Talk:Tasha Yar

message: Was the character written with the intention to eliminate her in the first season? Or did they write her out because Crosby didn't want to play the part anymore? (As a regular, at least)
Crosby left the show on her own accord, which is probably why they gave her such a dumb death.
:This strongly parallels the death of Jadzia in DS9 -- while being a major character she also died rather randomly when the actress decided to leave the show. The pointlessness of these deaths also strongly remind me on the stereotypical redshirts of TOS, who would usually die a very stupid death shortly after being introduced to the public.
:The randomness of the deaths of Yar and Jadzia also reeks of improvision. While Yar died the typical redshirt death (the character's death being a turning point of the episode), Jadzia's death felt entirely improvised to me -- it's one of "those other things" that happen throughout the episode and cutting out the scene wouldn't have changed much about the general plot of the episode (other than the plots developing out of Jadzia's death and the introduction of Ezri Dax (in fact, I'm a bit suspicious that some episodes featuring Ezri Dax may have originally been written for Jadzia's character and then tweaked after they had to replace her)).
:This is just MHO, though, so don't take any of that as fact. I'm just one of the TNG fanboys who would've rather liked Wesley Crusher kick the bucket than Tasha (who, after all, had sex with and android -- which is a big plus for any true geek). --Ashmodai 22:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Written Out?

message: Media in Vancouver suggested that she was terminated after producers discovered her stint
as a porn-star. They felt that her history would distract viewers from the character
significantly.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.116.29.187 (talk) 20:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Headline text 

message: I dont think her name is really natasha its just tasha...she mentions that in "survivors", a star trek novel.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.103.176 (talk • contribs)  18:27, 12 July 2006
: According to memory alpha it is Natasha. Gimmetrow 00:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't remember any exact episodes, but her name being Natasha is definitely mentioned in one of the first few episodes.WinterSnowblind (talk) 17:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

text: "Natasha" originally started out as a Russian and Ukrainian pet form of the name "Natalia", but eventually became a common first name in itself, though mostly in Western countries. If Yar were a real-life person, her birth name would likely be Natalia and she might be referred to affectionately as "Natasha" by close family and friends.--71.121.211.26 (talk) 22:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  NATASHA 

message: Can the editor who keeps trying to place this article in :Category:Fictional German-Americans please provide some justification? The character was born on Turkana IV, not Earth, so I am unsure you can claim she is a German-American. Even if she was born on Earth, the nations of Germany and the USA had ceased to exist centuries earlier. Do you have a reliable source to say she was a German American? Road Wizard 18:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I put on that editor's talk page that I thought the character was considered Ukrainian ancestry. The memory alpha page (linked in this article) supports that. Gimmetrow 19:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Startrek.com also has it as Natasha. PrometheusX303 19:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  German American 

message: I'm deleting this line:
Yar was oringinally named "Hernandez," an homage to the character of Private Vasquez from the film Aliens.
It seems silly to say that one character is an homage to another when the only they they have in common is being portrayed by the same actor. By that logic, Benjamin Sisko is an homage to Hawk from Spenser: For Hire, as Avery Brooks portrayed both.
:Except that they aren't portrayed by the same actor.  Private Vasquez was played by Jenette Goldstein.  Bones O'Malley (talk) 18:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed "homage" reference 

message: I thought Yar had a sister.
Nevermind I found it.
She does.  The sister's name is Ishara and at first she mocks Tasha for fleeing the awful world they grew up in, then eventually grew to admire Tasha's heroism.
: Yeah, Ishara Yar.  She was hot.  70.251.241.224 (talk) 20:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sister? 

message: I am almost 100% certain that this is in the TNG Companion.  Will add this once I get back.  Morwen - Talk 11:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vasquez 

message: The official word, as given by Denise Crosby herself in interviews, is that she felt stifled by the writing on the show. Her character did not see much action, and she felt all Tasha did stand at the bridge and answer to the captain. (Having just finished watching season 1 up to "Skin of Evil", I have to agree.)
I don't know if Denise Crosby ever did hardcore porn (and the couple episodes of Red Shoe Diaries post-Trek don't count), but she was in an issue of Playboy, which I have also seen cited as the secret/true reason for her departure from the show--that she was fired. The pictures were first published in a 1979 issue and apparently some others from that time appeared in a 1988 issue, so the timing might be of interest if the fired theory is true. She did a couple episodes of Red Shoe Diaries post-Trek
Also, I don't know how relevant any of this may be to the Tasha Yar article; I just saw it above and wanted to comment. Sorry about that. I'm gonna hop over to the talk page on Denise and see if there's anything of interest...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.26.226.151 (talk) 22:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any evidence to support the "fans hated her" premise?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lars Haeh (talk • contribs) 23:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  reason for departure 

message: I removed the category 'women warriors' from this page- she was not a 'warrior' as such but rather a security officer on a ship of exploration, if anything she was more a police officer/security guard.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.53.134 (talk) 12:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit Made 

message: Surprised no mention is made of the action figure that is a highly collectible figure in the secondary market. Weak and the failure of the mention should've disqualified it for FA status. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 07:41, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It may just be that there's no source for the claim that it's "highly collectible".  Dismas|(talk) 10:03, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Every character in Star Trek has had at least three action figures made of it. I've never seen a reliable source that states that any figure of Yar is anything special. Miyagawa (talk) 22:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about the action figure? 

message: I was really disappointed by this article's appearance on the main page on 9 September 2013. I think it's one of the lowest quality articles I've seen make the grade in a long time. Nothing personal to those who've worked on this but it's just an honest opinion. I think the article fails the FA criteria on 1a (well-written) and 2a (lead) and possibly others. The lead paragraph is far too concerned with minutia and does not give a rounded view of the subject. The "Reception" section (nearly a third of the article) is very incoherent, barely focused on reception and more on character analysis. (On a personal note, I'm also left scratching my head about the general sentiment given in the section. I've never meet a Trekkie that liked Yar; yet judging by this section she was basically loved.) On top of this, a large fraction of the references are subscription-only. And the cite templates are still using deprecated parameter usage. In my opinion, this article doesn't qualify for GA status. Perhaps it should be nominated for reassessment. Jason Quinn (talk) 15:38, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The use of subscription-only references doesn't disqualify an article from FA status; see WP:PAYWALL ("Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible... Do not reject sources just because they are hard or costly to access.") What are the deprecated parameters that the templates are using? Often these are flagged up with red warnings in the references, but I can't see any of that. BencherliteTalk 16:06, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

text: That's true but I wrote it was the large fraction of sub-only refs that concerns me. As for the template stuff, I can update those. It's easier to do it than to explain them. My point there is that the article just wasn't gone over with a fine tooth comb. Jason Quinn (talk) 18:44, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed them. It was mostly just use of "coauthors" (long deprecated, no error warning) and a handful of other minor things. A featured article however serves as a model to editors of what good articles should be. So some attention should be paid to these minor things. Jason Quinn (talk) 19:19, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the love. This was my very first Featured Article after some hundred or so Good Articles. If coauthor was meant to be deprecated, then why has no other bothered to remove it from the guidance notes for the cite templates? And why must a Reception section must be three paragraphs of someone saying that they liked something, and another three saying that they don't? Reception is having an opinion about something which doesn't necessary mean a straight forward like/dislike discussion. As for the subscription-only references - that is just nonsense. There are plenty of FAs out there which only have offline sources. I could have just as easily not placed the links in the article to the subscription only locations and no one would have batted an eyelid at them as offline sources. Perhaps if you were so critical of these issues in Featured Articles, then you might like to look at reviewing some whilst they are still candidates. Miyagawa (talk) 22:35, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Coauthors is mentioned in the documentation as deprecated, however, it is not obsolete. There's a lot of code however that still uses "coauthors" and so ripping mention of it out completely is unfeasible at the moment. But, yes, more should be done regarding that. As for the Reception section, I never said anything about giving equal weight to all views. Views should be given weight according to their relative importance. I did mention what seems to me like a curious disconnect between the impression the text gives and reality about Yar's popularity. It indicates a possible bias in that section in her favor. Regardless if the section is biased or not, the writing in that section is, well, pretty terrible. It's just a bunch of clunky facts loosely strung together with no real hint where things are going or what's going to be covered. According to the FA criteria, a FA article must have prose that is "engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard". The section simply does not meet that standard. The lead also needs work, especially the first paragraph. The first paragraph should basically say who she is, why she's important, and what most important things to know about her are. After all, it's the only thing a lot of people will actually read in the article. Instead most of the paragraph is covering inconsequential details related her concept and development. In the FA nom, I see you praised the prose as "good", as did another editor. As far as I'm concerned, that's untenable. As for participating in the feature article process, that's what I'm doing right now. I'm at the "Raise issues at article Talk" step of Wikipedia:Featured article review. I wish I had seen this article's nomination but Wikipedia is too big to see everything. In general, I'm extremely impressed with FAs; perhaps that's why this particular one stuck out to me. The "you should have participated" argument, while a nice invitation, is a red herring. This is an article which should have failed review; it fell through the cracks; it exposed flaws in the system. As editors, our FA articles are supposed to be "the best articles we have to offer". We must take that to heart. Even if only a few editors participated in the initial review, they must apply a critical eye asking, "Is this the best we can do?" or it lessens the very value of what FA means. Do you think this is nearly the best that can be done with an article on Tasha Yar? I really hope not. And if so, it means that perhaps the nomination was premature. Jason Quinn (talk) 05:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Coauthors also still shows in the automated insertion tool, which I use. I would have thought that if we weren't meant to use them, then it wouldn't be so easily avaliable. Regarding Yar's popularity - perhaps there is discussion on bulletin boards about her, but that couldn't be used as a reliable source. One of the older posts on this talk pages mentions a letter writing campaign - I've never seen anything to support it - even from the same sources that discusses the letter writing campaign to remove Pulaski and bring back Crusher in season three. To include a bias which does not sit within the sources is Original Research. Please bring it to FA review - so that it can be seen by the same editors that promoted it in the first place. Just because the article does not meet with your expectations, does not mean that it does not meet the FA criteria. Per WP:DONOTFEED, this will be my last post here on the subject. Miyagawa (talk) 11:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I'm in a stinkingly bad mood right now as I've just gone through an offline thing. This just came at a bad time and I'm getting overly aggressive when you're just trying to help. I'll come back to this in a week with a clear head and discuss properly with you what we can do to improve this article. Miyagawa (talk) 17:15, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

text: Jason, as you've read the FAR instructions you'll also have seen that no newly promoted FA should be taken to FAR until at least 3 to 6 months have elapsed, absent exceptional circumstances. Saying that it shouldn't have passed FAC in this state is not an exceptional circumstance. As this wasn't promoted until late August, that means that any FAR now will be removed as premature.  If there are problems with prose and / or the lead, these can be addressed through editing and discussion. BencherliteTalk 12:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely agree with the first post in this section. This is a featured article? When God Writes Your Love Story a couple of weeks ago, and now this? Is Wikipedia this desperate for featured articles? There are no other good article candidates? It's not really even about whether any trekkies liked the character — this is not an extensive article on an interesting topic obscure or not, or a subject of any real import. It's ridiculous that this passed muster. PJtP (talk) 21:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Rightly or wrongly, the relative import of a subject has nothing to do with its potential to be a Featured Article, so long as it passes the basic WP notability criteria. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Really surprised by FA status on this article 

message: "Questions were raised over the sexuality of the character, and it was thought that the events in the episode "The Naked Now" were designed to establish her heterosexuality. " This bit of text, who asked questions and who thought Naked Now answered them? It needs to be sourced. Vince (talk) 21:17, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: See Reception, third paragraph. All fully cited. Miyagawa (talk) 22:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  who asked the question, and who thought it answered 

message: "The character was subsequently renamed "Tanya" around March 13, which lasted for two days.[1]"
March 13th lasted for two days?!?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.244.98 (talk) 13:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that wording wasn't great. I've fixed it. --Fru1tbat (talk) 16:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mar 13 

message: I will put that part on my list of some of the biggest bullshit I have read in my life, right next to the claims that video games cause sexism, violence and apocalypse. Is this just something some guys made up when they were bored..why...because Tasha  has short hair or something? Do we have any confirmation that this is canon, a comment from Star Trek creators, anything? Or is this a gigantic lie that some Wikipedian editor nitpicked from the hidden corners of the internet for whatever reason? I couldn't find this information anywhere else, Wikipedian article seems to be the main spreader of this lie. Ok, there is no harm in fan fiction and fantasising about characters you are attracted to, that's no problem. People can write their own fan fiction. But why is this lie and fantasy included in this article and why was this lying article featured? This was an honest question. Why was this article featured? The entire "commentary" should be removed with prejudice. I look at the entire internet and I see wishful thinking from Yotuube videos and books written, edited and made for fans...by fans.  I have a feeling that you wouldn't be so kind to books that talk about "hidden jews " or "hidden sodomites in Star Trek", but you still list it? Why?  Early episodes exist but they are barely canon. At least now I know who made this rumour and now I know that it is a lie. But not many people look at the sources. :(
Ugh...I am watching  Star Trek on TV and I waiting for the episode where poor Data became bloodless and unprivileged unlike the privileged white sexualized bigot he used to be.  Oh poor justice of mine.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.202.109.72 (talk) 11:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: In a section on the reception of the character, the opinions of critics and observers are relevant, with some threshold for notability of course. The statements in the article appear to be sourced (I have not checked the text of the sources, if they're even available online) - if you can't find reasonable support for them, that's worth discussing. Your accusations of prejudice against similar content on other character aspects, on the other hand, are irrelevant here, and inflammatory - can we stick to one matter at a time and keep the discussion factual, please? --Fru1tbat (talk) 13:44, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commentary-"heterosexualized lesbian" 

message: In "Yesterday's Enterprise" she says that she's been on the Enterprise 4 years, "straight out of the academy".  But in Season 1 she was already a lieutenant and the security chief.  This has to be a plot hole, no?  No one graduates Star Fleet Academy as a lieutenant, right?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bencope (talk • contribs) 00:35, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Might be worth double checking "All Good Things..." to see if she's an Ensign or a Lieutenant in the past time period. I'm pretty sure she's a Lieutenant though. It could be that the 4 years part was just because of the alternative timeline seen in "Yesterday's Enterprise". Miyagawa (talk) 17:19, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

text: She could have come out of the academy as a lieutenant. As far as I know, graduates from West Point, et al, graduate as lieutenants.  Dismas|(talk) 18:18, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Careful - army ranks (i.e. for West Point graduates) are different from navy ranks - in the U.S. at least, the first rank called "lieutenant" is slightly higher in the Navy than in the Army. Either way, let's not get off-topic with speculation. She's definitely a Lieutenant in the series, and minor nitpicks like the apparent inconsistency mentioned above are probably just too trivial to be worth mentioning. --Fru1tbat (talk) 19:33, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was Yar ever an ensign? 

message: Hi,
I've just removed a bullet point episode list that didn't add anything to the article, and isn't one of the standard things listed under Wikipedia:WikiProject Fictional characters/Style guide. Miyagawa (talk) 11:19, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That guide recommends it only be used as a "basic style guide that can be used as a building block". However, the style guide does actually suggest an appearances section Starspotter (talk) 12:22, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, there already is an appearances section, so the episode list would simply be a duplication. Miyagawa (talk) 12:28, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly why are you removing it then? If you claim the style guide as an authority which both suggests appearances and to use that as building block its hard to understand your objection. The lack of a full list of appearances is why I added the episode list in the first place. Starspotter (talk) 12:38, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it is already covered in prose in the appearances section. The article as you have changed it, now has a "Summary" section following the actual section, which is something which has never been raised at any FA or GA discussions that I've ever been through. It's an unnecessary addition which makes the article look messy. Rather than continue reverting back and forth, I've listed it at Wikipedia:Third opinion for a third opinion. Miyagawa (talk) 12:48, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole point is that section does not list all the appearances of Tasha, such listings are common for star trek characters. When I read the article I was dissatisfied that it did not list all the appearances of Tasha and added the section. If we both agree on appearances, then the issue is more clear now. You think its unnecessary and "makes the article look messy" OK, fair enough Starspotter (talk) 12:53, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see a justification for not listing all of Tasha's episodes, and a list does seem orderly to me. The style guide is only one building block. However, I would like to address your concerns especially that it looks messy. I changed to a table format in the hopes its more orderly. Thank you. Starspotter (talk) 13:03, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The significant problem is when you extrapolate this out to other character articles - for example, Jean-Luc Picard appears in every episode. You can't possibly list every single episode on the character's article. That's why such a list isn't neccessary in character pages. Same goes for the Miles O'Brien article you've been working on - the expectation would therefore be to list every episode of TNG and DS9 that he appeared in. It just doesn't work. Although I do appreciate the changes you've made, the table format is much better than the bullet point list. Miyagawa (talk) 16:08, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see you have kept an eye on this page for a long time and added to it significantly, and I don't think we are to far away in thinking about this page but it was enough to cause some disagreement. I have moved the list to a separate page so we can leave the article as it is. Long and prosperous edits to you Starspotter (talk) 17:02, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries, I'm always appreciative of editors working on these types of articles. This is only a very minor difference of opinions (I wouldn't even call it a disagreement as we both want the article to be at it's best). If you ever want me to look up something on an article you're working on in one of the sources I have ([]), just leave a message on my talk page and I'll get to it. Miyagawa (talk) 22:13, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: One further thing - the Guinan article (Guinan (Star Trek character)) is currently a redirect to a summary page at List of Star Trek: The Next Generation characters. Of all of them, I think that would be the most likely for expansion back into a full article (although I think all of the characters there could warrant stand alone articles). So if you're ever interested in working together on one of those, let me know. Miyagawa (talk) 22:18, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Episode list 

message: List of appearances should not have a stand-alone article.  I'm not sure tables like this belong at all. pbp 04:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Over a week has passed with no further of discussion, and I've since noticed that (1)there has been additional support for simply getting rid of the article at Talk:List of appearances of Tasha Yar and (2)the discussion thread immediately above this one makes explicit that List of appearances of Tasha Yar was created solely to serve as a sanctuary for content which had been deleted from this article, which obviously goes against Wikipedia principles (see WP:LOSE for example), so I'm going to WP:BOLDLY redirect it. Strictly speaking it should be outright deleted, since it's not a useful redirect and there's no history that need be preserved, but given the lack of discussion here I suspect an AfD wouldn't get much attention.--Martin IIIa (talk) 14:15, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[:List of appearances of Tasha Yar]] into [[:Tasha Yar]]  

message: It would be good to get a reference here. There had been many strong women before her in science fiction, referring mainly to Ellen Ripley.
Also the statement that the Naked Now was meant to underline her heterosexuality needs to backed. StefanPapp (talk) 16:12, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:   forerunner to other strong women in science fiction