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.[1] 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#8 "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#8 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 | =Λ= | 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#8 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#8, 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 Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 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[2] 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#8 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#8 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. User:Fourthords claims that to have 'any hope' of passing WP:NFCC#8 the image must be in the article context. 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—based on logical association and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images—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 | =Λ= | 02:05, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm waiting for for a Wikipedia: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 109.76.200.100 (talk · contribs) are using obtuse to mean "Intellectually dull or dim-witted", but I want to clarify that the possibility is unappreciated. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 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)

Response to third opinion request:

Our polices require that fair use imagery be used at a minimum and only where most relevant. As such I think the free image should be in the infobox as it is not under such restrictions or have no image at all in the infobox. The fair use image should be in the article where the character appearance is described as this is where the fair use claim is most supportable. Fair use is a copyright exemption claim that is based on the weight of many factors and relevance to discussion of the image is one of them, this is why it is always better to have it where the character's appearance is described. Please remember that fair use is a narrow exception to our "no copyrighted images" standard. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 06:09, 26 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 | =Λ= | 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,[3] 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#8 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#1. I do not agree with the interpretation of WP:NFCC#8 "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.[4] Fourthords promptly moved it back out again.[5] 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, @Fourthords: and @HighInBC: 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)

@HighInBC: 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)

language parameters in citation templates

With this edit at 23:56, 23 June 2021, 109.76.200.100 (talk · contribs) removed the |language= parameter from citation templates without explanation. It was replaced ten minutes later, wherein I said, + replacement of language parameter in citation templates;. Ten minutes after that, 109.76.193.171 (talk · contribs) replaced the first IP's edits, saying, This is English language Wikipedia. Only non English language references need be marked.

Taking the second edit as fact, I took to Wikipedia talk:Citation templates and suggested updating citation templates' documentations which otherwise say Because cs1|2 templates are often copied from en.wiki to other wikis, the use of language codes is preferred so that language names render in the correct language and form. Jonesey95 (talk · contribs) disputed the IPs' edits, and then came here to replace the templates' parameters at 02:59, 24 June 2021, saying, See template documentation. It was then 75 minutes later when 109.76.193.171 again reverted saying, See what documentation exactly? Template:Cite_web says 'When the only source language is English, no language is displayed in the citation.' There's no point in tagging non-English languages [sic].

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#Misuse of language_parameter where it was explained four years ago that |language=en is explicitly allowed but hidden by default. This behavior was suggested by an excellent editor named Redrose64. It was requested by editors who copy citations from en.WP to WP in other languages; other valid reasons were provided as well. 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 | =Λ= | 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 <!-- exhausted -->? 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—probably bevause it's obviously not a prohibition or hinderance to anybody else who wants to double-check sources. 109.79.168.149 and DavidBrooks (talk · contribs) (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 | =Λ= | 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 | =Λ= | 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 | =Λ= | 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[6] 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)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Reginald Barclay/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: GeneralPoxter (talk · contribs) 15:18, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Review

Lead/Infobox

• "stereotypical Star Trek alien character" In the Casting section, the alien character Schultz anticipated to play is a ""a large vein-throbbing, bulbous-headed alien". There is no indication of how this is "stereotypical" of Star Trek.

  I don't see that specific phraseology in the sources here, so that was probably some accidental editorializing. I've removed it. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 04:10, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• "though the higher-ups say" The use of the term "the higher-ups" is kind of vague and doesn't abide with the relatively formal tone throughout the rest of the article.

  Similarly, that was originally going to be "the powers that be", but I thought that was even less appropriate. I've rephrased it to avoid informality (and because the lead doesn't need to specify "showrunner Michael Piller and director Cliff Bole". I also corrected the tenses there. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 04:10, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• Abbreviation of The Next Generation as TNG is only used in the lead and once in the Casting section. I took the liberty to eliminate the usage of this abbreviation for consistency with the rest of the article.

  That's, of course, fine. I live with these names and initialisms in my brain so much, I threw in the abbreviation-explanation just in case I later used it more often than I realized. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 04:10, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• Follow up to the alien edit: Should alien link to Extraterrestrial life (as it does now) or List of Star Trek aliens? It kind of feels like the former could be WP:OVERLINK. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 16:11, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  Regardless, that second one is far better! — Fourthords | =Λ= | 17:09, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• Infobox nicknames section could use a ref, since these nicknames are not referenced anywhere else in the article

  Do they need to be sourced to something explicitly calling them a nickname, or can they be cited to sources wherein they're used as nicknames? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 00:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

  Either is fine I guess, as long as there's reasonable indication that this is an actual nickname for Barclay. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 01:22, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

  The latter is easier as the first episode establishes both. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 13:59, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

1 Conception

• "Both episode writer Sarah Higley and series creator Gene Roddenberry have been credited with creating the character of Barclay." needs a ref

  I've been told before that when a section essentially has its own lead like this, that WP:LEADCITE applies, meaning the it needn't repeat citations in the rest of the section as it's summarizing. Was that incorrect? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 00:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

  Sorry about that, yep since both Higley and Roddenberry's credits have been cited later on, this is good. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 01:21, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

• "Barclay's original character taunted the crew who then had to cope with those revelations" is phrased a bit confusingly. Exactly what revelations? Their weaknesses?

  I'm not sure of this one, and I can't find my original copy of the source at this time (I'm mostly packed for moving). It's possible I tried to simplify the magazine's description, or it was equally unclear. Either way, this'll have to wait at least a couple of days. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 00:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

  Found it! I've updated this prose in this edit. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 02:34, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

• "In a script for 'Hollow Pursuits'..." which script? The original one? The final one that made the show?

  This I do remember: the source doesn't specify. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 00:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

  Hm, I was worried that if this were a scrapped script, then this wouldn't count as canon, but since the quotation pretty aptly describes his actual character, I guess it's fine. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 01:21, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

• I removed links to the following words per WP:OVERLINK: "maturity", "weakness", "taunted", "sarcastic", "stuttering", "shyness", "self-confidence", "character", "fallibility", "script", "eye contact" (please look over other parts of the article to find any other examples I may have missed)

  Overlinking and I have an on-again, off-again relationship. I'm mostly content to defer to your delinking. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 00:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

• I feel like the sectioning of paragraphs in this section could be better organized into one paragraph for the initial character of Barclay and then a second paragraph for the shift to and description of the more likeable Barclay.

  You're suggesting to break the second paragraph into two? Sure, no objections. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 00:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

2 Casting

• "Schultz was a huge fan..." Another deviation from the otherwise formal tone? Ditto for the later "big fan", unless this is an exact quote from Schultz

  The problem with more-formal language in describing fandomness is that they tend towards the more specific than the original source. Do you have a suggestion? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 00:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

  The use of "fan" is fine, but "huge fan" sounds a bit informal. Perhaps "ardent fan" or "passionate fan"? GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 01:24, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

  Yeah, I think both of those suggest more specificity they we have cause to use, so I'll pare it back, instead. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 13:59, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• For this background on Schultz, could we clarify generally how old he was (e.g. Begin with "As a child/teenager, Schultz was a huge fan...")

  The best the source gave me there was the implication of 'pre-adult', which seemed too vague to work with. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 00:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

  All right, this isn't a major issue anyways. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 01:24, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

3 Character history

• "In the Star Trek canon, Barclay has appeared in twelve discrete productions from 1990–2001." I'm sure that the notion that Barclay appears in at least 12 productions is supported amply in the text, but this claim still needs a citation to confirm that the number is exactly 12.

  I bet I can do so with Michael Okuda's 2016 edition of The Star Trek Encyclopedia, but I also don't have it handy. Gimme some time for this one? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 00:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

  Sure thing. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 01:40, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks; those're still elusive for the moment. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 13:59, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• Who is Lynne Joyrich? Qualifications as an authority on the subject can be denoted as simply as adding "the author Lynne Joyrich" or whatever their occupation is.

  My copy of the original source only includes the prose of the article, so I've included a new source to cite an explanation. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 00:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

• "Through the embarrassment suffered when the senior staff learned of his depictions of them" Phrased awkwardly here. Should be more along the lines of "Despite the embarrassment he suffered..." rather than "Through the embarrassment"? Also, the later "rises above it all" may not be WP:NPOV?

  That feels like it was written independently of the rest as it's duplicative. "Despite his embarrassment" will suffice. "Rises above it all" it pretty summative of what that source says, though I don't think it's necessary given the preceding. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 00:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

• Description of "Ship in a Bottle" could provide better context by summarizing how Moriarty was introduced in "Elementary, Dear Data" (preferrably just a few words after "ignorant of season two events"). Can also help clarify the following point...

  I've expanded duly. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 00:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

• "Though ultimately unnecessary," What was ultimately unnecessary? Barclay being ignorant of season two events? Why?

  The source frustratingly included that fact without any explanation, so I couldn't do better. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 00:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

  I guess we can clarify further by saying that this detail was unnecessary to the plot, but that might be pushing the envelope a bit in terms of sticking to the source. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 01:40, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

  Is your edit here sufficient, do you think? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 13:59, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

  Whoops, forgot about that. Sure, I'll drop this issue then. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 17:43, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• "Barclay momentarily questions whether he was still in a simulated reality." Once again, more context is need. Did Barclay question reality anytime before the episode conclusion in order to indicate why he "still" questioned living in a simulated reality?

  As above, I've tried to provide more context without becoming wordy. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 00:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, the inclusion of context that other characters were trapped in simulated realities makes this conclusion more logical now. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 01:40, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

• "Given Barclay's nervous and wiry nature..." "Wiry" is defined to be "being lean, supple, and vigorous" by Merriam-Webster. I don't see so far while reading this how Barclay ever demonstrated being "lean, supple, and vigorous".
• "Braga guessed that Barclay had more arachnid ancestors than other crewmembers. Is this the exact wording from the text? The idea of having "more arachnid ancestors" than another person just doesn't make sense. Even if this were a metaphor, it still is a very weird one. I guess the idea that was trying to be conveyed was that Barclay had a more "spider-like" nature than the rest of his crewmates, so unless these are Braga's or the author's exact words, this could probably be phrased better.

  To satisfy both of these concerns, I've simply expanded the quote. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 00:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

  Okay, I guess since these are the episode writer's exact quotes, there should be no need to change anything. This does raise another concern in that some other prose in this article might be exact quotes but are not marked as such. I can't really check myself since most of these sources appear offline, so I'll assume good faith and let you check at your own pace. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 01:40, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

  It was just the three-word phrasing of nervous and wiry that was verbatim; does that amount to too-close quoting? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 13:59, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• "Brannon Braga decided it would be much more fun to couple Barclay with the Doctor..." "much more fun" could be more precisely explained here. What exactly made Barclay and the Doctor more compatible than La Forge and the Doctor? Also not immediately clear from this paragraph for unacquainted readers that the Doctor and the EMH are the same.

  The source doesn't quantify Braga's "more fun", though I have yet another source that calls Barclay and the EMH "[Star Trek]'s greatest inferiority-complex and greatest egotist." [Kutzera, Dale (November 1996). "Voyager Episode Guide". Cinefantastique. Vol. 28, no. 4/5. Forest Park, Illinois. p. 78. ISSN 0145-6032.] As connecting the Doctor characher with the EMH, I've tried to do so. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 00:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

  If "much more fun" are Braga's exact words, then this should be in quotes. If that's the case, we can leave it at that, since at first I thought this was the article editor's analysis, which would require more justification. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 01:40, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

  Ah… I shouldn't think that's a direct quote, but my paraphrasing. Captains' Logs Supplemental should actually be easier to find, so I'll try to put my hands on it within the next day or two. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 13:59, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• "Schultz was contacted on a Tuesday, asked if he could come in that Friday, and the actor said, 'Sure.'" This level of detail seems unnecessary.

  Maybe, but I really like it. Readers can—and I do—infer that such a short turnaround time indicates an excitement on Schultz's part. Is it truly too much? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 00:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

  It just seems out of place, since it's a oddly amusing anecdote in an otherwise formal passage. Up to you whether to omit/edit/leave as is, and this wouldn't affect final GA decision. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 01:40, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

• In paragraph on "Life Line", it is unclear what exactly is meant by Zimmerman coming to terms with the Doctor. What was he uneasy about in the first place?

  I've expanded here to explain Zimmerman's attitude. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 00:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

• "At the last minute, Barclay is able to impersonate his own program and defuse the situation." It should be clarified somehow that Barclay impersonated holo-Barclay to trick the Ferengi. I originally read this (without knowing the plot of the episode), thinking that Barclay somehow impersonated himself to the Voyager crew, and got confused.

  Same here, I think it reads well to avoid that confusion, now. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 00:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

• "Later, Barclay alerts Admiral Paris (Richard Herd) to the distribution of the Doctor's holonovel." The significance of this plot detail is unclear.

  Ah, that's because the Barclay importance to that episode is pretty minimal. Withouth breaking out the DVDs right now, I recall that Barclay does the thing, and then later does another thing, but he's not very front-and-center in the episode. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 00:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

  Fair enough. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 01:40, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

• What does Barclay help Janeway travel back in time to do? The significance of this deed could use more clarification, especially given the level of detail for TNG events.

  His presence in the episode is fluff for the most part, actually. He's present at a gathering of former Voyager crew, he's a lecturer at the academy, he provides Janeway with data and a shuttle she needs, and the later he confesses to the Doctor what she's planning (to no avail). I've included the data & shuttle details. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 00:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

• I removed more unnecessary links. Feel free to revert.
• Found a number of contractions in the prose of this section, as well as throughout the rest of the article, which I fixed myself. However, it would do some good to look over the article again yourself.
• Citations in Character history/plot summary are optional I guess since the primary source is the only relevant source, but it couldn't hurt to add more citations to uncited paragraphs using the existing sources (the TV show guides, for example)

  Oh, I certainly don't object to thorough sourcing, but I've actually been told not to cite such things before because of mumblesomethingreasonsidon'thonestlyremembermumble. Anyway, all the ones that needed them now have shiny new citations. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 04:10, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• Ditto for non-canon appearances list

  Okay, this one's more difficult because I don't have all of them on hand to cite. I'll have to work on these over the next few days; I absolutely can't source them all tonight. Watch this space. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 04:10, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  I believe this point here to be **less** important than the previous one, since technically speaking, the references/sources are the items being listed themselves. Regardless, if it doesn't require too much effort, feel free to cite, but this wouldn't affect the final GA promotion. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 15:55, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  Well, speaking of importance, are these example so lesser important that they can otherwise be excluded if they rather lack citations? It seems iffy to claim the character is in these novels/etc: somebody would have to potentially read the entire novel to verify that claim. Also, I have no way of knowing my memory was sufficient enough to make this a comprehensive list, and I make no claims to it being so; if it were simply even less-comprehensive, but reliably sourced, I think that's the better way to lean on this one. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 17:09, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  What do you think of this way of going about it?

  I'll also note that 109.79.167.27 (talk · contribs) removed the {{unreferenced-section}} that I'd added in the interim, saying that This section is literally a list of sources. It makes no factual claims other than that these books exist. It is not clear what references you could possibly want for this list, it makes little sense to tag it as unreferenced. We are, of course, claiming that the Barclay character is written within the pages of every one of these sources, but I wanted to make sure you'd seen this edit. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 00:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, I certainly do see this as simply a list of sources. Just as we assume good faith for offline sources, I guess we have to assume good faith that the editor who listed these books actually read them and found Barclay in them. I guess at this level, unless we have specific page numbers or a reliable third-party list, sourcing this list individually using the primary sources would be redundant. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 01:40, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

  I will try my damnedest to get better sourcing. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 13:59, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• See Katherine Pulaski for an example of a good-article class Star Trek character with ample citations for both character history and other appearances

4 Analysis

• Who are Jeffrey K. Johnson and Terry L. Shepherd?

  Expanded. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 00:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

• "Yet it's Barclay's outside the box thinking that winds up saving the day more than once." Concerns about formality here.

  How so? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 00:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

  I just feel like the phrase "winds up" here to be informal (Google also lists the phrase's meaning of "arrive or end up in a specified state, situation, or place." to be informal). This kind of sounds like quote from the source though, given both the original contraction and the non-encyclopedic tone, so just want to check we don't have another case of the non-extended Braga quote from before? GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 01:44, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

  Oh! That never occurred to me. I've no qualms about simply excising that. I will never disagree with anyone critiquing my propensity for wordiness! — Fourthords | =Λ= | 13:59, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• I removed more links in this section.

5 Reception

• Section is rather short, but I do see a potential merge with the Analysis section, since elements of Analysis (like how the Star Trek fans related to Barclay) also seem relevant to Reception

  I can see a little overlap, but the Analysis is more about dissecting the character, and Reception is more about how well was he liked. The former section talks more about 'here's what these pieces of analysis say with regard to how fan's should receive the character based on how he's written and acted-out'; the latter is more 'here's the actual reactions of actual people'. Does that make sense? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 04:10, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, I do understand the differentiation now. I was just slightly concerned that the Reception section might be a little short, especially given the impact of the character on the fans (so far, the section mainly consists of Star Trek rankings). Perhaps you can add (or move from other sections) some reception-related quotes from the actors or the producers/writers of the show? Looking at the Memory Alpha page for Barclay already shows a number of these quotes, so I'm pretty sure there are more out there. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 16:11, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  I though I'd pretty-well mined-out the MA page for sources, but I'll definently check agian! — Fourthords | =Λ= | 17:09, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  Haven't done this yet, so please leave in-place to remind me. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 00:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

References

• Sources appear reliable with consistent citation style

  Excellent! — Fourthords | =Λ= | 04:10, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Overall

• Proposed reordering of sections: Conception, Casting, Character history, Analysis, Reception

  Yeah, I can see the logic of that. Done. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 04:10, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  Reviewer, are you sure? In general that ordering would make sense but in this specific case the creation of the character seems to have come after the casting. -- 109.79.167.27 (talk) 11:57, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  If that's the case, then this needs to be clarified in the article. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 15:56, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  I see now that I'm remembering what I read in the sources and not what was in this Wikipedia article. The interview [7] is ambiguous and open to interpretation. The question "were you specifically chosen for it" suggests the character came before the casting of Schultz, but his conversation with Goldberg suggests that he indirectly let the producers know he was interested in being on the show before any specific role was ever considered. -- 109.77.204.213 (talk) 11:54, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

• First mention of Dwight Schultz in the body should be full name + linked; any following mentions can be stylized at the writer's discretion in a consistent manner

  I think you're saying that Schultz is linked too often, and that's probably because of building the article all out-of-order when I did it. Now, is it strictly forbidden to link more than once, though? Because I can see an argument for doing so at several points in a long article which might be linked-to at different section headings. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 04:10, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, of course. The Schultz can be linked at your discretion, but when I reviewed the article at that time, the links were a bit out of order. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 16:01, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• First mention of series titles and film titles (e.g. Star Trek: Voyager) can be mentioned in full and linked when first mentioned in the lead, body, or even section, but closely thereafter, should be consistently referred to either by their full name or by the shorter names (e.g. just Voyager)

  Well, referring to merely the italicized Voyager can sometimes be ambiguous because it's the shortened version of both Star Trek: Voyager and USS Voyager (Star Trek), and when both are mentioned, being very clear seems the higher priority. Does that make sense? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 04:10, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  I do see that now, but I was trying to infer some sort of precedence (if any) from existing GA-articles in WP:Star Trek (see Star Trek#Voyager (1995–2001)). I guess in this case, since the USS Voyager' is more prevalently mentioned, we can just consistently use the full show titles for Voyager (which then raises the question, should TNG be mentioned in full)? It just seems kind of weird that sometimes it's Star Trek: Voyager and sometimes it's just Voyager in the article, and the WikiProject and previous articles don't seem to have a clear solution to this. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 16:01, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  I just generally tried to be as clear as necessary at any given time while considering which truncation I had used most recently. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 17:09, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Judgement

Overall, the article is well-written, well-cited, broad, and neutral. Illustration is hard to come by due to copyright, so I don't think that should be a problem here. My main concerns are regarding some relatively minor prose issues, but besides that this article is well on it's way to GA. Putting on hold until July 30. (I am willing to provide an extension given the number of comments I left as well as my own tardiness) GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 19:59, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I've tried to hit everything you brought-up, but please chastise me if I've missed anything. An extension may be needed: this review took off faster than I expected, and I'm up to my elbows in selling a house and moving, a process that will leave me living out of boxes with but two pieces of furniture by 9 August. I'll do my best to keep up, but finding sources as I've mentioned may take some doing and/or time. Thanks! — Fourthords | =Λ= | 00:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Fourthords: Yes, definitely. I would be willing to promote even before all of the points have been addressed, since not all are particularly vital to the article's promotion. So far, the major outstanding points that need to be addressed and prioritized are as follows:

• Whether Conception came before Casting needs to be ascertained. If that is true, than nothing needs to be changed. If that is not, then some restructuring/clarification is needed in the article since the current order implies Conception came before Casting.
• Citations for "In the Star Trek canon, Barclay has appeared in twelve discrete productions from 1990–2001." and the nicknames
• Expand Reception (even by a few sentences is fine, just anything not ranking-related)

Besides those points, the rest can be pursued at a later date, since they are relatively minor prose issues. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 01:49, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I haven't seen any sources alleging that the character was written for Schultz, so barring additional sources, I think Conception → Casting makes better logical sense. Nicknames are cited, and counting the exntants is pending a couple of days. Expanding Reception may take a little longer, though an IP editor added some. (Please forgive my minor reformatting of this section to meet MOS:LISTGAP. I just removed the initial bullet since it was the only base-level point in this section.) — Fourthords | =Λ= | 13:59, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Edits look good to me! Crossed out finished points. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 17:43, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I've gotten to the point in my household move where I absolutely cannot hope to find the sources we're discussing. From now, I probably won't be in a position to find them for another month at this point, which leaves four of your GAN concerns in limbo. I'll have occasional time to try and find other copies (libraries, etc.), but I can't guarantee I'll find what I need—as opposed to my own copies. I don't know how long you're amenable to leaving this on-hold, and while I can promise it's still on my plate, I'm not hopeful for progress before the month is up. What say ye, sir? (For what it's worth, I have an online source jotted down for adding to "Reception", but that's one step out of many needed.) — Fourthords | =Λ= | 02:14, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

@Fourthords: Thanks for your update. I'm not very clear on how long GA reviews are "allowed" to run without input. I personally don't mind keeping it open that long, but since I've listed this in the July backlog drive, I don't think the coordinators would be too happy if I kept this open for over a month. Would it be okay for you if I closed this review now, and you can renominate once your move is over and you've finished the points? GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 02:34, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Since the points are yours, if we suspend the GAN for now, would it be possible to just hit you up when I'm back in action, and you'd be able to hit resume on the process? (FWIW, I was stupendously surprised that you got to the review as quickly as you did after my nomination. I'd assumed I wouldn't see a reviewer until September at the earliest. I never ever expected this to intersect with my real-life move!) Thanks, — Fourthords | =Λ= | 14:00, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes of course, just ping me when you're ready. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 14:18, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Due to more time being needed to address all points highlighted in this review, I will be suspending/failing this GA nomination. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 14:48, 6 August 2021 (UTC)