessarily difficult interpretation of the guidelines. -- 109.76.193.171 (talk) 04:31, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I think the libre image is logically best in the casting section, which is most-explicitly discussing the subject of the image, but I'm disinclined to edit-war with IPs over it, should any insist. Either way, thank you very much for providing input!  —   Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 17:43, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

While waiting for a 3rd opinion an editor made what I think was the obvious and very reasonable step of putting the character image back in the Infobox, where it had been since 2005 so if people want to be serious about the WP:STATUSQUO that is exactly where it should have been. I fully expect that will be the first of many editors who will repeatedly and in good faith try put the image back in the Infobox, the same as all all the other character articles, Star Trek character articles in particular, and what this article was doing without any problem until User:Fourthords came along.

If you start from the wrong place you can use seemingly logical decisions go anywhere (Reductio ad absurdum and How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? I firmly believe that Fourthords has started from the wrong place and massively overcomplicated this and ignored the simple fact that there wasn't anything wrong in the first place. The starting principle should be about making the article better. Before we get to WP:NFCC there is the rest of WP:NFCC the policy. I want to be absolutely clear that I reject any assumption or claim that a freely usable image of the actor Dwight Schultz (from 2006) is functionally equivalent to an image of him playing the character Reginald Barclay from 1990. WP:NFCC. I do not agree with the interpretation of WP:NFCC "context" requirements to mean that it is required or even preferable to put a character image in the article prose rather than in the Character Infobox.

However, I did ask for a third opinion and got one. I will abide by the 3RD opinion and leave the character image in the article text and the character Infobox empty. That doesn't mean that other editors or anyone else reviewing cannot use their own best judgement and put the image in the Infobox like every other character article or try to form a new consensus. -- 109.79.168.149 (talk) 20:14, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The GA Reviewer thought it was perfectly reasonable to put the image back in the Infobox. Fourthords promptly moved it back out again. I said above that people would keep putting the image back in the Infobox, and people will do it again. -- 109.77.204.213 (talk) 23:58, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It was my bad. I did not consult this discussion before editing. I defer to the 3rd opinion. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 00:57, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * However, and  out of curiosity, I feel like the IP editor left a point that has not been fully addressed yet. How come FAs like Tasha Yar and Khan Noonien Singh as well as GAs like Christine Chapel, Ezri Dax, Ro Laren, Katherine Pulaski all have non-free content in their infoboxes? The rare exception I see at this point is Tuvix, but Fourthords seems to have had a hand in that. Unless there is an explanation for this, this might have to grow into a project-wide discussion. (also to anyone at this time, please don't make changes to the current image placement of the article anymore until this has been settled. As the discussion now stands, I still support the majority consensus that the fair-use image not be placed in the infobox). GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 01:13, 29 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I am the first to admit that those who vet featured articles know the content standards better than I do. My given opinion is just that, an opinion. If there is a greater consensus out there then I am glad to defer to it. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 01:17, 29 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Okay, I did some poking around and it seems that though these articles currently have non-free content in their infoboxes, at the time of FA/GA review, they did not. Regardless, this issue of non-free content in infoboxes (if it is a violation) seems to pervade the entirety of WikiProject Star Trek. Would it be advisable to begin a discussion on that WP's talk page? GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 01:18, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, looking around at some other infoboxes at the FA-level from a variety of franchises, it seems that the use of non-free content in the infobox depicting the article's subject is generally accepted (infobox is even mentioned as a potential location for non-free use rationale at WP:NFC). Now, I honestly don't see any reason why Tuvix and Barclay in particular have to have their character images outside of the infobox while other FAs and GAs do not. There doesn't seem to be anything special about this article's prose compared to the others that would warrant such a decision. I feel like since Barclay is the subject of the article, the location of his character image should reflect that as the other FAs and GAs do for their characters. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 01:28, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * read the WP:NFCC guidelines and interpreted them in the strictest possible way, and although disagree I can see how someone might do that. The image had been in the Infobox without issue since 2005, and Fourthords should have nominated the image for deletion if he truly believes the WP:NFCC requirements have not been met. Putting the image of a character in character Infobox in an article for that character has been interpreted by pretty much everyone else as more than sufficient context, and that goes for character article beyond just Star Trek. The strict interpretation applied by Fourthords would be more appropriate if we were talking about a second non-free image, which would require strong context to justify including it. -- 109.79.160.61 (talk) 11:19, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

language parameters in citation templates
With this edit at 23:56, 23 June 2021, removed the language parameter from citation templates without explanation. It was replaced ten minutes later, wherein I said,. Ten minutes after that, replaced the first IP's edits, saying, Taking the second edit as fact, I took to Wikipedia talk:Citation templates and suggested updating citation templates' documentations which otherwise say. disputed the IPs' edits, and then came here to replace the templates' parameters at 02:59, 24 June 2021, saying,. It was then 75 minutes later when 109.76.193.171 again reverted saying, .Jonesey95 has declined to edit here further, and recommended I find the prior consensus at Help Talk:CS1 to supplement what the citation templates' documentation already says. The clearest I found was at Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 30 where it was explained four years ago that  Those links can be further followed to their antecedents. Does this make sense to the objecting IP editors? I'm happy to try and explain further, if needed. Thanks, —   Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 22:41, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I mistyped my edit summary. I meant to write "There's no point in tagging [except for] non-English languages". It is seemingly pointless to include the English language tag in English language Wikipedia. It is certainly of no benefit to readers.
 * Thank you for finding relevant documentation and properly explaining why it is useful to some editors of non-English Wikipedia to include the "language=en" tag. I will restore them to this article. I have no further objection to your neat and tidy inclusion of the tag. My intention is to keep the Wiki markup reasonably clean and human-readable, with reasonable spacing and indention, and no unnecessary markup. Some editors make strange arguments against keeping the markup tidy or including spacing and indentation but then include verbose markup or excessive comments. (It is bizarre that many articles include a mix of en-GB, en-CA, en-AU, and en-US seemingly based on the users location, often contrary to where the reference actually comes from.)
 * Could you please explain in more detail why the article includes hidden comments ? This referencing style is not something I have seen before. My guess is that this is an attempt by an editor to indicate that in his personal opinion he has used the source to exhaustion and in his opinion there is nothing further that can be added from that source. If my guess is correct then it seems redundant and unnecessary: redundant to say that you have made the full possible use of a source as reasonable editors might expect, and unnecessary to include one editors personal opinion that there is nothing to see here. If the opposite was true, and you thought there a source was exceptional and there was a whole lot more that might be useful to include in the article, then maybe it would be worthwhile and appropriate to including a comment. -- 109.79.168.149 (talk) 20:14, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You're correct: I simply use the HTML comments to note that I've exhausted a source's material, and save my (and maybe others') time. I've been doing this for a few years, now, though I did get approval on its propriety before doing so&mdash;probably bevause it's obviously not a prohibition or hinderance to anybody else who wants to double-check sources.  109.79.168.149 and  (last month) are the first to even ask about them in all this time, and certainly nobody's complained, so I maintain the SOP.  —   Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 01:19, 28 June 2021 (UTC)  P.S. I'm unsure whether and where the IP editor meant to close their nowiki tag, but is that something that should be done?
 * It is not unreasonable to add such comments when the article is a work in progress, but they are redundant and unnecessary and part of no standard anyone else seems to be using. WP:HIDDEN advises against adding too many hidden comments. As I said above, it would be better to use it for the rare exceptional cases where you think a source has not been fully exhausted, rather than to using it for almost every source that you think has been exhausted. It would be best to remove them if the article is stable enough to achieve Good article status, something I expect any reviewer to consider.
 * User:Fourthords has repeatedly removed a line break from Plainlist where I have dropped the closing braces }} onto the next line. I have repeatedly stated in the edit summary that this was deliberate, intentional and definitely not a "stray carriage return". The Infobox drops its closing braces }} to another line, and the documentation for Help:List and Plainlist also drop the closing Plainlist. It is entirely consistent to do the same for both, and also consistent with other Wikipedia markup and numerous other programming languages and markup languages which drop the closing braces }} onto the next line. (Single line templates such as Hlist or Unbulleted list do put it all on one line, multi-line templates such as Infobox of Plainlist normally do not.) It is unclear why User:Fourthords chooses to do things that are inconsistent with the layout used in the documented examples, for the sake of one less carriage return. The insistence of User:Fourthords on removing this line break from the infobox stands in strange contrast with his reticence to close the mismatched nowiki tags in my above comment. I have since edited my own comment above and closed the nowiki tag. -- 109.79.169.104 (talk) 22:17, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Fansites
"The character of Barclay was well received by fans, a number of whom made fansites in his honor.[9]"

Although this above statement was referenced (WP:V) it is not clear if it is notable. Fansites were not uncommon on the early web, and they tended to be about the actor as much as they were about love for a particular character.

I recommend removing this line from the Reception section. -- 109.79.68.55 (talk) 16:09, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles or lists". —   Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 18:13, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It appears WP:UNDUE to mention that Fansites merely existed, they do not seem to be noteworthy based on the information provided so far. It seems trivial, fansites existed, so what? This is not something that I've seen mentioned in other Star Trek character articles either.
 * If there was some context or significance such as Barclay having many more fansites than other characters it might some sense why someone thought it was worth mentioning. In its current form it does not seem sufficiently noteworthy to include it.
 * Anyway this article was nominated for Good article review so I expect a thorough detailed review will address this eventually if no one sees fit to remove it before then. -- 109.79.68.55 (talk) 23:02, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Now it might be considered undue, but it's certainly not proposing anything controversial or contrary to the other sources, so I don't see that bearing terribly here. Other Star Trek characters' articles don't have any bearing outside a consensus at the Trek WikiProject.  Given Barclay fansites were spoken of at all, I infered a significance there such as you're saying would be worthwhile.  Lastly, if the GA volunteer raises an objection to the offending 45 characters in light of a policy, guideline, MOS, or logical argument, then they may bring it up for removal as you're otherwise disinclined; that is a purpose of that process, after all.  —   Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 23:12, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I did not make a WP:BOLD delete and skipped straight to WP:DISCUSS because I expected user:fourthords would fail understand my point of view on this too. I may not have specified precisely the right Wikipedia rule but you don't need to be a chef to know something does not smell right. Maybe in its original context before it was paraphrased it made more sense. Maybe if it was written slightly differently it would seem less trivial. -- 109.79.68.55 (talk) 23:56, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I thought I might be less skeptical of this recently added trivia if I could see the original context. The statement was based on a book reference to "The Influence of Star Trek on Television, Film and Culture" Google books. (Searching google books for the words like "fan site" or "fansite" or "Barclay" did not reveal a relevant snippet, but snippets are limited.) The book appears to be a collection of essays, each chapter written by a different author. The reference was not to a specific page but to a page range of 173–185, which corresponds to all of chapter 10, written by Sue Short title "Star Trek: The Franchise! - Poachers Pirates and Paramount". Sue Short is a lecturer in Film Studies at the University of London and the University of Hertfordshire.

I was eventually able to find a copy of the book in a digital library. Text actually relevant to Barclay begins on page 182. The text relevant to fansites appears on page 184, quote: "Barclay was, understandably, a big hit with fans, with a number of Websites created in his honor, and it seems only reasonable to assume that if we can love the series for such outsider heroes, there is no reason to think that we will necessarily buy into the “preferred” ideology Star Trek offers, any more than we will indiscriminately buy up any available merchandise."

The term fansites was not used by the author. Short was pointing out that the character was popular. There were websites created for Barclay but were they any more popular than the websites created in honor of Data's cat? That websites were created still seems only incidental (they're dead sites now), and not noteworthy or a particularly good way to highlight that Barclay was a popular character. The Reception section already included lists from reliable sources that not only indicate that Barclay was a popular character but also some context and indication of his relative popularity compared to other characters.

The text on page 182 talks about how Barclay "seemingly" represents fans and fan culture. Typical of academic writing to undermine their own point by saying "seemingly" and not do enough research to take a stronger stance, but it does seem like a useful enough source to support some points. However, I remain unconvinced that it is a good idea to mentions fansites without something more substantial than a passing remark to show they themselves are noteworthy, when they are only a poor way to repeat what we already know and what other sources better indicate, that Barclay was popular. -- 109.77.204.213 (talk) 23:51, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Fourthords added it back again. I still think it is not only trivial but also an insubstantial and poor way to indicate the popularity of Barclay. -- 109.77.207.127 (talk) 13:07, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Origins
Given that Sarah Higley's script was clearly freelanced, I don't see how Roddenberry can be credited with his conception (that would have been a commissioned script. Can we do more than say that both claims exist?? Clevelander96 (talk) 01:34, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You could slap a Citation needed claim on it because at the moment we don't have inline references to make the source of both those claims clear. Maybe someone can dig deeper and find out who is legally credited as the creator of the character? It seems the claim that Rodenberry was "credited" as creator was one of many things added by user Fourthourds when he massively rewrote and rearranged the article. What we do have is a reference to a TV Zone article where Schultz apparently thanked Rodenberry for creating the character, but unfortunately we don't have access to that source to check it more closely. An actor thanking the producer and creator of the show is obviously different from Rodenberry actually being legally credited with creating the character. Maybe Schultz thanks were misinterpreted, or maybe there are other references that state the claims more clearly, it requires closer scrutiny. As a work for hire Paramount would own the character but Higley may still have moral rights and been credited as the creator. As a derivative work, a character within the works created by Roddenberry he might well have received credit too. Copyright is a tangled web. It does seem far more likely that the credited writer of the script and teleplay is the creator the character. -- 109.76.204.243 (talk) 01:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Looking at the Memory Alpha article for Reginald Barclay there is a longer description of the origins of the character which similarly takes the TV Zone interview with Schultz and interprets it to give a whole lot of credit to Gene Roddenberry. The editors of Memory Alpha used the phrase "conceived by Gene Roddenberry" but if you look closer at the direct quotes from Schultz, he said "I think they thought" so it is clearly his own subjective opinion and interpretation not hard statements of objective fact. I really think this is all a misunderstanding and that Roddenberry was not "credited" with creating the character in any technical or legal sense but rather was indirectly and informally thanked and credited by Schultz as the creator of the show. I see unintentional misinterpretation and cumulative error but no evidence that anyone other than Sally Caves (aka Sarah Higley) created the character. -- 109.76.204.243 (talk) 02:37, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Clevelander96 is right, the Rodenberry claim was clearly a misinterpretation. Also it was never clearly verified. Verifiability.
 * I went ahead and removed the unsourced claim. I adjusted the text, effectively reverting it back to be more like it was on May 6, 2021 before the claim was added. -- 109.76.201.72 (talk) 01:19, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, much appreciated! I think you've accounted very well for how this claim came about. Clevelander96 (talk) 17:22, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It helps that you came back to comment and agree with the changes/restoration I made, because that should mean that if someone else has a different interpretation then it will be up to them to prove it. So thanks to you too for prompting me to improve the article. -- 109.76.128.45 (talk) 23:23, 27 January 2022 (UTC)