Talk:The Slaver Weapon (episode)

From Memory Alpha, the free Star Trek reference

Contents 1 Episode talk page 1.1 Maintenance links 2 Chuft Captain? 3 Non-appearance of Kirk 4 Slaver Weapon vs Star Trek (2009)

[edit] Chuft Captain?

whats the deal with Chuft Captain -- is it the normal Kzinti tradition to place the name before the rank, in this case making his name Chuft? Or is "Chuft" what he is captain of and he is an unnamed character ? -- Captain Mike K. Bartel^talk 05:25, 4 Sep 2005 (UTC)

According to Niven's naming conventions, which weren't explained but followed in the episode, Kzinti are only given a name as an award for great achievement. This is kind of like the Kazon to an extent. The one difference is the Kzinti are not given names when they are born. They have to take the name of their position in society. So, Chuft Captain was originally just Captain and then earned the name of Chuft. It is also Kzinti practice to pair up your name with the position, in the order it's given. So, Chuft Captain would be his full Kzinti "name." Whether or not any of this applies to Memory Alpha is up to someone (like you) higher up than me to decide. I was able to get most of this information from the Kzinti article.--Tim Thomason 06:45, 4 Sep 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Non-appearance of Kirk

Does this episode still open with Shatner's "Space...the final frontier" monologue & is he still credited at the end? Igotbit 17:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Slaver Weapon vs Star Trek (2009)

Until the movie has opened, and everything confirmed, please keep mention of it, its cast, and relevance out of this episode article. Thank you. -- sulfur 04:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

But this doesn't make any sense unless all the other articles that mention Nimoy's appearance in Star Trek XI are purged as well. Saying that Nimoy has only appeared in three productions now without Shatner is now just flat out wrong when it's well known now that Nimoy is in the new movie. I just don't see how this hurts. Maybe there's something I'm missing, can you elaborate further? leandar 04:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

It is unnecessarily putting movie information that is essentially spoilers (you even put the spoiler warning) in articles that themselves have nothing to do with the movie. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 04:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand that, but the other articles have nothing to do with the movie other than mentioning Nimoy's appearance. What I can't understand is how this episode's article is any different from "The Cage" and "Unification II?" leandar 04:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

They shouldn't have mentions either. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 04:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

And now they don't. --Alan 06:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I think I get it. I'm going to put them back how they used to be saying something like "this is Nimoy's second of (to date) three appearances. That shouldn't be too bad, should it? leandar 06:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Everythign is automatically "to date" until the information becomes invalid.... stating "to date" is just another way of stating a spoiler to a spoiler. --Alan 06:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I get it now. I think I'm going to go bang my head against a wall now. I'll see you later. leandar 06:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)