Talk:Triacus

Why is Triacus listed as orbiting the star named Epsilon Indi?

According to the episode:
 * ''Spock ... what do we know about the race that lived here?
 * ''According to the legend, Triacus was the seat of a band of marauders who made constant war throughout the Epsilon Indi system. After many centuries, the destroyers were themselves destroyed by those they had preyed upon.

Ok, so how does making war throughout the Epsilon Indi system establish that Triacus is part of that system -- of even more speculatively, orbiting that star (which itself wasn't mentioned, only the system was)

After all, the US makes war throughout the Middle East -- but we are not geographically bound to it. Can the assumption that America borders the Persian Gulf be made because we make war there? -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 14:35, 6 Dec 2005 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you could change it to what you feel is most appropriate? Seeing that I wrote it, and not that I "own it", per se, and you feel you can rewrite it more accurately, then go for it. In fact, I'm not even sure why a discussion was needed in the first place? Fixing factual inaccuracies on whim is hardly something new around here. --Alan del Beccio 17:29, 6 Dec 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree, we don't need the pna-inaccurate for a small change like that. A note on the talk page after the change should be enough to inform anyone of the reasons for removal, and perhaps lead to further discussion if someone has more information. -- Cid Highwind 17:49, 6 Dec 2005 (UTC)


 * Well thanks for fixing it. I actually hadn't looked at who had written the article because i was in a hurry, i just wanted to leave a quick note asking why the reference was there -- because i didnt know 100% that there wasnt some other episode or dialogue establishing the fact -- so to answer the question i didn't know what was most appropriate.


 * If i don't have time to research a change i feel needs to be made, is there another template i could use? Some way to get you or other archivists to help me without getting a standard talking to about how i used the wrong template for the wrong thing? -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 18:11, 6 Dec 2005 (UTC)


 * No, it was the right template to use in that case, of course. To me, and probably to Alan as well, the initial comment here just looked as if you did do the research. Sorry for any possible offense... :) -- Cid Highwind 18:14, 6 Dec 2005 (UTC)