Talk:Weyoun

From Memory Alpha, the free Star Trek reference

Contents 1 FA nomination 2 Top Scifi Villains 3 Claps him on the shoulder? 4 Page split 5 Redux

[edit] FA nomination

Weyoun

Self-nomination. A detailed article about one of my favorite DS9 characters. (Or does he count as five characters? :-D) -- Dan Carlson 22:33, 10 Jun 2004 (CEST)

Seconded. -- Michael Warren 22:57, 10 Jun 2004 (CEST)

No references yet, for the rest OK. I'll second it when it has references. -- Redge 16:20, 12 Jun 2004 (CEST)

Seconded. It's a good article, but I would try to find a higher-quality image. ;) Ottens 19:55, 12 Jun 2004 (CEST)

Archived --Alan del Beccio 00:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Top Scifi Villains

It might be helpful if anyone can find a link to the list referred to at the end of the article. I can't find it anywhere. --Ortzinator 06:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Claps him on the shoulder?

According to the script for "To the Death", when Weyoun claps Odo on the shoulder, he infected him with the virus that presents itself in "Broken Link" and necessitates his return to the Great Link.

I could be mistaken, but it's only in the skript, isn't it? Because I don't recognize a scene where Weyoun dares claping a god on the shoulder. --Trent_Easton 10:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I doubt a Vorta (or any Vorta) is even ALLOWED to even "touch" a god? --Ambassador Weyoun 18:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

That moment in the episode is shot in close-ups, so we cannot see Weyoun's hands or hear a clap. It might be possible he briefly touches Odo, based on the reaction in Jeffrey Combs face, but nothing is seen on screen. --Jörg 07:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Which I actually noted a short while ago on the episode page. --Alan del Beccio 07:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page split

Since this is such a big move I thought I would propose it here. Why are Weyoun 4, Weyoun 5, Weyoun 6, Weyoun 7 and Weyoun 8 all placed on this page as if it was one individual? Clearly, yes, they originated from one individual, but they are not all the same, therefore, it seems, this page should be 5 pages to cover the 5 known Weyouns. It also seems that M/A, otherwise, follows a standard of separating clones from the people they were cloned from, like Kahless the Unforgettable/Kahless (clone) and Jean-Luc Picard/Shinzon. Why is this the exception? --Alan del Beccio 20:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

And of course, Spock and Spock 2. --Bp 20:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Because Vorta clones are very much alike. Although they see themselves as different persons, they share behaviour and memory - the (most) other clones in Star Trek don't posess the memory of the original. And do not share their behaviour because both is based on how and where one ose raised. The Vorta get cloned to be some kind of immortal, and thus consider themselves as one of a line of one individual.

• Pro:
  • Each clone thinks of himself as an individual person, although they share memory and experience. e.g. they don't want to die, although death does not realy matter to them because there will be an other of their row. So, yes they feel like individuals so propably the articles should be seperated.
• Contra:
  • Because their memory is shared they all are somewhat the same person, because what defines us is the memory and the thought, and the behaviour, and in this, they are very much alike, if not even the same.
  • They are cloned and memory-copied to BE the same person - otherwise the founders could have planted the experience and memories into an other Vorta and send him instead. But they want the Vorta of one line to be the same. Not just to make it easy for others to stay with the diplomat they come ro trust, but also the founders come to trust one line of Vorta, wich indicates that they are all pretty much the same person.
  • The Vorta are cloned because they have to be and that's their way of life. The above mentioned clones were done by persons who wanted to use them or some similar way. Not to give one person imortality, but to use the clone for something the original would possibly not do, or something like that.

Conclusion: (imo) the article should stay as it is, because the Vorta clones are pretty much the same person - and don't bother beeing adressed as someone else, while most other ST clones spoke of themselves as an other person than the original. Therefore you can consider a Line of a Vorta as the same person.

An other option would be to rename the article to "Line of Weyoun" as he reffered to that topic by himself (think it was something like "That was the fourth incarnation of out noble line, I am the fifth.", I'll look it up tomorrow, if necessary), with a forward from "Weyoun". ~ Trent_Easton ~ ^talk 23:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I still don't agree, per a couple things. Using your reference as an example: Weyoun 5, himself, said regarding Weyoun 4 that "that wasn't me." "At least not exactly."

• SISKO: We've met. But I saw you die.
• WEYOUN: That wasn't me. At least not exactly.
• DUKAT: The Vorta are experts at cloning.
• WEYOUN: It tends to mitigate the risk involved in so much of our work. My predecessor was the fourth incarnation of our noble progenitor. I am the fifth.
• SISKO: Immortality.
• WEYOUN: Of a sort. Interested?

Secondly, to contrast one of your "cons"-- even Kahless (clone) believed himself to be the "real" Kahless the Unforgettable. His creation was essentially the same as the way Weyoun was created (just not quite as successfully), picking up with the memories of where the last Kahless left off.

• KOROTH (to Kahless): The problems with your memory are a result of the way you returned.
• KAHLESS: What do you mean?
• KOROTH: We, the Guardians, have been awaiting your return for centuries. But we did not have the technology to bring you back until now. We were able to use an organic sample of the first Kahless to give you life.
• KAHLESS: The first Kahless?
• WORF: A clone. He is a clone.
• KAHLESS: What is a clone?
• WORF: A being created in a laboratory from genetic material taken from another being. You are a copy, a fraud.
• KOROTH (to Kahless): You are not "just" a copy. We gave you more than the body of Kahless.
• TORIN: We found a way to imprint specific information into your neurosynaptic patterns, we gave you memories. And not just any memories, we gave you the experiences of Kahless as written in the sacred texts.

There is more, but I think this shows that he is really no different than the Weyoun line, the difference being the second Kahless wasn't waiting in a freezer somewhere to be activated, and was created/activated several centuries after the fact, rather than days, weeks, months...

Just a couple other clones that came to mind that are treated as individuals rather than "a line": Walter Granger/Wilson Granger/Victor Granger, and Stavos Keniclius/Stavos Keniclius 5. --Alan del Beccio 16:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Alan (I think), and think that this page should be about the similarities within the Weyoun clones, the supposed death of the last clone, and link to Weyoun 4-Weyoun 8 (and Weyoun (hologram)). This is mostly because I like to think of Weyoun 6 as a different character (as he should be treated). Most of the Weyouns were Weyoun 5 anyway (12 Weyoun 5's versus 11 others), and we can add 4 new characters to Jeffrey Combs table, somehow.--Tim Thomason 16:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I still think they belong together. But it's not that important to me, you may part them or not. But it would be a shame to cut this featured Article into tiny peaces. Here you have everything on one page rather than on five different ones. And I don't see a need to seperate them. Because if you are looking for Weyoun you find all Weyouns you might be looking for and if you want to link to one of them you can use the anchor (eg. Weyoun 5 ) ~ Trent_Easton ~ ^talk 20:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redux

I would like to get a recount on this once again, seeing as this discussion is old and might come across odd to anyone wondering why this page is getting split up, seemingly out of nowhere. --Alan del Beccio 00:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I oppose splitting up this page. All relevant information is in one place, and if people are concerned with an individual Weyoun they can use piped links. (and all Weyoun numbers should be redirects to the relevant section). Call it subjective, but to me, Weyoun was always one character (or close to one), whereas your other examples were not. If it comes down to consistency for clones that "carried on" the memories of an individual, I'd rather have Kahless (clone) merged with Kahless the Unforgettable, then to split up Weyoun.

In which case the first line should state that Weyoun was a line of Vorta clones (and the other sentences rephrased accordingly).– Cleanse 01:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Multiple characters = multiple pages. They are not the same individual, and even Weyoun agrees with that assessment, "That wasn't me. At least not exactly." Just like how the USS Sao Paulo was renamed the USS Defiant. Sure they have the same name, same registry, same design, same crew, but they were still different ships. --Alan del Beccio 01:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I support page split. Tyrant 01:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)Tyrant

But we merged the Sao Paulo article into the Defiant article...as they were the same ship. So I'm not sure what you mean by that analogy.

The current setup is most accessible to readers, and helps those who don't remember exactly which Weyoun was in which episode.

In any case, I'm not changing my vote, but if I'm outvoted (which seems likely), I won't be torn or anything. :-) – Cleanse 02:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

As I've stated before, Weyoun 6 is an entirely different character and deserves to be split. Most of Weyoun we know and love is Weyoun 5, and Weyoun 4 and the last two made minor appearances. I also believe a centralized page here covering the "Weyoun series" is called for (as opposed to a disambiguation page).

As for the Sao Paulo connection: Sao Paulo and "Defiant II" were separate articles until they were merged (as they were the same ship). Now "Sao Paulo/Defiant II" is a different ship than the "Defiant I," despite the fact that they share a very heavily connected lineage (same crew, same design, same appearance even), and like the Weyouns, deserves to remain separate. (I think that's what Mr. Beccio is trying to say).--Tim Thomason 05:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Never change a running system. I think the page should be as it is. Now it's a good article. If you split it, you have several pages with only a few sentences about 1 special clone of the same linage. For they have all the same memory and despite Weyoun said otherwise, they have most defenitly the same character (not speaking of the 'defective' one, who was.. well defective), and thus should remain on one page. I fail to see the point on splitting this up. If you search for Weyoun you learn about the character who played part in the series. Not everyone is such a DS9-fanatic to know exactly wich Weyoun was in wich episode. So if they look for 'Weyoun' and get 5+ resultes, they're confused. Don't forget, that this is an Enzyclopedia! ~ Trent_Easton ~ ^talk 16:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is an encyclopedia, and therefore should be accurately parsed as one. A simple template can allow a user to navigate between "Weyouns". --Alan 18:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)