Talk:Q Continuum

Trelane's reliance on machines

The notion that Trelane relied on a machine to assist him with the use of his power, and the Q apparently didn't need machines could imply that we were seeing a partal manefestation of the Q Continuum, and not regular reality. In the Voyager episodes where the crew goes to the Q Continuum, the Q apparently use machines, even though it was established that everything we saw was an analogy of what was really happening there. --AnthonyMartin 16:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Treland wasn't reliant on that machine. After Kirk destroyed it he could still use his powers. The snare (talk) 13:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Why Q isn't in on Star Trek: Enterprise

Since the filming of Star Trek, there has been all kinds of omnipotent Q-like beings (Trelane/TOS), and the Q Continuum (TNG thru Voyager), so why isn't a character made an appearance of omnipotence of Q in Jonathan Archer's time? --Seishirou Sakurazuka 00:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

There has... the Organians. It was fourth season, Observer Effect. The two Organians spent much of their time using Reed and Malcolm, while Trip and Hoshi were dying in quarantine. The Organians are powerful, perhaps not omnipotent, but very powerful. It would have been nice if one of the Organians had been referred to by name as a member of the Council of Elders that Kirk met a century later - either Claymare, Ayelborne or Trefayne. GBC 19:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

What's in the Q Continuum?

There's nothing about the plane of existence that the Q live in. I heard that it's a farm with one Q pretending to be a scarecrow (they take turns). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.231.229.31 (talk) 23:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC).

Unless I am mistaken the Q Continuum's appearance is subjective to mortals and/or they merely disguise it as necessary so that said mortals can comprehend it.

Q originally evolved from humans?

the article suggests that the Q originally evolved from humans... I seriously doubt it, and it is only speculation, and I think Wikipedia has rules against speculation. Additionally, Didn't Q once tell Riker that one day, humans will evolve to a level beond the Q, and become even more powerful than them? If that's the case, then humanity won't evolve into the Q, but instead will evolve into somthing even more powerful. 141.154.162.11 22:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

If you watch the final episode in TNG "All Good Things..." the final conversation between Picard and Q are what sparks the idea that humans will evolve into the Q. Q points out that real exploration is that of expanding the mind into the unbelievable and humans were capable of that. It is Qs behavior in this episode that leads to this belief.

But I think that in "Hide and Q", Q told Riker that humanity will evolve beyond the Q, and become somthing even more powerful. If that's true, then humanity won't evolve into the Q, but will evolve ito somthing far beyond them. In that case, Q's statments in "All Good Things..." could support the idea that humans will actually evolve beyond the Q. One way or the other, it's all speculation. and I am fairly certian that Wikipedia policy says that you can't have speculation in articles.. So I don't think such speculation should be in the article. perhaps someone should remove the speculation from the article. 70.17.152.69 16:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The Q are apparent in all time lines, so why not be aware of their future evolution?

-G —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.117.157.7 (talk) 05:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

Omniscient?

Omnipotent, yes; but not omniscient, I think. Have they been described that way in published literature? I'm removing the adjective pending verification. —Angr 07:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd need to dig up some episodes to list, but i know that on numerous occations Q demonstrates that he only claims omniscience, rather then has it. And picard comments on this also.Smitty1337 (talk) 15:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Merged

I merged this article with 0 (Star Trek) as per the discussion, located at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/0 (Star Trek). If you have any comments, feel free to leave a note on my talk page Z1720 (talk) 05:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

While all the other members of the Q continuum listed here have on-screen appearances, 0 comes only from books and is thus (arguably) non-canon. No other non-canon members of Q are listed here. Nor are there significant out-of-universe references to 0. I question whether it really belongs on Wikipedia at all. (Specialized wikis like Memory Alpha have plenty of space for expanded in-universe things like this.) John Darrow (talk) 05:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Q portrait.jpg

The image Image:Q portrait.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. --01:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep the non-cannon off wiki

Stuff from books is irrelevent to the star trek articles, there are literally hundreds of non-cannon books it is absurd to list ANY of them they are not part of the continuity of star trek. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smitty1337 (talk • contribs) 04:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

i like these books as much as the next trekkie, I've read the onese mentioned on this page, they are really good stories. BUT they are not cannon, they contradict established cannon, they are not approved by the owners paramount. They are works of fan art, nothing more. Please refrain from putting them into the main body of the article. If you want to make a new section regarding Non-cannonical representations, or fan works, i'd be all for it there are tons. But this is wiki, not memory alpha. the only content that should be in the article is that which is fact about he Q continuum. Smitty1337 (talk) 20:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

"Known members of the Q Continuum" is for Known members. NOT speculative members, please do not reintroduce non-cannon or fanbase speculation. If paramount pictures did not produce the content then it is not relevent unless you add a section specificallly listing cultural interpretations of fan works. but wiki is not a fan site, this is not the place for such content. I've removed it twice now, i dont want to start an edit war Smitty1337 (talk) 17:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Star Trek canon please read this if you are unaware of what is legitimate and what is fan fiction, i loved those books but i dont try to push them off as cannon. Smitty1337 (talk) 17:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)