Talk:Tau Alpha C

I just noticed that the original incarnation of this article was lifted by an anon contributer in January of 2005, and thus was a copyvio. There are still vestiges of that original article in the current version, most noticeably in the first sentence, but perhaps more importantly, the original copyvio is in the article's version history. What should we do about this? -- Renegade54 16:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd say an admin needs to remove the copyvio version from the articles history, and any sentences that still read as being from the original need to be re-written. At that point, it becomes only a paraphrase, not a copyvio. --OuroborosCobra talk 17:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, if I understand correctly, you can't delete a version from the history. If you need to do that, you have to delete the whole article. -- Renegade54 18:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have experience with this as an admin on another wiki. You delete the article, then restore it. When you restore it, you can pick and choose which versions get put back in the public history. In the end, all versions are still stored on the server, but only those that you pick will be accessible and visible to the public. This is the same vandalism is removed from articles' histories. --OuroborosCobra talk 19:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * However, that doesn't remove the content from the next version of the article in the history, it just removes the edit of individual who contributed it. All subsequent versions in the page history would still contain "illegal" text. If you successfully want to remove all copyvio content, or access to that content, you either need to start over from the last point of it not being a copyvio, or start over from scratch. --Alan del Beccio!
 * Whoops. Hadn't thought of that... --OuroborosCobra talk 19:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

And since the copyvio occurred in the very first version, the last point of it not being a violation is before it was created. I guess that would mean we need to start from scratch. :( -- Renegade54 21:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Tau Alpha C in Tau Ceti
This page says that it was a mistake when Crusher said: "You know that alien from Tau Ceti, the one who could control warp fields with his mind?" Based on what? Tau Alpha C is the name of a planet, Tau Ceti is a star system. Why do we not interpret this: Tau Alpha C is a planet in the Tau Ceti system? Why assume there is a mistake? --Pseudohuman 19:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Because the imaginary Tau Alpha C was explicitly stated in "Where No One Has Gone Before" to be "very distant" and to all indications is a world the Federation has had little contact with, while the real Tau Ceti is one of the closest stars to Earth at only 11.9 light years' distance. Also, we know that Picard met Walker Keel in a bar on Tau Ceti III, the Kobayashi Maru was launched from the port of Amber on Tau Ceti IV, and Admiral Edward Janeway drowned under the ice cap of Tau Ceti Prime. It's definitely a well-known and well-travelled system, as well as very close to Earth. So yes, it was a huge mistake for Dr. Crusher to confuse Tau Alpha C with Tau Ceti, and it's a huge mistake for Memory Alpha to claim they're in the same system.--CLBennett (talk) 19:58, January 15, 2013 (UTC)


 * Pretty much. I really don't get why the Tau Ceti connection is on here.  It's kind of embarrassing, actually.  Tau Ceti is 12 light years from Earth, smack dab in the middle of Federation Space, while when Beverly Crusher asks the computer how long it will take to reach Tau Alpha C from her current location, presumably in Federation Space, at Warp 9.5, the computer tells her "123 days," making it 860 light years away.  Add to that all the lines about it being "quite distant," and subspace radio taking days to reach it, and you have a very distant location, not one Jonathan Archer could have visited in a few weeks' travel time. -- Ibanesse 14:09, 09 Apr 2013 (UTC)

Tau Ceti connection is here because it was stated in canon in dialogue. While I agree, the season 1 episode did give the impression that the Traveler was from some far away distant place, that is a vague non-specific statement at best, and the writers of the more recent episode "Journey's End" clearly wanted to identify the more familiar star as their home. Federation space is 8,000 light years across, so even a thousand light years away from Earth is still pretty close to the core worlds in the 24th century. The travelers are shapeshifters, and can phase out at will, and are native to a different reality and time, so even it the planetoid was known to Humans, they might not have encountered the Travelers when the Travelers did not wish to interact. --Pseudohuman (talk) 15:43, April 9, 2013 (UTC)


 * If the quote at the top of this section is all we have, then we should not conclude that one is a planet in the other system. You even admitted in your initial post that this is interpretation. For what it's worth, the Traveler could be considered to be "from" Tau Ceti even if his home world is another planet in another system. "Cochrane of Alpha Centauri", anyone? --Cid Highwind (talk) 17:06, April 9, 2013 (UTC)


 * I believe that Tau Alpha C was a distant star system that lay in or near to Federation space. I based this on a conversation heard in the episode . Here is the conversation.Throwback (talk) 20:25, April 9, 2013 (UTC)
 * CRUSHER: Computer, are you familiar with the inhabitants of Tau Alpha C?
 * COMPUTER: Affirmative.
 * CRUSHER: Are any presently located on any starbase or vessel within communication distance?
 * COMPUTER: Negative.
 * CRUSHER: Estimated time to Tau Alpha C at warp nine point five.
 * COMPUTER: One hundred twenty three days.
 * CRUSHER: Lay in a new course for Tau Alpha C. And send a subspace message advising them of our arrival.
 * COMPUTER: Acknowledged.
 * CRUSHER: Engage. Computer, did you change course?
 * COMPUTER: State new destination or coordinates.
 * CRUSHER: I stated it, damn it. Tau Alpha C.
 * COMPUTER: There is no Tau Alpha C listed on current star maps.

In "Where no one has gone before" and "Remember Me" Traveler is stated to be "the alien from Tau Alpha C", in "Journeys End", "the alien from Tau Ceti". Same words. We know for certain Tau Ceti is a star. Simplest least speculative explanation Tau Alpha C is a location in the Tau Ceti system. It is listed as a region in this page, since we dont exactly know for certain what it is. --Pseudohuman (talk) 20:33, April 9, 2013 (UTC)


 * No. The simplest, least speculative thing to do would be to not assume that one location must be inside the other if all we know is that he is "from" both. As long as there's some possible explanation around it (and we've already had at least two in this thread), we shouldn't create a connection where none really needs to exist - especially if that even directly contradicts other stuff that has been stated on-screen, like what has been quoted above. --Cid Highwind (talk) 00:24, April 10, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. I'd be okay with that. --Pseudohuman (talk) 07:06, April 10, 2013 (UTC)


 * I see where you're coming from with "canon dialogue," but when that dialogue is directly contradicted by multiple other sources of canon, that's an issue. What's more, what about Harry Morrow's incorrect line in The Search For Spock, where he says the Enterprise is "20 years old"?  We disregard that all over Memory Alpha, yet that was "canon dialogue," so why doesn't the article for the NCC-1701 say it was launched in 2265?  Because other canon, like "The Menagerie," contradicts that.  How is this situation different? -- Ibanesse 19:33, 10 Apr 2013 (UTC)

Memory Alpha policy is "...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." Tau Ceti is a star system, but we haven't been told what Tau Alpha C is, (alternative name for Tau Ceti, a planet or planetoid in the Tau Ceti system, a region of space, a region on a planet, a city, etc. could be anything). Even if it is another star, Travelers race could have been from Tau Alpha C but the Traveler himself might have been born on Tau Alpha C but settled to live on Tau Ceti before "Journey's End". There are plenty of possibilities for these two statements not to contradict each other, unlike in the case you mentioned. --Pseudohuman (talk) 20:22, April 10, 2013 (UTC)

star or planet
To avoid an edit war, the question popped up apparently, is Tau Alpha C a planet or a star. My opinion is that it is a planet in the Tau Ceti system. Only indication that it would be a star is the line from the Enterprise computer that Tau Alpha C "is not listed in the star maps" in the shrinking alternate universe. also worth noting that at that point of the episode the computer couldnt know what it was supposed to be. We know from virtually all star maps that we have seen in trek that the planet names appear on them as well. Traveler is specifically mentioned to be an inhabitant of Tau Alpha C. Similar planet names have appeared in trek like Gamma Canaris N. And interpreting it to be a star would assume that the line from Journey's End was a mistake, where it was stated that the traveler was from Tau Ceti, which is known to be a star. There is my rational for claiming that it is a planet in the tau ceti system. --Pseudohuman (talk) 08:58, September 25, 2012 (UTC)

Memory Alpha policy on these matters is "...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." To interpret that Tau Alpha C is a star would be to interpret that Journeys end is in conflict with Remember Me, which would be against our policy. Also on these matters, it is the custom to discuss them on talk pages of the article, not on personal talk pages. --Pseudohuman (talk) 19:51, September 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * If it really wasn't made clear on screen, there's no point in guessing, regardless of what secondary sources say. I'd say leave it ambiguous in the main article, note the issue in the background section, and categorize it under regions like the other such cases. -- Capricorn (talk) 18:42, October 3, 2012 (UTC)