Talk:El-Aurian

Removed?
Why was my page removed? Ottens 18:05, 9 Jun 2004 (CEST)


 * I explained that removal of information on User talk:Ottens. -- Cid Highwind 18:08, 9 Jun 2004 (CEST)

Temporal page has been set up at El-Aurian/temp. I recommend you tell people this before removing the page. Luckily, I still had the "Edit" window open in another Tab, but if I hadn't, the page would have been lost. Ottens 18:10, 9 Jun 2004 (CEST)


 * Well, this whole procedure is described in detail in the message on the page you edited... Generally, old versions of any page can be accessed using the Page history link of that page. No edit is lost, which is in fact the reason for this procedure. -- Cid Highwind 18:17, 9 Jun 2004 (CEST)

My apoligies, than. Ottens 19:00, 9 Jun 2004 (CEST)

Age
216.99.241.227: ''El-Aurians initially age as humans do until somewhere between their mid-30's to mid-50's depending on the individual. They then cease to age from that point on and do not start aging again until approximately 700 years later. Because of this, the average El-Aurian lifespan is anywhere between 790 to 810 years.''

That each El-Aurian ages differently is the only explanation that could be thought of to explain the reason why Tolian Soran at 300 years old looked older than Guinan when she was over 500 years old.

El Aurians referenced in ?
If you follow this link, it mentions that the Hanson's had an El-Aurian friend who told them about the Borg. Is this true?- Rebelstrike2005 11:26, 9 Mar 2005 (GMT)
 * No, unless it came off of a text log entry that was readable on screen, and until that can be proven, it shouldn't be mentioned beyond this post. Tvtome is notorious for some horribly inaccurate "facts". I know that the following, is an example of text logs on the USS Raven which came from (where the Raven was referred to as the Jefferies):
 * "According to arrival/departure log from the Drexler outpost in sector Omega, exploration vessel Jefferies left that location in 2354. No flight plan was filed and no further contact was ever established. Last known heading was 237/47." --Gvsualan 13:01, 9 Mar 2005 (GMT)

Some/all had special awareness
Depsite risk of sparking an edit war, I'm going to change back to "Some El-Aurians appear to have an awareness that supersedes the normal flow of time and space." The word some I think is crucial here, because we've really only seen this with Guinan, and not other members of her species. Specifically, Toran did not seem to realize any temporal changes had occurred when Picard and Kirk came back to stop him from launching his weapon. Incidentally, some non-canon resources attribute specific powers to Guinan as a result of various factors in her life, but not her species as a whole. --- Jaz  23:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Martus Mazur also did not seem to have any special awareness of anything.--31dot 00:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

El-Aurian names
Does it really make sense to say "El-Aurian names typically have two syllables"? There isn't exactly a large sample set from which to make this statement. (You could look at the humans in the TNG crew -- Picard, Riker, Crusher, LaForge -- and say "human names typically have two syllables," but that would be pretty silly. 209.213.65.25 06:35, November 26, 2011 (UTC)tkts


 * Agreed. As far as I'm aware, we only know the names of four individuals, so as you say this is a stretch. I thus removed the sentence.–Cleanse ( talk 09:18, November 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * By its very nature, MA is sometimes forced to take one or few examples and assume they are typical of a larger group. Not doing so this would mean that much of the "ShipClass" articles would have only about one or two sentences on them! For instance, the one and only basis for the in-universe info on the page is the Enterprise-E, the only canonical example of a Sovereign-class ship that's appeared in canon. If Picard, Riker, Crusher and La Forge were aliens and were the only aliens of their species to ever have appeared or been referenced to, we would indeed have to assume that the commonalities between them were typical of their type, or there would be hardly anything to write. Thus, I don't see why continuing this trend in a single sentence should prove so problematic. --Defiant 11:19, November 26, 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem is right there in your first sentence - "assume". We shouldn't assume anything, but just state the facts - and if it is a fact that 4 of 4 El-Aurians have had a two-syllable name (really? Tolian Soran?), we should just state that in a background note (if it really is important enough), and not the assumption based on that observation. If ship class articles are full of speculation, that needs to be removed - and not be cited as a basis for more speculation elsewhere. -- Cid Highwind 11:38, November 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess we can't write anything about Sovereign-class ships, then! --Defiant 11:48, November 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * I mean, if we were to suddenly start following this suggestion, it would result in there being virtually no in-universe info on that page at all; the rest would have to end up as bg info. Of course, that's just one of many examples (all the species class articles, as well as the ship class pages, for instance). There'd be something like only a sentence or two in the in-universe content on each page! --Defiant 12:09, November 26, 2011 (UTC)


 * You're preaching to the choir if you're asking me whether speculative information should be removed from class articles (or any article for that matter) - although a point could be made that any artificial object of a specific class is probably "more typical" for that class than any specific name is typical for all names from that planet. In any case, that should be brought up on Talk:Sovereign class. -- Cid Highwind 12:12, November 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * Not if it's a site-wide issue. In this case, it seems to pertain to at least all species articles and ship class articles. This would be a sudden change affecting many articles, which I've tried to explain. --Defiant 12:20, November 26, 2011 (UTC)


 * That's just more reason to continue this discussion elsewhere, not less. Also, it is not a sudden change but just the policy this site has had all along - even if some assumptions surely slipped in on all those several thousand articles. -- Cid Highwind 12:29, November 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * On your first point, that's exactly right, though the talk page for Sovereign-class obviously ain't the right place to do it (the only thing I was suggesting). On your second point, we could agree to disagree, but I doubt you're yet aware of all the specifics of my argument. --Defiant 16:59, November 26, 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the key question is whether it's a reasonable leap. Assuming that all Sovereign-class starships have most of the same characteristics as the Enterprise E is reasonable. Saying "Most Sovereign-class starships are captained by bald Frenchmen who traditionally have romantic histories with the ships' chief medical officers" would not be. 209.213.65.25 17:06, November 26, 2011 (UTC) tkts


 * I'm sure you will explain those "specifics" on some other talk page soon, then. Otherwise, this whole back and forth would have been pointless - and we surely don't want that. -- Cid Highwind 17:11, November 26, 2011 (UTC)


 * I won't bother to say it again but this applies here and on the Sovereign-class article.--31dot 20:12, November 26, 2011 (UTC)