This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Film: American This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles This article is supported by the American cinema task force. Star Trek Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Star Trek, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to all Star Trek-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Star TrekWikipedia:WikiProject Star TrekTemplate:WikiProject Star TrekStar Trek articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Fictional characters This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles

This article was nominated for deletion on 3 February 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

I feel that this article could benefit from mention of some of Joachim's accomplishments. Drearwig17:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but where should we start? He obviously was a good survivalist because he lasted on Celti Alpha V for so long and he was strong because the Ceti Eel didn't kill him. also what I think makes him cool is that he stepped onto the bridge of the Reliant and he just figured out how to pilot it right away. Maybe I'll write up something about that. TenaciousT 17:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His wisdom for starters, he was the sole voice of opposition against pursuing Captain_James_T._Kirk. He was also the only one with the wisdom to know that their shields would not work in the Mutara Nebula and that they would be at a disadvantage. Although along with his accomplishments, we should also mention his failure to locate the override button. (Drearwig 17:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Joachim had a quite honorable death and deserves mention. Drearwig17:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

he died serving his Master. That DOES deserve mention. TenaciousT 17:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is littered with non-npov, speculation, uncited assertions, and in general is just poorly written. It is entirely plot summary with no material at all related to the significance of this character. I tried doing some editing to clear the extraneous junk out until this thing can be nuked, but really removing the tangential, insignificant, and/or inappropriate material would leave...just his name. --EEMeltonIV 02:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to say that the article has undergone a complete turn-around since the above comments were made. It even passed an AfD debate. Fuck, yeah! Shaundakulbara 19:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Woot! It wasn't deleted! It's Miller Time! TenaciousT 00:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EEMeltonIV, I find it frustrating that in the wake of your failed efforts to get this article deleted you have made extensive non-helpful edits. In at least two areas you removed citations and then added the dreaded ((Fact)) tag to question material that was verified by the citations you removed. I respectfully request that you make edits more carefully and avoid edits which might be construed as sabotage. Thanks. Shaundakulbara 03:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your one to speak.. the extensive, non-helpful edits.. sabotage.. attempting to get pages deleted.. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 09:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You put one of those ref tags in a wrong place. I'm glad it's in a spot more useful. As for sabotage -- take a look at the vast majority of the tweaking I've done. While I appreciate the re-write you did to make this a better article, it still had bits of OR, synthesis and generally poor grammar. I don't mean to work at cross-purposes, and your suggestion that I am "sabotaging" it goes against the Wikipedia policy of assuming good faith. I'll also point out that I have consistently been using edit summaries to explain my changes, whereas you have not. --EEMeltonIV 03:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you to avoid edits which might be "construed as sabotage". While we are on the subject of good manners, referring to my work as "generally poor grammar" would not fall under that category. I welcome your attempts to improve this article. Please don't remove the blockquotes -- they aren't copyright violations -- and be especially careful when removing citations. Rather than even hint at some sort of edit war, I will let you have your way with the article for the rest of the night and will make edits myself at a later time. Please, just be thoughtful. Shaundakulbara 03:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggestion: Avoid inserting endnotes mid-sentence or even mid-paragraph. Wikipedia guidelines leave this largely up to our discretion but mostly we seem to use them in order to cite facts that are likely to be challenged. Who co-starred in what movie when falls outside this category. Thanks much, have fun. Shaundakulbara 03:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggestion: Eliminate the quoted description from Paramount. Keep the quote of him talking to Khan and the bit about the award to Montleban. Good compromise? Shaundakulbara 03:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One thing with the TV Guide quote is the subjective time references, e.g. "recently" and "today". Recently/today when? I think a paraphrase would be more apt. Additionally, the material under Description and Character history seem to repeat each other. They probably can and should be combined. Eh, but I'm going to bed now. --EEMeltonIV 04:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does this book identify the TOS character as Khan's son and the TWOK character as the TOS character's son? --EEMeltonIV 13:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No. In the book Joachim is the son of Suzette Ling and another stranded Botany Bay crew member not named Joachim or Khan. TenaciousT 19:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. Is the article now accurate? --EEMeltonIV 19:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aesthetically, it's kinda hanging lose beyond the death scene pic. Can anyone argue that its presence really adds a whole lot to the piece, other than to show the exact shade of gold? Delete it? --EEMeltonIV 17:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If you are going to delete it (and I know you are) at least move it to the CCG article. I don't think there's an image there. Shaundakulbara 11:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I guess that's a tacit thumbs up to axe it. Is there a particularly relevant part of the CCG article where it should go, i.e. which deck or era does it belong to? --EEMeltonIV 17:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The card is from the Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan expansion pack. The image looked fine in the layout before text was removed from that section. While you have made some helpful edits to this article I feel you have been over zealous in removing material. Every time I look at this article it has shrunk further. I even specifically asked you to not remove a certain quote and you responded with "a pretty speech, but Wikipedia is not a place to stick things just 'cause we like them". That is not exactly a civil argument nor are one editor's preferences the last word in a given matter. I will be re-adding text at a later date. Thanks. Shaundakulbara 21:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You left off the second half of that edit summary, which states that a paraphrase is more succinct and conveys the same information as the quote. Additionally, aesthetically it works better (but, fine, that's subjective). Considering that the quote in question is merely plot summary -- rather than something establishing notability -- the more concise it can be, the better.

But this is a tangent. I didn't see a "Star Trek II" deck on the CCG page. Is it part of the Genesis deck? Would it be better to place it at the beginning of the 2nd edition? section as an example of a "typical" card from that edition? --EEMeltonIV 01:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It's from the Genesis collection and I suggest adding it to that section. Since the CCG article is currently devoid of pictures adding it to either spot seems of benefit. Regarding the other matter, I think quotes help readers get a sense of character. After reading an article about someone, it is often a quote which remains most resonant in my thoughts afterwards. While blockquoting a secondary source might be lazy in some instances, a reasonable-length blockquote of something from the subject's own mouth length can be of great value in decribing a person, actual or fictional. Thanks. Shaundakulbara 02:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chop the article down. Take out two of the pictures. Nominate a 3rd picture for deletion. Why don't we just nominate the article for deletion again and have it done with? Now that I understand how much the movie this guy appeared in really sucks I have a hard time caring. I'd rather turn my attention elsewhere. There are some more interested in winning petty battles than making improvements. I'm not one of those. If I was I would have gloated when a few dozen articles MatthewFenton wanted to save were deleted because of my efforts. Thanks. Shaundakulbara 02:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For my own part, if I were interested in going through AfD again, I'd've just let this article sit here -- however, your rewrite (thanks again) seemed to put it over the mark for establishing notability. However, even rewritten, it still needed improvements; my first edit summary after it failed AfD was along the lines of, "Well, if it's here to stay, might as well make it better." I can't speak to the picture being nominated for deletion; I don't remember noticing L0b0t (talk · contribs) before. If the presence or absence of pictures, however, makes or breaks the article, then it isn't a very good article is it? Fortunately, one could strip all the pictures from this article and still be left with enough information to be worthwhile. As for the article being shorter, it seems you're conflating conciseness for being unsubstantial. I'd contend that most of the notable information from your version is still in the most recent iteration -- perhaps phrased differently and more tightly and reorganized, but the meat is still there. And as for your copyright stuff with MatthewFenton (talk · contribs), I've got no idea what you're talking about; take it up with him on his talk page. Thank you, though, for not gloating -- but were you gloating about not gloating? :p --EEMeltonIV 02:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EEMeltonIV, you made me laugh. No, I was not gloating about not gloating. I was gloating while saying I wasn't gloating. That is the eminently Wikipedian way to do things. But yeah, I'll confess since I love being honest and hope to never become eminently Wikipedian. EEMeltonIV, you made some good edits. But editing out the quote I specifically asked to be kept? It may not surprise you that strikes me as contentious (I was going to say "inflexible and jerky" but I said contentious instead. Civil, huh?). As for taking it up with MatthewFenton on his talk page, I'd rather not. HEY...does anyone remember the good old days when we spent most of out time dealing with real problems? Reverting vandals, fixing articles that were a total fucking mess, etc.? I remember that as being more satisfying than bickering about whether a Star Trek article has two pictures or three. Shaundakulbara 02:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Twokjoachim.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 08:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:TobinST.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Joachim (Star Trek). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070222213422/http://www.comstationz.org/stories/stories-lvjan2001a.html to http://www.comstationz.org/stories/stories-lvjan2001a.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:22, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Joachim (Star Trek). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928033147/http://www.starbase21ok.com/trek_expo_2003_daily_schedule.htm to http://www.starbase21ok.com/trek_expo_2003_daily_schedule.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:41, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]