# Talk:Kazon

Any specific reason on why one has the same name as the other, but just with 3 extra letters at the end?  ---SilentRAGE! 23:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Dunno, but I do remember they were described as 2 different sects in dialogue. See the episode where Janeway tries to arrange a summit between the Kazon & the Trabe. Wl219 06:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
This is a late response, but they are just the names of two different sects. There is no reason given for the similarities in their names. Aoba47 (talk) 20:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

When was the Kazon Sari mentioned. the only place i've ever seen it was the star trek fact file magazine. was it ever mentioned in the show or in one of the books?--Irishboi (talk) 02:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

This article lacks any kind of real-world treatment, and there is neither assertion nor evidence of independent notability. I am redirecting to the appropriate list-of. --EEMIV (talk) 23:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The restoring editor called this a "major race." While it shows up a bunch in the TV show, there is no assertion of evidence of its notability in the real world, i.e. the article fails to the clear WP:GNG. Per WP:BURDEN, the restoring editor needs to clear that bar -- and hasn't. Ditto several other race articles. I'm going to restore the redirect because the article fails to meet basic inclusion standards; if the editor would like to pursue work in user space before migrating to article space, that might be a good avenue. --EEMIV (talk) 02:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
"Now this is podracing!" --EEMIV (talk) 13:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! I tried my best with this. This had a surprisingly interesting history and production so I really enjoyed expanding this. I will most likely go through it sometime in the future for a thorough c/e as I am sure there are several rough spots prose-wise, but I am very proud of this. Aoba47 (talk) 14:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Can someone explain how this topic passes Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)? I see this is primarily based on primary sources, and mentions in passings in reviews/etc. Which sources provide non-primary, in-depth coverage of Kazons? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

@Piotrus: I have addressed this comment in the GAN. Also, there is not a specific essay/page on notability for fictional characters as the more general one for fiction is used instead. Aoba47 (talk) 15:58, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
I think this is a discussion worth having. For me, the discussion present in Gonzalez on the one hand and Niculescu/Nemtzeanu is indicative of significance, and this is cemented by the discussion in popular media. There's also discussion in other academic sources; Star Trek: Parallel Narratives discusses Kazon storylines over several pages, for example. There's an editorial question about whether information better belongs in a list or a standalone article, but I think that's settled by the length of the present article; while much of this is sourced to primary material, it is nonetheless real-world information and not just plot details. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you both for your comments and I agree that it is a discussion worth having. I will probably stay out of the discussion as I am biased since I am the creator and primary contributor of the article, but I will respect any decision made about it. I will also look through Star Trek: Parallel Narratives as soon as I get the chance. Thank you again! Aoba47 (talk) 18:31, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
I will reply by commenting on the sources you suggested, which I assume are 'the best'. 1) Gonzalez seems like an independent and reliable book (but why aren't you citing page numbers? Having downloaded a full copy of the book from Library Genesis, it seems the page range for main Kazon chapter is 179-183). Having read this, short after all, chapter, it is a good source that I am surprised is not used for more, I think a few more sentences could be added to the article, and expanding the reception section seems like a good idea. Second, Niculescu source is fine as well, even if de:Medienimpulse has not been translated to English yet, and doesn't strike me like a high profile/quality scholarly source (but I AGF it has peer review, and that's suffices). The mention in NYT ([1]) is brief and I don't consider it very helpful, but since we have two good sources, I would say this is borderline - it meets GNG if we treat two as multiple. Unfortunately, the Kazon discussion in 'parallel narratives' book (which is also on LG) is not very developed, IMHO, so I am not sure this source is very helpful. Given that we have so far two good sources, well... it probably would survive AfD, through sadly because some votes would be along the lines 'Star Trek topics are notable because Star Trek'. Since therefore realistically I don't think this could be deleted, and it is, anyway, borderline, I guess we can say it squeezes by notability, through if anyone can locate 1-2 more sources which would discuss them in depth like the first two do, the borderline would no longer be the case. Anyway, thank you for pointing me to the quality sources, it is a nice change from some other discussions I had recently. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 21:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
It might also be worth while looking at Stephen Edward Poe's A Vision of the Future, as that concentrates on the first few seasons of Voyager and therefore there must be some significant coverage of the Kazon in there. Also, if you need to see the Starlog reference online, you can see it here on archive.org [2]. Miyagawa (talk) 21:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Piotr: I think your analysis is sound (and agree with your frustrations about the weak arguments sometimes used in discussions about the notability of fictional elements, for what it's worth). While I am always much happier with good academic sources, do you not think that the popular media mentions count for anything? We could say, for instance, that Gonzalez and the Medienimpulse article are two good sources, meaning notability is borderline, and then discussion on the likes of io9, Den of Geek, Starlog (which is, as best as I can tell, a third-party source) and Tor.com tip it fairly comfortably over the edge? (I know there are mixed views about the "top 10 x"-type articles at AfD, but if they're from a decent publication, they surely count for something, right?) Josh Milburn (talk) 22:31, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Piotr: Miyagawa has pointed out that there's some nice stuff in The Fifty Year Mission. While a popular-rather-than-academic text, it is a third-party one, so I think we're probably comfortably over the line now? Josh Milburn (talk) 00:32, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Just so everyone is aware of it, I have added that text to the article, and thank you again Miyagawa for pointing it out to me. Aoba47 (talk) 15:08, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
It seems that Miyagawa is primarily discusing them by quoting from cast/staff interview, so this source is mostly problematic as it falls under WP:INTERVIEW problems. Regarding other sources, I haven't looked at the links, but the question is: are they mentioning Kazon in passing, or are they focused on them? An io9 or such article about Kazons would help, too, even through it is not mainstream media, it helps a bit. The issue is, for me, whether Kazons are mentioned in passing or are the subject themselves. Because we could surely find dozens if not hundreds of reviews of Voyager episodes with the word Kazon, but I wouldn't considered them very helpful for this article. To me, the question is of basic notability can be often summarized is: has someone written about this topic? If so, is that person a reliable source? If so, the topic is likely notable (through then we have to consider the requirement for multiple sources). Here, we have a book chapter, academic articles, and some smaller mentions, so as I say, that's what I define as borderline. If you have some other good sources you htink I should look at, do link them. I looked at io9, tor.com and Den of Geek, but they are mentioning Kazons only as part of the greater topic, and given how niche they are, well, side mention in niche venue doesn't count that much for me. Maybe I should write an essay on how I score that :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 21:24, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
@Piotrus:Thank you for your comment. I have to respectfully disagree with you. I do not understand the rationale behind dismissing articles/resources just because the Kazon are not the "main" topic/focus. I would understand this concern if a source just had the name or a brief sentence, but each of those sources had enough information specifically about the Kazon that goes beyond a passing or small mention. The resources do not just "mention in passing" the Kazon, which implies a single phrase or just a word in a long list, as they do discuss them within the framework of the larger topic, which should not taken as a negative point. I strongly believe that all of the sources together support that this subject is notable.  I would ideally like to get this issue addressed (and again I will respect any decision made) sometime in the near future (hopefully by the end of this week). Aoba47 (talk) 21:33, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
@J Milburn: @Piotrus: @Miyagawa: Any developments on this? Just curious about the progress of this. Aoba47 (talk) 18:41, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Piotr: Your concern with Kazon being the "subject" of an article is in conflict with WP:GNG, where it is explained that "'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." The Den of Geek source, for example, is not about the Kazon, but it very clearly addresses them directly, arguably addresses them in detail, and original research is not required to extract claims about the Kazon. The discussion is certainly not a "trivial mention", but, of course, whether it meets the "significant coverage" bar seems be a judgement call about which reasonable people can disagree. Josh Milburn (talk) 01:00, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
I have also added in the following source 1 to the reception section, just to keep everyone updated. Aoba47 (talk) 20:51, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
While we may disagree on some nuances, as I said before you have convinced me this subject is notable. I applaud your good work here! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 21:43, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the discussion as it a very informative one that will help me with the construction of future articles. I greatly appreciate it. Aoba47 (talk) 14:36, 2 February 2017 (UTC)