Talk:Rigelian hypnoid

New name
As per the scripted spelling, I think this article should be at "Rigellian hypnoid". --Defiant 04:07, December 31, 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not totally sure about that - we have a whole bunch of both "Rigelian X" and "Rigellian X" articles. If the intent has been that all those are from the same "Rigel system", we should consider one of the spellings a typo and just use the other one. If the intent has been that "Rigelian" and "Rigellian" really have a different meaning in every case, we should do as you suggest. If the real intent is unclear, we need to discuss this in more detail. -- Cid Highwind 11:54, December 31, 2011 (UTC)

When I have encountered this issue before on MA, there has been an intentional difference made between "Rigelian" and "Rigellian", with the intent being that they have different meanings. In this case, the hypnoid is referred to only once by that name in the script, so "Rigellian" is accurate, whereas "Rigelian" is inaccurate. --Defiant 13:50, December 31, 2011 (UTC)


 * And where can that discussion/decision be found? -- Cid Highwind 14:34, December 31, 2011 (UTC)

Basically, all over the place! There's a deliberate distinction already made between Rigelian and Rigellian on the page for each species. Also, "Rigelian" is from closed-captioning, whereas "Rigellian" is from The Making of Star Trek: The Motion Picture, as can be determined from the relevant talk pages. So, these are the most accurate spellings for the respective species that we know of (in lieu of the scripted spelling for the species currently detailed on the Rigelian page). The same is true in this case – "Rigellian" hypnoid is the correct spelling, as it is taken from the script. --Defiant 14:43, December 31, 2011 (UTC)

In fact, the spelling "Rigelian" is not only from closed-captioning, but is also the spelling used in the scripts for and, and. Neither "Rigelian" nor "Rigellian" is referenced in the script for Star Trek: The Motion Picture, so we used Robert Fletcher's design notes from The Making of Star Trek: The Motion Picture (Fletcher having been instrumental in designing the aliens, after all!). In summation, the common practice is to use whichever spelling is from the script or (in lieu of that) any definitive production sources (such as Fletcher's notes), so that should be no different here. --Defiant 15:12, December 31, 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the lecture - but the last bit you stated is the whole point! Is there any definite source that states that there even are two different species and their nearly identical name is deliberate? Or, lacking that, are we possibly basing that whole stuff on a repeated misspelling and the fact that an unnamed species got a non-canonical name by some production guy? -- Cid Highwind 15:38, December 31, 2011 (UTC)

That's speculative at best. We should go with the hard evidence, which is what we've so far done. In every single case of evidence, it's possible that it's faulty and/or misleading. For instance, quotes from production staffers can possibly be jokes and/or lies. IMO, we should nearly always take the evidence at face value, except in cases where extreme evidence points to the source being incorrect (such as if they laughed and then said something like, "No, that didn't happen; I was just joking!"). If there's any non-verifiable doubt due to contradictory sources, we should detail all the info and let the reader decide for themself (for example, as I did on the Saavik page, re: the origins of the concept for that character). There's no evidence to suggest anything faulty in the "Rigelian" & "Rigellian" situation, so we should take the evidence we do have at face value and leave subjective speculation out of it. --Defiant 16:01, December 31, 2011 (UTC)


 * All of that doesn't really match MA:CANON, though... -- Cid Highwind 16:28, December 31, 2011 (UTC)

I see absolutely no contradiction. On the contrary, the section "Conflicts in valid resources" essentially seems to be more-or-less a rewording of what I've said above. I especially agree with the statements, "To the greatest extent possible valid resources should be construed so as not to be in conflict. The presumption should be that a conflict does not exist unless no other explanation is reasonable under the circumstances." --Defiant 17:04, December 31, 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but that excerpt only makes sense in combination with the definition of "valid resource" some sections above. Script spelling explicitly is not a valid resource, and is only to be used "for naming items or people that were seen on-screen but not referred to by name". If we use script spelling to state that there actually are two species (and/or planets with their flora&fauna) instead of, potentially, just one, then we are using it for much more than simply naming an otherwise unnamed object. We mustn't do that. -- Cid Highwind 17:21, December 31, 2011 (UTC)

I now understand how you're interpreting the policy, so thanks for that clarification. I believe you're getting mixed up between spelling and naming. The only limit to using scripted spelling is that it "will not take precedence over spelling seen on-screen in an episode." In neither case here is there any on-screen evidence that contradicts the scripted spelling. Also according to the policy page, production or reference material can be used for "naming items or people that were seen on-screen but not referred to by name." The name of something obviously also includes the spelling of that name; as I previously implied, naming and spelling are distinctly different subjects while also being related. Thus, the info from The Making of Star Trek: The Motion Picture is valid for naming the otherwise-unnamed Rigellian species, including the double-L spelling (which is part-and-parcel of the name) and making the name different from the Rigelian one. --Defiant 17:59, December 31, 2011 (UTC)


 * Not if doing so is creating a difference out of thin air, basically "making up canon". That is just wrong. -- Cid Highwind 18:10, December 31, 2011 (UTC)

It would be wrong, if the name was being made up "out of thin air." But in this case, the names of both the "Rigellian" and "Rigelian" species are taken entirely from the valid resources listed on the policy page, as I've explained above. The different spellings mean that they are two different names, since the spelling of a name is part of that name. There wouldn't be "incorrect" ways to spell a name if that wasn't the case. --Defiant 18:17, December 31, 2011 (UTC)


 * You're dodging the issue if you just repeatedly state that those names are valid while that very fact is being contested in this discussion. I say that whatever Robert Fletcher said a couple of decades ago is not a "valid resource" as defined by our policy, so that information should only be used to name articles if it doesn't lead to problems. The fact that (spelling aside) we end up with two species with the same name, where it would be equally possible that those two are just different designs of the same species (or one of them not a Rigel[l]ian at all) is, in my opinion, creating problems - and those problems obviously spread out to all other articles about flora, fauna and other objects that are now considered to belong to either one of those species that may in fact be just one. -- Cid Highwind 14:26, January 1, 2012 (UTC)


 * (trying to wade in here)Looking around, we have kemocite and kemacite in one article, and Anesthizine has four different spellings, yet we assume they all mean the same thing. I don't see how this situation is different, and I think assuming one spelling is a typo is reasonable.  Where the spellings come from should be noted in the article, as we do in the two cases I just mentioned. --31dot 15:24, January 1, 2012 (UTC)

Well, they should probably be corrected, as well. Cid, if the production notes are not considered a valid resource, they should not be used at all (just as other invalid resources, such as the fan-produced New Voyages series, are not used for info either). However, I of course don't think there are any sufficient grounds to exclude the production notes as a valid resource. As I've tried to explain, you can't just put the spelling "aside," as that's part-and-parcel of names. Phonetics are not just the sole difference between names, are they?! These are two different species because they're spelt differently, thereby varying the name. I'm not just "repeatedly [stating] that those names are valid" but also doing my utmost to explain why they are. --Defiant 15:37, January 1, 2012 (UTC)


 * If you state that "if the production notes are not considered a valid resource, they should not be used at all", I have to assume that you still haven't read or understood MA:CANON completely, because that is exactly what that policy states: production notes (here:scripts) are not "valid resources" but may be used under very restricted circumstances.
 * If you want to debate that policy in general, you should do it on its talk page. For this discussion, the examples 31dot presented (thanks!) are a good analogy, and this case (spelling of "Rigelian") should be handled like that case (spelling of "kemocite"). -- Cid Highwind 15:55, January 1, 2012 (UTC)

You just didn't clarify that your definition of "valid resource" matches the misleading one from that page. Info from scripts and production resources is still valid for inclusion (commonly as bg info and the restrained spelling exception you keep referring to), so they are valid in that way; it's not like we eliminate them completely, like we do to some other things. I'm happy with the policy as it currently stands, which clearly favors keeping the two species as two species. --Defiant 16:14, January 1, 2012 (UTC)


 * Wow, it just doesn't make sense discussing with you, it seems. Of course I'm using the definition of some phrase that is made on the same page that uses that phrase (instead of, what, some random other definition I just made up because it suits my point?). Calling that definition misleading although it is supposed to explain what the policy wants to get across is just backwards - and if that is the level on which you want to continue this debate, I no longer want to be a part of it. Bring up some good arguments for not merging Rigelian and Rigellian (and, in extension, all other qualified articles such as this one), and we can talk. -- Cid Highwind 17:18, January 1, 2012 (UTC)