Open main menu


Colors in tablesEdit

I have suggestion to change colors for races that are only mentioned to yellow, so there is green for appeared, yellow for mentioned, and red for not appeared (and mentioned). --Andy0101 22:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I like this idea, does anyone have any objection to it? --Despayre (talk) 01:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I totally forgot about this. I just saw this suggestion in my contributions and since there are no objections I decided to execute it. I've replaced {{Yes}}* with {{partial|Mentioned}}. Personally I would like a bit darker yellow, but {{partial}} is the default template for these kind of things. Anyway, it looks more clearly now. --Andy0101 (talk) 20:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


What about Androids? Are they not considered a race or species?

Hmm, well they would have to meet some requirements in order to be considered a race or species, firstly they would have to be alive and sentient, which is debateable when concerning ST Androids, they would also have to be an independent society and able to reproduce.
Data might be considered alive, but I don't think his kind could be considered a species as there was only ever 3 or 4 of them ever made, and they were never an independent society.
There was a society of Androids in one Voyager episode that might make this list though (I can't remember what they were called though).
--Hibernian 17:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I would say 'no' to androids, because they're not really a race or a species (just as "humanoids" should not be listed). Marky1981 19:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
But Data was ruled to be: a "living, breathing," sentient Individual by the Federation Council. So was Lore, before he was taken apart. Besides, Data can feel emotions now, despite being able to trun them on/off at will. That has to count for something.


Don't forget the Nausicans ...

Don't let anyone stop you: [1]
Cburnett 21:38, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Isn't there a Tholian article on Wikipedia? Ought to be linked from this page.

The Sheliak are one the list, but do not have an entry. DBBell 20:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

How did "Mitchelonian" manage stay on the page for so long? Looks like clear vandalism to me. -Shane Lawrence 23:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

This page (particularly the table) is an incredible amount of work; I am in awe of you folks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Ktarians (again)Edit

The segment about the Ktarians is almost completely inaccurate. Seeing as how Etana Jol is the only full Ktarian we've ever seen, I would be more inclined to believe that her appearance is typical of the average Ktarian (or at least the average Ktarian female) than that she is somehow an aberration or "not Ktarian". Since Naomi Wildman is part human, her appearance was likely affected by that human half of her parentage--meaning that she, not Etana Jol, is more likely the one with the aberration in appearance. Also, Naomi was a child, whereas Etana Jol was a full adult; it's possible that the spines on her forehead eventually fall off as a Ktarian child matures and/or that they are eventually absorbed into the large frontal lobes on their foreheads--Naomi's half-human genes may have prevented this from happening, as she was depicted as still having the spines as a grown adult in the Voyager episode "Shattered."

Furthermore, if there is any episode of ANY Star Trek series that specifically states that the Ktarians later joined the Federation after the events of "The Game," or that they were ever part of the Federation, please cite it here as I for one have never seen such an episode, and there is no reference to that being the case either in the Star Trek Encyclopedia or on The suggestion that the actions of Etana Jol in "The Game" were those of some extremist faction and not the directive of the Ktarian government itself seems highly far-fetched, especially seeing as how Etana Jol was wearing an official military uniform in the episode and she spoke of "the Expansion" as if it was most definitely a directive of the Ktarian political leadership. The way in which Ktarians are never again mentioned as enemies of the Federation on TNG, DS9, or Voyager is more likely attributed to the producers simply forgetting that "The Game" ever happened and that the Ktarians were originally supposed to be enemies, instead only remembering various references to their culture that were common on The Next Generation and Deep Space Nine.

For an in-universe explanation, consider the following: clearly, in "The Game," the Ktarians seemed to be under the rule of some sort of militaristic, probably totalitarian (and possibly matriarchal) government. Perhaps Ktarian refugees have fled their homeworld and found sanctuary in the Federation, explaining their seemingly ubiquitous presence, the popularity of their food etc., and even how a Ktarian/Human hybrid could be possible in the form of Naomi Wildman. While this is conjecture, it's far more likely to be accurate than the fanon explanations of the Ktarians going from enemies of the Federation to members of the Federation in less than a decade, or that a single, small faction acting without the consent of a government that was subordinate to the Federation managed to concoct a highly sophisticated plan to take over the Federation, including the creation of at least one if not a whole fleet of miltary vessels (which the Enterprise crew seemed at least initially unfamiliar with at the end of the episode), without anyone knowing about it and while managing to give every appearance of their actions being taken with the official sanction of their government.

Also, I've seen no proof that their homeworld is in the Alpha Quadrant; in fact given that the episode took place in the Phoenix Cluster and taking into consideration the frequency of appearances by the Romulans in the first half of TNG's third season, I would be more inclined to believe that they are in fact a Beta Quadrant civilization.--Antodav 05:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll restate what I wrote about this in the Talk:United Federation of Planets page, read what this Website has to say about the Ktarians,
I can't seem to post an address to the exact page of this site, But anyway, go to the Investigating Trek area of the site, and then go to the Biology section, down the bottom of that page is the section on the "Ktarians". The Page is a little out of date but their explanation of the Ktarians is spot on.
Oh and as for evidence that they joined the Federation, a quote from that site, ("The Ktarians were officially with the Federation but they sympathized with the Maquis", [VOY] The Voyager Conspiracy), enough said.
--Hibernian 02:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

M for mention?Edit

How about adding 'M' for "Race mentioned, but does not actually appear."? Then you could wipe the slightly clumsy disclaimer about mere mentions not "counting" and add more info!

For the list of appearances, in addition to Y and N, how about M (for mention) or R (for reference) for species that have only been mentioned but not appeared in an episode. Marky1981 20:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Races or species?Edit

The article should be renamed List of Star Trek races, since it doesn't deal with races, but species.

Shouldn't this page be called List of Star Trek species not List of Star Trek races? Marky1981 20:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Anyone got any thoughts on this? If no one has any objections I will move this page to List of Star Trek species in a few days. Marky1981 21:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Well I think the term Races is more often used by Star Trek Fans, though species would probably also be just as legitimate.
One thing I can think of against this, is that species may refer to any organisms in the ST universe like animals (i.e. Targs etc...), whereas "Races" does give the meaning of an intelligent life-form (although Race is not a very scientifically accurate term).
I'm not sure which is better, I think it needs more discussion before it's changed.
--Hibernian 22:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
OK I won't move it till it's been discussed more. I don't see any problem with listing animal species such as Targ (obviously we won't list all Earth's animals! Just the Star Trek made up ones - there's not too many anyway). I suppose an alternative could be humanoids but then that doesn't cater for things like the Horta etc. Will keep thinking! Marky1981 19:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Race is definitely the correct term both because it is used by fans and because of biological issues raised and addressed in the show. For example, the Romulans and Vulcans may be the same species and the borg are composed of many species. Similarly, Worf's 3/4 Klingon son and Tasha Yar's half-human, half-romulan daughter Sela, as improbable as they are, prove that many species in the Star Trek Universe are capable of cross breeding which raises enormous questions about "life in the universe" (this is however addressed in TOS and TNG), but removes designation as being a different species as two different spieces are incapable of breeding. Because Alexander's Mother was capable of producing offspring, this would give Klingons and Humans the same species designation according to current biological practice like white and black people.

Perhaps the most important aspect of the race arguement for certain members of this list is the fact they aren't exclusively biological at all, For example the Q or Borg. The Q is argueably not even alive according to modern practice of defining living things (which is completely useless to Star Trek, with silicon-based, anarobic, and multi-dimensional beings, and perhaps a current hinderance to Xenobiology and S.E.T.I.) and the Borg is similar to a virus. Is god a species for that matter? The use of species would require combining many of the humanoid races on the list as well as trying to superimpose science to science-fiction, a retroactive impossibility. ~unsigned

Circular LinksEdit

Surely you don't need the race names to link to this page. It's just pointless and bad form.

certainly is very frustrating and pointless, there are major races that link to this page who do not even have an entry here, ie orions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Enterprise final episodeEdit

Didn't Counselor Troi appear in the final episode of Enterprise? Yes, she isn't set in the time period, but she did appear on the series, so shouldn't Betazoids be considered appearing in ENT? Smeggysmeg 20:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Well that's a tricky one, she did technical appear in Enterprise, but it is said that that episode was really a TNG episode, so I don't know.--Hibernian 17:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I would say 'no' as she only appears in the series on a technicality, not really part of Enterprise. Besides, she's only half Betazoid :) Marky1981 19:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


I didn't get any information when I clicked on the link to "Humans". Shouldn't there be a page describing how humans fit in with the rest of the races, i.e. how they first came in contact with the races, what impact that contact had on human technology and culture, and also how other races percieve humans. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 01:51, August 6, 2006 (UTC)

I started a "Human" section with a link to Human (Star Trek). I did the same for several other races that have their own articles. UncreativeNameMaker 00:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


I am of opinion that the table can be different, with a "*" for Yes and left it blank if not, like below:

Race 1 *   * * 
Race 2   *   **
Race 3   * * * 
Race 4   * * * 
Race 5 * * * * 

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 01:51, August 6, 2006 (UTC)

I think I prefer Y/N, as it leaves open the possiblility of someone adding a race, knowing they appear in ST:ENT, but having no idea whether they appear in ST:TOS. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree, there's no way to distinguish between a definite 'No' and leaving one blank by just not knowing. You could possibly use '-' for no, so there are no blanks. I'd still also like to use another symbol to mean a race was mentioned in a series, but did not appear. Marky1981 08:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I was going to say I agree, but upon taking another look at the table in the article, it is very hard to distinguish the Ns from the Ys, with a quick glance. It actually might be better to leave a blank space or a '-' for No, and just leave the Ys. Right now the table is just a big block of text and is difficult to make out, blank spaces or '-' would make it much easier to see the information you're looking for. BTW I do agree, in theory, that there should be an M for Mentioned, however it might be difficult to implement.--Hibernian 11:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Having thought about it more, I would like the table of appearances to be removed altogether. Anyone who is interested in a particular race/species can navigate quickly using the newly-added A-Z contents table and read about them there. We could say which series they appeared in the description. I just find the table unsightly and not particularly useful, especially when they're mostly full of 'N's. Does anyone else want to get rid of the table, for whatever reason? Marky1981 00:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree with that. Although I think the table is a bit unsightly and something should be done to make it clearer, I don't think it should be done away with. The reasons being that even if we can navigate by the A to Z thing, it's not the same, there are many races on this list that most people will never have even heard of, so they can't find something on an alphabetical list if they don't know how it's spelt. We still have to have a table as an overview and an easy way to find what you're looking for, or just to find things you weren't looking for. --Hibernian 02:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Inclusion criteriaEdit

Should we include races not mentioned in any of the broadcast media? I've noticed seem recent additions which claim to be only in (unnamed) novels. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, good point. There is defiantly an issue with that. There are lots of Races/Species that only appear in books and Computer games etc. I suppose it's an issue of Canon, and as far as I am aware non-canon books and stuff aren't really part of the Star Trek universe, though obviously they are of some significance. For instance I remember from the game Star Trek: Klingon Academy, that there was a race called the Sha'kurians, but I think they only ever existed in that game, so should they be on this list? Maybe we should have two pages, one for canon Races and for non-canon? --Hibernian 22:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Great point, Hibernian. I would suggest that if such races are added to a list of any sort, that it be specifically noted that such a list is "non-canon." I don't think there would be a problem with that, unless there are only a very few races that are "non-canon." For example, if there are only the "Sha'kurians" and maybe a few others, then including them in this list might be more reasonable, with one caveat: that another column be added that specifically denotes these races as "non-canon." But, to drive the point home, if the list is comparatively exhaustive, then we should make a separate list for them. - Tomas Serafin 1845, 10262013 (GMT -5), Stardate: -309181.4200913243. —Preceding undated comment added 22:48, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

There's still many more racesEdit

I was just writing a section about the races that appear in the game Star Trek: Birth of the Federation, and I found that 12 out of the 30 I was listing have no mention on this page or anywhere else on Wikipedia (apart from references to them in some of the episode articles). The ones I've confirmed that have no entries are: Acamarians, Caldonians, Chalnoth, Edo, Malcorians, Mintakans, Mizarians, Takarans, Talarians, Tamarians, Ullians, and Yaridians. (Edo just goes to the City and Tamarian redirects to the episode they were in). So there's certainly allot more to do. So anybody what to start writing them all? lol --Hibernian 01:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Unless you know that they appeared in either an episode of the TV series, or a movie, I would leavethem off. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 19:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

Oh they all definitely exist in the Star Trek universe. Every one of the species listed there was shown on at-least one episode of TNG (and some in multiple series). The only problem I have is that it would take a long time to write a description of all of them, as I would have to go though every episode, plus I'm not very good making tables formatting work right. --Hibernian 18:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The Edo were encounted in Justice (TNG episode) and I have added them to this list. Cburnett 19:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

No mention of the Iconians! This is a pretty significant race, I think. How come there is no mention of them. They are brought up in TNG, DS9, and VOY. Tomas Serafin 1851 (GMT -5), 10262013. —Preceding undated comment added 22:53, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Denobulan and SulibanEdit

All references (and there are MANY of them) to Denobulan and Suliban redirect to this page, but those two races do not appear here. In fact, they don't seem to appear anywhere in Wikipedia. Apparently they have been retconned out of existence as a result of the Temporal Cold War. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Memory alpha linksEdit

I have removed all memory alpha links from this article of races that have their own articles. The MA link can go on their respective page. Cburnett 19:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


Each race that has a separate article should have a small (one paragraph or two) description on this article as well. Cburnett 19:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Tabulating listEdit

I would like to propose converting this list to use a table structure similar to List of Star Trek characters#A and the episode lists. Below is an example couple of rows:

Image Race Home planet Episodes
M = mention only
  Bajoran Bajor (M-class) Ensign Ro (TNG)
Emissary (DS9)
The Bajorans (or Bajora) are a humanoid species with characteristic nose creases. They live on the planet Bajor. They are a deeply spiritual people, who worship The Prophets. They are enemies of the Cardassians, who occupied Bajor and treated the Bajorans as slaves in the early 24th century.
Not seen on screen Berellian Unknown Redemption (TNG) M
When Lieutenant Commander Data takes temporary command of the USS Sutherland during the Klingon Civil War, his first officer on the Sutherland, Lieutenant Commander Thomas Hobson, implies that, as an android, Data is out of place commanding a Federation starship. Hobson compares the apparent dichotomy to that posed by a Klingon counselor or a Berellian engineer; "they're just not suited for those positions."
  Borg Unknown Q Who? (TNG)
The Best of Both Worlds (TNG)
Scorpion (VOY)
Regeneration (ENT)
The Borg is the arch nemesis species of the Federation. The Borg is a species without individuality where every member is apart of "the collective" in an attempt to achieve perfection. They assimilate species and their technology when it suits them.

The episode list would not have to contain every single episode that race appears, but perhaps the first one from each series and any important ones featuring that race. This would do away with the table of appearances at the top of the article, which I do not think is very useful on its own: someone is more likely to want to know a bit about the race, rather than just if they appeared in a series. If a race is mentioned but never seen on screen the space for the image would just say 'Not seen on screen', and perhaps we could add (for example) '(m)' to any episode in which the race is mentioned (but never seen).

Please let me know of any comments. Marky1981 20:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah that sounds like it could be good, but there might be some copyright issues with the pictures (not that I would care). Although I don't think we should delete the table of appearances, I think it should be kept, as it is useful, at-least in my opinion. --Hibernian 22:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm always up for tables. :) Cburnett 23:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I've converted the B's to the table. I think some of the long descriptions can be cut down (perhaps moved to a sub article if there's a lot of information). It's not complete - still need to fill in more episodes and images but it's a start. Marky1981 18:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

By converting the "B's" to a table, you have broken the HTML links within the document. You also made it very difficult for anyone to revert it with all the HTML associated with it. Please either finish the entire article, or put it back the way it was. -- Elaich 03:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Which links are broken? Tabulating the entire article will take a long time for one person, perhaps you could consider helping? Marky1981 13:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
All the links from the "Appearance" table at the top which lead into the B's are broken, as are links from other species into the 'B'. For example, List of Star Trek races#neo-Borg should have an internal link to List of Star Trek races#Borg, which no longer exists. I agree, it should be put back unless you can find a good way to regenerate the internal links as HTML links, is Wikipedia links are not longer possible. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
As an example of a link that would be broken, look at the link from #Anatarans to #Denobulan. I haven't found one specifically into the B's yet.... — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
True, the links from the table of appearances are currently broken, however the table of appearances isn't set in stone. If and when the article is fully tabulated, I don't see the need for the appearances table, as each species' entry would list the episodes (and therefore series) in which they appeared. This also has the benefit of pinning down the actual episode(s) they were in, as opposed to a just a series, which is rather vague and not as useful. In the meantime the links can just be made to the initial letter, so in the worst-case scenario, a reader would have to scroll down a few lines. In addition, Wikipedia guidelines discourage internal links pointing to subsections, but to the top of the article. This surely is a minor drawback compared to the advantages of using a structured table (image, listing episodes etc. in neat, readable columns), which is how similar articles are structured (list of characters, episodes etc.). Initial reaction to my table proposals were positive, however if general consensus is to revert, that's fine. Please comment, but please don't insist that the table of appearances is somehow essential to this article without giving good reason. Thanks, Marky1981 20:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is a template for anyone who wishes to help create the tables:

Image Race Home planet Episodes
M = mention only
Marky1981 wrote:
"In addition, Wikipedia guidelines discourage internal links pointing to subsections, but to the top of the article. "
Could you point to a specific guideline? The only one I can think of is in regard redirects, as redirects to subsections do not work properly. However, intra-article links seem quite appropriate, and, in this context, helpful. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I've had a quick look and I think you are correct, the discouragement was referring to inter-Wiki articles, rather than intra-article links. However, I've found out how to link to the races in the table by using the HTML span tag (see Help:Link or the template above). I will put these in the A and B tables now. Marky1981 23:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Races from novelsEdit

In the AFD for Centauran, I suggested merging a brief summary of that article here. However, it has been pointed out that this race apparently only features in novels, not in any of the TV shows or films, and that therefore this merge might not be appropriate. I would therefore suggest people involved in maintaining this page provide their feedback at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centauran (2nd nomination). JulesH 13:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centauran (2nd nomination)Edit

As per discussion, consensus was merge into this page. Since I am not an involved editor (and are actually into Star Wars :P) I did a full merge, and placed a {{rewrite-section}} and changed the "unreferenced" to be about a section. I think this captures consensus pretty well. Of course, feel free to debate and edit about this content in this page, as it is now its home. Thanks!--Cerejota 06:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


There are Terellians, Terrelians and Terrellians listed - mostly mentioned only. I doubt these are really three different species. --Thick Peter 12:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually they probably are, in-fact it seems there are several more similar races. Some fans have already noticed this bizarre naming convention, for instance check out this page [2]. --Hibernian 00:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
What does real mean in this context? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Well "real", as in mentioned or shown in Star Trek, what did you think I meant? --Hibernian 15:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

What source do we have for the spelling of the race name? The actual script?
Now, if the races referred to above had different characteristics, that might be different.... — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The Animated SeriesEdit

Could we add ST:TAS to this table please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely! The animated series is way more cannon than some of these others -- it had the original actors doing the voices, the great bird of the galaxy, and it was serilaised by Alan Dean Foster. There were great aliens!-- (talk) 21:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


What happened to the entry about Alpha Centaurans?! ````AL

By Trek canon, Alpha Centauri is a human/Federation colony without a native species. This is a list for Trek canon species-so, just the series and movies. --CF90 (talk) 20:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:STSamaritan.jpgEdit

The image File:STSamaritan.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --20:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


Is there any reliable source stating the dancer in Final Frontier was a Caitian? She's felinoid, yes, but a lot less so than Caitians (no fur, for one thing). Memory Alpha says production documents called her a Kzinretti, but they've got fur as well. Daibhid C (talk) 19:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

  • No, the dancer seen in the bar in Final Frontier is supposed to be Kzinretti, but Paramont was unable (or unwilling) to work out copyright issues with Larry Nivin to the extent that the name could be used in advertising. - Ken keisel (talk) 23:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


I checked out the page EEMIV listed, and it says

"The threshold of what constitutes in-universe writing is making any effort to re-create or uphold the illusion of the original fiction by omitting real-world info."

Well the first sentence of this article not only says "This is a list of sentient species and races from the fictional universe of the Star Trek media franchise", but also contains a link to the terms "fictional universe" as well as "Star Trek", of which both articles talk about being fictional again, in the first sentence or two.
The second sentence says "This table shows a list of races and their appearances on the five Star Trek television series as well as the 2009 movie Star Trek", which also links to the 2009 movie, which again mentions it being fiction in the first sentence.

Since the table is just about the only thing left on this article, and everything surrounding the table talks about how it's fictional, how does that meet EEMIV's criteria for in-universe template? --Despayre (talk) 01:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Since the table is just about the only thing left on this article - You seem to have missed the giant morass of prose beneath the table. Regardless, the list contains virtually no -- possible none at all -- information about development, critical reaction, or other content that offers an appropriately encyclopedic real-world perspective. Hence, {{in-universe}}. --EEMIV (talk) 02:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Haha.. yup! don't ask *me* how either, but I missed the giant morass of prose beneath the table   Somehow I got to the end of the table and thought I was at the end of the article, I see your point now...not sure how we'd go about fixing it though since it's mostly just a list of aliens on a tv show about space exploration... hmm... --Despayre (talk) 02:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


Shouldn't this article be properly titled "List of Star Trek species"?--Dvd-junkie (talk) 17:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, yes. Powers T 18:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Or, more accurately, List of Star Trek sentient species, as creatures like the Klingon targ are not included. Powers T 18:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Nausicaan is named after Nausicaä (character)Edit

Nausicaä (character) from Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind (film). I forgot his name, but one of the special effects techno-babel writers is an avowed big time anime fan, and there was an interview where he said as much. Many of TNG episodes have anime reference (as noted). Their is one where Lt. Data discovered the small work droids with feet was sentient, was modeled closely to a Dirty Pair robotic character, "Nammo". Its been a long time, so I cannot recall all the names ATM. --Flightsoffancy (talk) 18:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
I found the episode, The Quality of Life (Star Trek: The Next Generation), and the person is [Rick Sternbach]. --Flightsoffancy (talk) 18:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Klingons in new 2009 movieEdit

The Klingons actually appear in the deleted scenes in the Movie. Not sure if that counts or not but might be worth mentioning. (talk) 02:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Deleted scenes and other non-appearances generally don't make the cut for coverage unless they are subject of significant commentary or some such. --EEMIV (talk) 13:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

the cairn is missingEdit

they are a telepathic race featured in the star trek the next episode dark page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Added! Good eye, sniper! --Landiien (talk) 15:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Rigelians and RigelliansEdit

I see that we have the species from ENT on the list, but then there's the humanoid turtle species from The Motion Picture, the RigeLLians. The more research I do on them, the more convoluted they become. Can anyone deconflict this? --Landiien (talk) 16:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


Drayans are a xenophobic race from the Delta Quadrant. The crew of the USS Voyager in Star Trek: Voyager discovered the Drayan elders when one of its shuttlecraft crashed on one of the Drayan moons.

Is xenophobic accurate? From reading the memory alpha descriptions including the episode in question and my very rough memory (long time ago and I'm not a trekie) they weren't really xenophobic in the sense of disliking or afraid of other people/species. They just preferred to remain isolated. Nil Einne (talk) 22:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Elasians -- no entry in the Star Trek Races listEdit

There is no entry for the Elasians (or the Troyians, either) in the Star Grek Races Wikipedia article. I find this curious, as many other races from TOS are listed.

I took the time to create an entry for the a few days ago, created while playing the episode "Elaan of Troyius" so I could verify what I was writing. My memory is good and as I am fond of this particular episode (not least because Shatner and Nuyen appeared together for two years on Broadway in The World Of Suzie Wong), but when creating an entry others will refer to, I want to be sure my facts are correct. I extrapolated heights for the Elasian males on females by working off scenes where Shatner, whose height is known, appeared side by side with the male actors and with Nuyen. I quoted verbatim from the script for descriptions of the males and females and their behavior, and for the biochemical aspect of Elasian women's tears. I based my observations on the effects of said tears on Kirk's behavior toward Elaan and on the explanation Ambassador Petri gave to Nurse Chapel.

In other words, I worked exclusively from a Canon source, endeavoring to be as precise and accurate as possible. As there was no extant entry on the Elasians, I did not believe I was stepping on anyone's toes.

The next time I checked the Star Trek Races article, my entry had vanished.

I would like to know why.

If the powers that be at Wikipedia require a degree in Trekdom or something similar before allowing an entry to be made in a Star Trek-related entry, or require a link to the Memory Alpha Wiki or something similar, the courtesy of a notice to that effect at the top of the page would be appreciated. If not, I would appreciate an explanation as to when , by whom, and WHY the entry was removed. (talk) 03:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposed merger of OrganianEdit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result was merge. I'm new to these, so if I'm doing anything wrong, please let me know! L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 00:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

The Organian article really doesn't meet the notability guidelines. The article is unsourced and the only news coverage for the race is minor mentions in Star Trek episode reviews. Outside of four Star Trek episodes, there is no notability. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 20:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Support unless the notability concerns can be addressed via secondary sourcing...I'm fairly doubtful of that but willing to be surprised. Doniago (talk) 20:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Support written from an in-universe perspective and lacking third-party sources. No established notability. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 22:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
DENIAL!!! ARTICLES OTHER THAN STUBS SUCH AS THESE SHOULD NEVER BE MERGED!!!!! Adeptzare3 (talk) 04:5521185, 24 November 2013 (UTC):

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Star Trek OnlineEdit

Should a new column be added to the colour-coded table addressing appearances of races in the ongoing Star Trek Online game? Many species from across the franchise have already appeared, either within episode storylines or as playable avatars, with more being added all the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:40, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Where does encyclopedic end and fancruft begin?Edit

Should this article really consist of every single alien race every to be brought up in Star Trek (I apologize if I'm over-generalizing), or should it be limited to the races for which there is third-party sourcing establishing significance? I'm concerned that this article is not and will not ever be up to Wikipedia standards, and I think limiting it to "notable" races and providing more real-world context may be an improvement. Additionally there is an argument to be made that Memory Alpha and other sites are more appropriate venues for this information, especially in cases where third-parties generally haven't taken note. What do others think? Doniago (talk) 13:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly for several months. "None" of this stuff is sourced and it just continues to grow. All the Star Trek and Star Wars "Lists" pages (Races, planets, characters, books, etc) suffer from this. Not sure where the cut line should be, but Wiki shouldn't just be a verbatim copy of what's already available elsewhere. Ckruschke (talk) 19:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke
Thanks for your feedback. You're right about the other articles. Star Trek characters in particular has been seeing a lot of arguably non-constructive expansion lately. I'll probably wait at least a couple of weeks to see what other editors may think before I start making any serious revisions. Doniago (talk) 19:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Couldn't agree more. I created this page seven years ago because wikipedia did not have as rigorous standards relating to real-world context for fictional topics back then and this was a way to take a bunch of short articles that would never be improved but probably never be deleted in that climate either and at least concentrate it all in one place. Now that the standards are generally better, I am sure much of the material that has accumulated here in subsequent years can be trimmed. Indrian (talk) 23:32, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback Indrian! Nice to hear from the page creator. (smile) As I said above I'll give it a bit more time before I break out the machete. Doniago (talk) 13:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Trim away! All I ask is that you also delete any re-directs associated with the trimmed material. Cbbkr (talk) 20:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
I would have thought that at a minimum the article should be limited to those fictional species for which sufficient third party content exists to write about the species in an out-of-universe manner. I'm also inclined to think that humans should not be listed, as they're not part of the fictional creation. Also, there seems to be a link to the relevant page of Memory Alpha after most entries. That seems both unnecessary and undesirable (per WP:EL external links should not normally be included in the body of the article).Havelock Jones (talk) 22:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Missing Draylaxians.Edit

I noticed the Draylaxian Race is not on the list, they are from Draylax. I know they are mentioned in Star Trek Enterprise in the first episode. They have three breast... hard to forget that. (talk) 23:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd recommend looking at the above thread; specifically, there's plans to start trimming this article for races that don't have significance that can be established via third-party sourcing. I suspect a race that shows up in one episode of one of the series may not have that degree of significance, especially if they were not a principal race in that episode. Doniago (talk) 12:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


Race mentioned in the Star Trek: Borg game CrocodilesAreForWimps (talk) 15:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Do any Ktarians appear on Voyager?Edit

While we do have Naomi Wildman, a half Ktarian, on Voyager, I believe that no full Ktarians appear there. I think that, as a result, we should have voyager listed as "mentioning" Ktarians, not as having an appearence. (Naomi's father, a full Ktarian, is actually mentioned). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

If there are no third-party sources that discusses Ktarians in any case, they should be removed from this article as discussed above. Doniago (talk) 20:10, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Changelings on TNG?Edit

I'm reasonably sure that this never happened. Though the actress that played the female changeling had a monologue in one of the episodes in seasion 7, she was playing another alien. The Dominion page makes mention that the Dominion appear in one of the games, but even that page makes no mention of them appearing on the show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Searchingfortao (talkcontribs) 13:18, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

2013 mergingEdit

I'm slowly going to work my way through this list and merge any races that don't necessitate a separate article here (see example). While a lot of the articles are nice and thorough, they have almost no mention of real-world impact or even in-universe impact - they're just plot summaries and fictional lore. I love that stuff, don't get me wrong - I'm a Trekkie - but it's better off on Memory Alpha, not Wikipedia.

I've started with Species 8472, as it exhibited the issues I mention above. I'm okay with articles like this one or this one, because those have noted cultural impact and at least some substance.

If anyone feels like helping, you're welcome to. Any questions or concerns are welcome. m.o.p 22:03, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Kudos. If I'm still fighting a cold tomorrow, I might jump in :). --EEMIV (talk) 00:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Cool! I'll keep whittling them down as time permits. If you have any suggestions for what to keep and what to discard, let me know. For now, I'm just stating where the race appears and any noted real-world significance. m.o.p 01:55, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your work on this! DonIago (talk) 03:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Linked but missing ST races?Edit

I followed two different Googled links to find info on the Pakleds, only to find no such entry under p-initials. Somebody delete this, or was it never included? How many others here in similar fix? (talk) 07:53, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

My guess would be the entry was deleted because there was no third-party context/sourcing provided to establish how they're generally significant. If you just want to read about Star Trek races, I recommend a website devoted to such things such as Memory Alpha. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 13:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Surely if an entry on a well-known race is obviously correct but unsourced, it should be {{fact}} tagged rather than deleted? Vashti (talk) 21:23, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Not only is there a discussion about this on this page but the article has been tagged for needing citations since 2011. DonIago (talk) 21:32, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
So how do you suggest I wikilink, e.g., the Deltans, who I've recently mentioned in a fully referenced article? Is Wikipedia to have not even the most cursory description of a fictional species that has appeared in multiple published works? Vashti (talk) 00:48, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
If the Deltans have appeared in multiple published third-party works that establish their significance in a real-world context, you could certainly add them and include those works as references. If by "multiple published works" you mean a bunch of Star Trek novels, that doesn't, to my mind at least, demonstrate significance, because it's hardly unexpected that books set in the ST universe would make use of ST races. Notably, the entry for Deltans here also makes a claim that they inspired the Betazoids, which very much should be sourced.
I would think that Ilia's appearance in TMP at least got some media attention, so perhaps that might be a place to start. DonIago (talk) 13:48, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
WP:PASI establishes that primary sources (or "a bunch of Star Trek novels", alongside TMP) are adequate sources for plot summaries: "writing about fiction always includes using the original fiction itself as a source". We can certainly establish out-of-universe perspective for primary source material, and certainly when secondary sources crop up they should be used for expansion. But the absence of those sources is not a reason we can't have e.g. one line on each Trek race so that people can contextualise them. Vashti (talk) 16:46, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Please read the above thread that discusses this. A consensus was previously established to limit coverage in this article to races for which there is third-party commentary available. ST novels are not third-party sources in this case. Our goal is specifically not to just discuss the role each and every ST race plays in the franchise; if that is your concern, I strongly recommend Memory Alpha or another ST-focused wiki. DonIago (talk) 16:50, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

You want me to wikilink a race mention in a Wikipedia article to Wikia? Vashti (talk) 17:01, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
No, as that would violate policy. I was suggesting editing at those sites instead if you want to contribute material regarding Trek races that do not have significant third-party coverage. DonIago (talk) 17:29, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm not interested in adding material on Trek races. I want to be able to wikilink to brief, centralised, maintainable descriptions of them from pages and sections that mention them. I'm worried that your consensus here makes this impossible, and ignores Wikipedia's guidelines on plot summaries. Vashti (talk) 18:45, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any guideline that requires that, for instance, Deltans be linked in a line from a plot summary such as, "Captain Smith's Deltan first officer leads the away team." Others may have differing opinions, but it's been difficult getting significant editorial attention on this Talk page in the past. Could you provide a concrete example? Thanks. DonIago (talk) 19:39, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
It should be linked because it's an obscure term, and readers are not likely to know what it is. They should be able to follow a link and get a definition. Are you really asking me to support the concept of wikilinking on Wikipedia? The specific example is from Dwellers in the Crucible#Plot, where the six hostages are linked by species. Presumably you would prefer that pages did not mention Trek races at all? Vashti (talk) 19:57, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Oh, to quickly add, the guideline you want is WP:UNDERLINK - "articles explaining words of technical terms, jargon or slang expressions/phrases—but you could also provide a concise definition instead of or in addition to a link. ... proper names that are likely to be unfamiliar to readers.". We *could*, for instance, define race names repeatedly in every page that mentions them. Those descriptions would likely still be dependent on primary sources, but now they're decentralised, repetitive, and unmaintainable. I would much rather see them gathered here. Vashti (talk) 20:01, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

─────────────────────────With all due respect, I'm trying to work with you here and would appreciate it if you didn't get snippy with me.

Under the circumstances I'm inclined to agree that if a race is mentioned in multiple WP articles then it may be appropriate to link them here (and in turn link from here to those articles). However, I'd like opinions from others on this as well.

What I wouldn't like to see is this principle become used to justify the inclusion of every single race that ever appeared in ST in this article. For instance, the UFP president as shown in a couple of episodes of DS9 and presumably in more than one of the novels is a Grazerite, but that doesn't make Grazerites significant in and of themselves, and I don't believe they merit an article.

All this said, in the specific case you've cited I'm not sure that the races of the individuals involved are particularly relevant either. I find it notable and mildly amusing that the two individuals who are apparently most significant in this regard don't even have their races explicitly identified in the article text. DonIago (talk) 20:18, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not "getting snippy" with you.
The individuals are identified by race because the sentence then uses that identification as a key to describe what happens to them. The alternative is to list them by name, which would be a wholly unnecessary expansion of the summary, would *still* involve identifying their race and would *still* require a wikilink. To give you an idea, I ran your sample sentence past a friend of mine who is a Trek virgin, and not only did she not know what a Deltan was, she didn't know what an away team was. You might say that Trek virgins are unlikely to be reading pages on Trek novels, but we have to write and reference as if they are. Besides anything else, Trek is a huge universe, and someone familiar with e.g. TNG might very well want TOS species names defined.
The only two characters mentioned in the article and not identified by race are Kirk and Spock, who are both extremely notable outside the context of the novel and have articles in their own right. Vashti (talk) 20:27, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm uncomfortable offering a further opinion on this matter until such time as other editors have contributed to the discussion. DonIago (talk) 20:50, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
That's fine, there's no rush. Hopefully some others will step in. Vashti (talk) 20:59, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

There are actually about 50 species with this problem, not just Hirogen; search this for "invalid" (in many cases the problem is Orion (Star Trek) for instance, not Orion). My point isn't to debate whether a species should be listed here or delinked. My point is that we should do one or the other. And I didn't come here because I know much about Star Trek; I came here because I found a major failure in Wikipedia's linking, and perhaps the rest of Wikipedia needs to come to get links to work here. Art LaPella (talk) 16:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I acknowledge that it's a problem. If it were left to my judgment races with no third-party sourcing would be delinked and removed, but for better or worse it's not just up to me. As I said previously, we really need more editors involved. Might be worth raising this at the appropriate project page(s), or perhaps starting an RFC. DonIago (talk) 16:28, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Star Trek#Dead-end links for Star Trek species Art LaPella (talk) 16:46, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
I missed the decision to remove all list entries for races not covered in independent media, but I understand the rationale. I suggest that all incoming redirects without an entry here should be changed to point to the most relevant article, e.g. a section of a Series article, or the episode where the species was first introduced or had a dominant role. This will be an art, not a science. For example, the redirects for Prophets & Pah-wraiths could be changed to Bajoran#Religion. – Fayenatic London 13:04, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Fine with me. I found such an article for every example I looked at, using as a Google search parameter. Art LaPella (talk) 19:43, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I think we can call this consensus barring any substantive objections. Great suggestion Fayenatic! DonIago (talk) 03:48, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
You probably know this, but deletionist/inclusionist wars have left Star Trek races inconsistently documented. For instance, most of this article consists of As and Bs; the rest of the alphabet has been much more thoroughly purged. For another instance, this Google Books Ngram shows that Organians and Hirogen are in the same ballpark for notability, but Organians have their own dedicated article, and the Hirogen don't even have an entry on this list. So we could either write more about some more notable races, or delete more about some less notable races. Art LaPella (talk) 05:57, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I was left with the impression that one or more editors started this list in table format, but at some point that was abandoned. It was a lot easier to clean-up the non-table-formatted material. I believe the earlier entries should be cleaned up as well, but I'm not in a rush to do it...though I'll probably look it over eventually. Adding the other entries back in with sourcing would of course be great, but I don't really have the time to invest in that myself. DonIago (talk) 13:00, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Romulan pageEdit

There's a long Klingon page. Don't you think the Romulans merit more than three lines in a "List of Star Trek races" page? I'm not competent to write a Romulan page myself, but someone ought to.HowardJWilk (talk) 00:51, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

@HowardJWilk: There is, in fact, a Romulan article. πr2 (tc) 04:44, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm stupefied. I can see by its history it's been there from long before I put my two cents in, but I know I checked the thing. Some change in redirection somewhere sometime, Romulan, Romulans, Romulus? It doesn't matter. The page is there, and I and anyone else can get to it now. My work on Earth is done.HowardJWilk (talk) 04:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The Children of TamaEdit

Temak...the River winter!

Shaka, when the walls fell...The Tamarians certainly need to be included.

Sukat, his eyes uncovered!

Merab, with sails unfurled! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8:D80:59A:7584:7A00:AF46:F80C (talk) 03:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Dead-end linksEdit

It's understandable that some of you don't want species like the Hirogen (described at Portal:Star Trek/Selected race/5) in this article. It's not understandable that so many Hirogen links come to this article, where they aren't mentioned. At least 2 other species have the same problem; see #Denobulan and Suliban above. Wikipedia's basic idea of wikification doesn't work, unless something useful happens when you click a link. Art LaPella (talk) 15:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Have third-party sources discussed the Hirogen? If so there should be an entry here discussing them in a manner that includes out-of-universe context. If not? I'd recommend they be delinked. If people want to learn about Star Trek aliens that never received any significant notice from third-party sources, they're welcome to look at Memory Alpha. DonIago (talk) 15:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
This is already discussed just a couple of threads up... DonIago (talk) 15:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Found it. Continuing there... Art LaPella (talk) 16:10, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


This list is incomplete... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:27, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Inclusion of the TholiansEdit

This edit attempted to add the Tholians to this article, but by just copying/pasting from Memory Alpha. The Tholians can and should be included, but it's not advisable to plagiarise from Memory Alpha. Smeggysmeg (talk) 16:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Xindi, Gorn, and Tellarite up for deletion. Merge here?Edit


When I click on the main article-link of Tellarite, I get send back to the top of the page where I just came from. It doesn't even HAVE an article so this redirect is pretty useless anyway. I would have changed it myself but there is nothing I can say about this particular race. Anybody? Oxygene7-13 (talk) 17:53, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I would think third-party sources may have discussed Tellarites...they're a larger part of the mythos...but hard to say for sure. DonIago (talk) 19:06, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
It actually had an article once. The subject wasn't important enough to keep it, so it got deleted. In that case the subject gets a entry in this list accompanied by a little comment, but I don't have any information concerning the Tellarites. My question is: could somebody remove the dead link and add a little info about this race? Oxygene7-13 (talk) 15:41, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Hm. I was hopeful that a quick search might yield some possible refs, but all I found was Wikis and other non-third-party sourcing. Others may have better luck? DonIago (talk) 15:46, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

User: PatGallacher already filled in a thing or two. To me that's enough. Oxygene7-13 (talk) 15:54, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I think what's there is, frankly, pretty shoddy and bordering on unencyclopedic, but I'll leave it alone for the time-being. Having any reliable and independent source added would be a massive improvement though. DonIago (talk) 19:42, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
How can something that belongs to a list that is encyclopedic be not encyclopedic? If the list has a right to exist then everything that belongs in that list should be as well, or am I wrong..? Oxygene7-13 (talk) 10:19, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
I'd recommend looking over WP:CSC. Specifically, "...only certain types of list should be exhaustive. Criteria for inclusion should factor in encyclopedic and topical relevance, not just verifiable existence." I would read that as saying that this list should not be including every race that ever appears in Star Trek, but rather those that achieved some level of out-of-universe significance. Vulcans, Klingons, Borg, any race with enough notability to merit its own article, etc...such significance should be demonstrated via the inclusion of at least one third-party source. While not directly applicable, I think WP:IPCV may have some useful notes as well, as this entire list is arguably "in popular culture" material. Hope this helps. DonIago (talk) 13:19, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Return to "List of Star Trek races" page.