Talk:Ceti eel

Removed canon information
I had allot of cannon information that has all been edited out from my original article. --TOSrules 20:25, 22 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * The most likely reason is bad citation. Look below for a conversation on some of the work edited out of your version. --The Rev 17:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Mates
The article states: "Ceti eels incubate their larvae within the plates of their jointed carapace, and are protected by their mates." I don't recall anything about the eels or the larvae being "protected" by anything. Did I miss something or is this speculation? Aholland 16:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * There were two eels shown in the tank, but their actions were not described in the film. Possibly in the script or creator's storyboard's their actions could have been described. -- Captain M.K.B. 17:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Possibly. TOSrules introduced the concept.  I'll ask him where he got it.  Aholland 17:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * TOSrules hasn't responded yet, so I think I'll just remove the information pending any explanation of where it came from. Aholland 10:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It comes from observation, when Khan was clamped down on the female the other reacted in defence, giving up the safty of the dirt, when the natural instinct is to run from danger. --70.62.49.115 13:01, January 11, 2011 (UTC)

Speculation

 * Marla McGivers is widely believed to have become Khan's wife (a notion confirmed in the script and novelization of The Wrath of Khan), although the final film does not make this clear.

Speculative. The novelization note belongs elsewhere. &mdash; Morder (talk) 22:39, September 30, 2009 (UTC)
 * If that is the case Morder, then why do we list her being his wife on this page? 99.247.249.43 00:47, December 14, 2009 (UTC)

If it's there it's because nobody has noticed it or removed it. This is an ongoing process and the site changes all the time. &mdash; Morder (talk) 00:49, December 14, 2009 (UTC)
 * Then instead of blindly reverting my edit, how about removing or rewording the line? Would that not be more constructive? 99.247.249.43 00:50, December 14, 2009 (UTC)

I didn't blindly remove your edit. The original wording is correct and that's why your edit was removed. Rewriting it wouldn't work. &mdash; Morder (talk) 00:55, December 14, 2009 (UTC)
 * So then if the "wording is correct", then what exactly is your objection? I am confused here... 99.247.249.43 00:56, December 14, 2009 (UTC)
 * Many of Khan Noonien Singh's followers were killed by Ceti eels in this fashion, including his wife.

The above note is the correct one. Linking to his wife isn't correct because it was never stated that she was his wife in the movie and therefore it's not canon. Please read MA:CANON if you have any questions as to what canon is. &mdash; Morder (talk) 00:58, December 14, 2009 (UTC)
 * I have decided to be bold and propose a rewrite to this... See latest revision. 99.247.249.43 00:59, December 14, 2009 (UTC)

It still isn't correct. The only thing that states it was her wife is the novel. (which I have yet to confirm) Because of this there's no proof that they're married and because of this you cannot assume that Marla was killed by the eels. &mdash; Morder (talk) 01:02, December 14, 2009 (UTC)
 * Again you have blindly reverted my edit. OK fine, then I will place a "citation-needed" tag on that line, considering it is uncited. Unless you prove he had a wife, I believe there are grounds to remove the reference. 99.247.249.43 01:03, December 14, 2009 (UTC)

For the last time i did not blindly remove your edit. It was stated in the movie his wife died, it did not state that his wife was Marla. Period. You can't change the movie as such the note will stay in its current form. &mdash; Morder (talk) 01:05, December 14, 2009 (UTC)
 * The edits were not blindly reverted. The proof is in the movie itself. From Khan: "It [the ceti eel] killed twenty of my people, including my beloved wife." Though fans have implied that this is a reference to Marla McGivers, we cannot state that assumption as fact, as it is nothing more than an assumption. Period. --From Andoria with Love 01:12, December 14, 2009 (UTC)
 * The original issue is the line references a wife, but provides no further link or information - which to me seems like a glaring, amateur edit-job. By just reading that line, one would obviously want to know whom this wife is, and I thought it would be sufficient to say it was Marla...but obviously not. The line still needs fixing, perhaps we can create and link and article called "Khan's wife"?? 99.247.249.43 01:30, December 14, 2009 (UTC)
 * Either that, or can we add an out-of-universe note here stating it was "probably" Marla, as per the script? 99.247.249.43 01:33, December 14, 2009 (UTC)
 * If the original script does indeed state that Marla was the wife, then that can be added as background information, so long as a source is provided. Actually, I believe someone on the DVD for Star Trek II states that they had intended to bring McGivers back, but Madlyn Rhue could not return to the role since she had multiple sclerosis. They felt it would not be right to simply recast her, so they just said the character had died. (Reading the article for Madlyn Rhue, this appears to be the case; it was Harve Bennett who said it.) I'll recheck the Star Trek II DVD soon to verify the info, then we can add a background note stating that the "wife" mentioned in Star Trek II was intended to be McGivers. --From Andoria with Love 03:42, December 14, 2009 (UTC)
 * The script says "And I'll wager he never told you about his shipmate, the beautiful and courageous Lieutenant McGiver, who gave up everything to join me in exile. OUT OF LOVE. And see how Admiral Kirk requited her devotion -- She's dead as earth!" Is "out of love" enough (background-wise) to say she was his wife (which he mentions, as he does in the film, in the next minute)? Setacourse 14:38, December 23, 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be enough to add that as background information on McGivers' page, but not necessarily as part of the article's main (canon) text. You could make the argument that it was clearly an intended reference to McGivers and thus should be allowed in the main text as canon, but I'm not sure how that would fly with the community. That is something we would need to discuss at Talk:Marla McGivers. --From Andoria with Love 23:53, December 23, 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe we have accomplished something here. Thanks and regards. 99.247.249.43 05:01, January 13, 2010 (UTC)