Memory Beta, non-canon Star Trek Wiki
Memory Beta, non-canon Star Trek Wiki

Hey guys, HELP NEEDED. I know everyone is busy doing their own articles, but I have come as far with this one as I can, as I don't have any more of the A Time to... novels. It would be great if we could finish this one off.

Thanks in advance - Bok2384

Forgot to make a Summary note: Added Picard's romances with Jenice manheim and Miranda Vigo to the events of the 2340s. The bit about Stargazer undergoing refit is conjecture, but how else do you explain Picard being reassigned to Paris for the at-least-a-few-months he would have needed to get that serious with Jenice? --Emperorkalan 04:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I seem to remember Riker saying that he wanted to beat Kirk's record for youngest captain - age 29 (maybe from Imzadi?). But the Kirk article indicates he was captain at 31 and this Picard article indicates that he was captain at 28. What am I missing? Jdvelasc 23:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that it's a discrepancy on Imzadi's part.--Turtletrekker 23:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
It has to be. Picard was indeed 28 when he took command, and according to "Conspiracy", Tryla Scott was even younger. Kirk's record may have been broken before Picard, but I'm not sure. --TimPendragon 04:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I have another, unrelated, question about the article. Do we want to start some sort of "hobbies and interests" section for him? I'm reading the "Ill Wind" comic series, and it says that Picard used to enjoy flying solar sail craft in his younger days. At present, I don't think there's really an area in the article where I could fit that in. It would be a good place to include all of the archaeological miscellanea from the various non-canon works, and I'm sure there are other novels and comics that give him more hobbies, or expand on ones in canon. His rock climbing program in Intellivore comes to mind. --TimPendragon
Go for it, towards the bottom maybe? -- 8of5 04:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
...or the very top, just you know, not half way through the history. -- 8of5 04:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

ToC labeling[]

It may just be me, but having sections in the ToC with overly long and bizarre numeration as and the like makes this page look a lot more disorganized and chaotic that it actually is. --Turtletrekker 03:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Quite the opposite to me, having all the parts in neat stepped arrangements, so say, every part of the history is actually under the history section, and all of his service on the Enterprise-E is actually under the Enterprise-E section, seems considerably neater than lots and lots of top step sections. The page is now neatly divided into four main sections; History, Personal life, Alternate timelines and Appendices. (Admittedly those divides are somewhat unbalanced with the huge history section. But it’s much easier to define the other sections as quite separate from the singular history section than a dozen sub-sections of history that were previously top level section titles on there own) --8of5 04:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess we will just have to disagee on this one. Wouldn't be the first time. (-; --Turtletrekker 05:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Marriage To Crusher[]

The TNG relaunch novel summaries are pretty lacking, and I haven't been able to get my hands on anything prior to Greater Than the Sum, so can someone tell me when Picard and Crusher get married? It's hinted in this page and Crusher's page that they became romantic after Death in Winter, but there's absolutely no mention of the marriage itself; by Greater, they're dealing with why Picard doesn't want to have children. Can someone help out here? --Captain Savar 16:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It happens between Before Dishonor and GTTS, not long before the beginning of the latter novel. -- Michael Warren | Talk 16:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Does their son even have a name?--KrossTransmit on Holonet? 01:07, February 5, 2010 (UTC)

Their son hasn't been born yet. leandar 05:41, February 5, 2010 (UTC)

Interesting tie-in possibility, that the unborn son would be a twentysomething by the time of Star Trek Online. Hm.. -- Captain MKB 14:07, February 5, 2010 (UTC)

  • If you look in the biography boxes for both Crusher and Picard, then name of their son is listed as being Rene Jacques Robert Francois Picard, although no further references about the time/circumstances of his birth have been addressed. It is also inferred that he ends up marrying Riker and Troi's daughter.
STO novel: The Needs of the Many picked up this idea with that character. -- Captain MKB 11:20, June 8, 2010 (UTC)

Retirement on Ba'ku?[]

So I was watching Insurrection (great commentary with Frakes and Sirtis btw absolutely hilarious), and it got me thinking. When Picard's health began to degenerate, don't you think he would return to Baku to live with Anij? He would regress in age and get to live with the presumably still-single Anij, who would be happy to have him. Seems like a pretty good deal to me, and it could effectively keep Picard alive and well for the foreseeable future. Even if he left the planet for periods of time the effects wouldn't immediately wear off, as we see in the film.

Wouldn't mind seeing a book that explored that possibility.

Novel continuity & the Countdown/2404 continuity[]

Hey all, I have separated the end notes about the developments of Countdown & the Path to 2404 from the main (novel dependent) article stem. I have many reasons, some of which I feel are applicable to all articles (due especially to incongruities between the 2404 stream and the novel continuity to 2381, as well as the Borg stuff, etc). The more particular notes are concerned with the development of Picard's character - a captain in Starfleet as constant as the Northern Star, who in 2381 is not yet on par to be an ambassador, to Vulcan of all places. Of course he could be, he has the skills and experience. But it has not been established. Instead the authors over several years have emphasised his status as a captain, at the expense of higher aspirations. I also feel validated in separating the two (three?) continuities by comments on Trek BBS, however, these are not mandates for the future & future editors may try to harmonise these disparate information streams.

Feel free to discuss or disagree. - Igorlex June 8, 2010

I disagree. -- Captain MKB 11:59, June 8, 2010 (UTC)
Hey Captainmike, thanks for stating your case on my talk page. You argued that fragmentation removed the clean chronology. I will summarise my reply there - that a clean chronology comes at the expense of the intellectual integrity of each licensed product continuity. For example the Path to 2404 and the novel continuity cannot be meshed without most of the details mismatching, and the overall point of significant character, world, plot or thematic developments being lost from the latter. Regarding the composition of biographies, I guess I feel that separate continuities should be illustrated separately, so that consumers of individual licensed products can understand that continuity when coming to Memory Beta. This comes from my own experience of using the website. I do not think there is a higher level of product over another: my raison d'etre for the history being dominated by the Pocket line is because I believed (perhaps erroneously) that the majority of users of this website will be coming from Pocket novels as their entrée to licensed Trek.

--Igorlex 14:44, June 8, 2010

I'm not sure moving the discussion to an individual talk page when the subject is something that has been widely debated by the community rather than an individual issue was necessary. But Igorlex was kind enough to bring it back here, so: May I refer you to this line from our Inclusion Policy: "Articles should be written assuming events take place in a singular Star Trek universe. Except when a separation between timelines has been explicitly declared in-universe, contradictions between different continuities should be noted only when they overtly conflict in regard to the specific subject of the article." And this recent and so far unconcluded discussion on how we deal with the STO timeline. Considering that I disagree with the current edit, ut agree some modification needs to occur: The games should be reintegrated back into the main history, and the prose and online timelines should be considered two equal possible timelines towards the end of Picard's history, and I would suggest labelling those two timelines per my suggestion on the aforementioned timeline discussion. --8of5 14:45, June 8, 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the update. As a newb, I acted based upon my opinions from the site over the last year. Whilst I disagree with the present arrangement, I understand the need for consistency. I guess I feel this should be debated again, since it has been before. --Igorlex 15:53, June 8, 2010

Nothing wrong with bringing it up, the policies are organic; the current inclusion policy was only written up a year ago. Before then we were just making it up as we went along. When I first started here the Pocket continuity was considered the "main" one as you suggest. As the site has grown to encompass a large range of different sources the articles have likewise grown to reflect their diverse, and occasionally incompatible histories. One of the arguments I consider key in the current policy is: Where do you draw the line? There are plenty of discontinuities within even the modern prose continuity, at what point do you declare something the proper timeline and something outside of it. Does every book and comic become it's own universe? Because the fracturing of articles you'd get as a result would be useful to no one in my opinion. --8of5 15:03, June 8, 2010 (UTC)

I also think we should split the timelines... it is obvious that the Picard in Countdown/STO is a different character than the Picard in the books. The authors of the books did not ignore GENERATIONS, when Kirk adviced Picard not to leave the center seat. And Picard's new family was never mentioned in 'Countdown'. Let's just call the book timeline the DESTINY-timeline, and the other one the STO timeline, and everyone will decide, which story is the official one for him/herself.

Picard finale[]

Hey everyone, i've had to revert this a few times, but the ST Picard finale features Picard dying and being immediately transferred and resurrected in a synthetic body that is a precise replication of his original body (minus the Irumodic syndrome parietal lobe defect and presumably with a real heart)

Could we all agree to adopt a policy on this - he didnt die in terms of needing to update the article with a death date. he's still the same person and as such i don't believe this occurrence mounts a full cause for us to need to state that 2399 is his date of death. -- captainmike Site-logo.png 20:30, April 1, 2020 (UTC)

You're going to have to lock the article, or leave a massively obvious hatnote. This discussion is still ongoing over on Memory Alpha, and I'm sure there's going to be spill over here from people who are dissatisfied with the result. FWIW, I look at it as basically the same as what happened with Spock. Listing a death/resurrection date isn't inherently a bad thing, it's an appropriately momentous moment in his life. He did die, but like Spock, he's back in a rejuvinated (or in this case, synthetic body). Still the same person. The best thing to do, IMO, is to allow the death date, but add a "status" line to the character infobox for indicating he's been resurrected. --TimPendragon (talk) 00:30, April 2, 2020 (UTC)
the caveat is that we have a pedantic editing behavior that the masses love - where an article has no substance in terms of paragraphs, but we shoehorn too much information into the stupid damn sidebars. the parameters for death dates and birthdates should have a limited option, not adding a friggin long form letter. the 'siblings' field is a prime example - it should list linked names of siblings - not their gender and birthdates and death dates. write that in the damn articles, not in the infobox! it should say "[[Robert Picard]], [[Claude Picard]]". it shouldn't say "* [[Robert Picard]]<br><small>(brother, born [[2301]], died [[2371]])<br>* [[Claude Picard]] (brother in ST:TNG DC vol.2 Annual continuity, b.[[2311]], d.[[2321]])" .. it shouldn't take a hatbox to tell people to stop doing stupid crap in the sidebar that doesnt belong there -- captainmike Site-logo.png 00:44, April 2, 2020 (UTC)
The way I see it, Picard did die. Now whether to think of the current Picard as having been resurrected like Spock (in which case I would side with Tim in adopting a similar approach here as with the article on Spock), or whether he is more like a copy (which, to me, would require a completely new article) I don't quite know yet myself. After all, his BODY has changed, with the deletion of the inherent flaw of the Irumodic syndrome, but his personality or "soul" is still arguably the same. In the same fashion, I am wondering if the "novelverse" resurrected Data should be split off into a separate article because again, new body but same "soul". - Bell'Orso (talk) 03:00, April 2, 2020 (UTC)
regardless of how many people prefer to make pointless additions to the sidebar rather that putting them where they belong in the body of the article, i'm squarely set against making a second Picard article. we dont have a second Spock article for Genesis Spock (might i add, there is no note in his sidebar about his first un-death-ed death)... it's approaching a certain level of ridiculous to put 'he died but not really' in the sidebar (to make another example of people shoehorning unnecessary garbage into the sidebar, in the marriage info when they'll put "not married but definitely involved with.. "
it's just a different thing being written into the wrong box. -- captainmike Site-logo.png 03:17, April 2, 2020 (UTC)
Regarding the different continuities, I keep coming back to how Wookiepeedia handled the divergence of the EU and Disney canon. They have *one* page, divided into tabs for each continuity. Go to the Luke Skywalker article, and all the info will be there, you just switch from the "Canon" tab to the "Legends" tab. If we can implement something like that here, IMO, that's the best solution for keeping the articles clean, consistent and accurate. At least on the major character articles, and the like. Litverse, Star Trek Online and the new addition to canon, simply cannot be reconciled after a certain point, and to have article sections switching back and forth between continuities is needlessly confusing. Adapating Wookieepedia's approach could work for us here. --TimPendragon (talk) 04:53, April 2, 2020 (UTC)
Comparatively, Star Trek is not growing that many alternate continuities. That would be a lot of work for very little gain. With the continuation of canon, STO is starting to retcon itself into a form that matches what is being established onscreen. And theres a very good chance the entire relaunch novel situation will be resolved as some sort of alternate reality, in which case all this out-of-continuity data will be moved to 'alternate' sections - out of the way. and then we'll be left with a complicated-to-maintain tab system for one main continuity and a few divergences by Bantam and Gold Key.
Since we're on the JLP talk page, i can say that the 'island of alternate continuity' approach approved by community discussion is only partially enacted and needs pruning, which i have been working on. the final version will be effective and will not require the kind of overhaul which our previous discussions decided against
Regardless, the point of this discussion being here on this talk page was to establish that, like Spock before him, Picard's death and resurrection does not warrant a separate article - as he is not a new second person. and i have said my piece about how the sidebar infobox should be used in a effective manner, not as a replacement for good article writing -- captainmike Site-logo.png 00:00, April 3, 2020 (UTC)