Talk:Species 8472

message: I have a qualm about the article entitled "Criticism". I am sorry, but I don't see the relevancy behind comparing the Volons, from Babylon 5, to Species 8472. I read the linked source-site, and frankly I think that is just one of those freaky sci-fi essay-esque comparison websites that only 35 year-old know-it-all's who live at home in their basements think about. What I am trying to say is, I don't understand what the goals or [intended] acheivement of the source-site are, and just because they [Species 8472, and the Vorlons] share advanced organic technology, are telepathic and have almost the same looking ships doesn't do justice to the relation. It just isn't worth an article about. 
Plus, where is the source-article stating that the show's creators are actually being criticised? By who? --Dark Observer
: Agreed, it doesn't seem to bring any new content for the article. First of all, it is not criticism, it is a comparison. Having same elements in one series as in the others is not a cause for critique unless it's obvious plagiarism, which I think is not the case here (and even if it was, it should  be in another article). It looks more like something that should be put to an article comparing star trek and b5. Removing the critique section. Shd 14:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Added Similarities_between_Babylon_5_and_Star_Trek:_Voyager to compare various features of these series so that other star trek and b5 articles can be cleared by referring to that article. Moved the species 8472 and vorlon comparison there. There is also a similar article comparing ds9 and b5. Shd 14:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism

message: Why does species 8472 have claws and "feet" if they evolved in a completely aquatic environment? Shouldn't they have flippers or something?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.73.65.62 (talk • contribs) 
:Webbed feet, like those of Hippopotamus and crocodiles, would be most likely if they evolved in a completely aquatic environment.  Dionyseus 05:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole thing doesn't make sense, such as how a species could ever evolve in an environment with just one material, and no suns. Then again, it'd answer a lot of questions if you assumed Fluidic Space was originally like the rest of the universe, but they changed it to fluidic space for some reason. Oh well, we'll probably just have to rely on suspension of disbelief. I don't think they really went in to Species 8472 too much on Voyager anyway, and kind of intended for them to be mysterious. Kevin 18:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, this fictious species in a fictious universe does not make sense. Fiction doesn't have to makes sense. It's Fiction. (82.40.177.159 06:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Doesn't Make sense

message: A slighly better but still horrible pic is added by me. --AeomMai 23:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless you own the copyright to the Star Trek franchise you are not authorized to license a copyrighted image under the GNU. Also is there any was reason as to why you cannot use the upload a new version feature? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 23:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Picture 

message: I think that is highly improbable that Species 8474's Bioships contain absolutely no air! I added the fact that it was strange that there was air inside the ship when Chakotay and Tuvok were in there investigating. It wasn't even filled with fluid! What gives? Dark Observer 16:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Atmosphereless? I think not! 

message: "...it appears to be capable of surviving and recovering from significant, even near-fatal injury."
Actually, a surprising number of creatures are able to survive near-fatal injury.
Hence the adjective "near-fatal" -- you dope.
Although I didn't write this amusing anecdote myself, actually, the words "near-fatal" and "significant", in terms of injury, are redundant to each other because they both mean the same thing. However, when one sustains a "near-fatal" injury, it merely means that the injury did not kill them, but that does not preclude that they will not die afterwords... just a thought... Dark Observer (talk) 20:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Physiology: Duh! 

message: I am confused by this section. Since "fluidic space" is entirely fictional, and we're not even sure if it is supposed to exist as a part of this universe or another, we cannot say what physical laws hold true for that part of space. It may exist entirely outside of what can be called our "universe". In addition, the existence of mass does not mean automatic collapse into a black hole. The mass needs to be concentrated into a region of sufficient density before gravitational collapse can happen. If the density of the fluid is not greater than this, it will never undergo gravitational collapse. 
The same goes for the carbon versus hydrogen thing. We have no idea what the physical laws are in this place. 
In my humble opinion, this whole section should be removed from the article. -- Primium mobile (talk) 20:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another universe could be right on top of our own and still be outside of our universe. And fluidic space most definitely is outside of normal space. Species 8472 had to use energy discharges to open a doorway between fluidic space and normal space. Primium mobile (talk) 01:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientific Discrepancy 

message: Don't 8472 have at least 5 genders? (mentioned somewhere in season 5).  Any more info on this?  (Is that even possible?).
67.169.124.42 (talk) 20:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  They Have 5 Genders 

message: Since it is only on Star Trek Online where the name is mentioned.  It is not canon until it is either in a film or TV.  Gene Roddenberry stated that if it is not on TV or in books it is non-canon.  So until name is mentioned on TV or Film do not use term real name.  Just say name referred to.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.202.122.199 (talk) 02:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quick Fix with the name part

message: Most Star Trek articles, including this one, concentrate on the Star Trek universe almost as if the species were real.  What about telling us who wrote stuff, what the plans were, how they were received, How they compare with other programmes and characters.  We have a glimmer of what I mean by talking about the animation rendering in this article.  We should have more.  These things are only dropped in occasionally, because the pages are written by Star Trek fans.  Not very encyclopedic.
IceDragon64 (talk) 22:37, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, except for the first section, every section on this talk page is talking about issues within the article. Primium mobile (talk) 21:39, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  These articles