Talk:Shelby

Her name
I think we have a problem, gentleman, and I might be to blame.

There is no canon reference to her first name. As far as I'm aware, the name "Elizabeth" was only used in the New Frontier novels. I think I might've wikilinked this somewhere and its become a frequent reference.

BTW, I agree that the DS9 fleet Captain Shelby is a different person than Commander Shelby from BoBW.. So, I'm thinking a disambiguation (or a partial diambig?) --Captain Mike K. Bartel 16:28, 1 Jul 2004 (CEST)
 * The foreign translations refer to Captain Shelby as 'him'
 * Commander Shelby is part of the quite popular New Fronter series, she was not yet a Captain by the time period of the episode. I realize its a non-canon source, but it is one that is important to a lot of fans (so much so, in fact, that Peter David spent several passages of one of the NF books explaining a reference to the other Captain Shelby, in order to keep confusion to a minimum.


 * I can agree with the use of "Elizabeth", probably... I thought that had been established, but I was wrong. However, I strongly disagree with the she/he issue.  I wish I could point to a reference, but I specifically recall an interview where Ron Moore stated that the mention of "Captain Shelby" was supposed to be a reference to the character from BoBW.  I'll try to dig it up. -- Dan Carlson 16:45, 1 Jul 2004 (CEST)


 * I also strongly object to using New Frontier as ANY part of the argument, because the novels are utterly non-canon. The argument that Shelby can't be the captain of the Sutherland because she's supposed to be the first officer of the Excalibur is completely baseless according to the canon policy! -- Dan Carlson 16:55, 1 Jul 2004 (CEST)


 * That's true, but archivists here are just as likely to disregard data derived from producer & creator intentions sometimes: are we supposed to take all of the writer's opinions, musings and afterthoughts as canon? this is a pretty wide gray area. I'm not suggesting we disregard Moore's comment because of New Frontier, but I imagined we could keep our reference vague, so as to not contradict NF, and also because not all of the writer's intentions translate as canonically sensible. I don't believe its a huge issue if we combine the articles, I'm just pointing out the precedents -- Captain Mike K. Bartel


 * Then let me use a different argument. When, aside from inconsequential redshirts, has there ever been two characters with the same name in Star Trek?  Never!  Therefore, the precedent points towards them being the same character. Both of these articles should be combined under "Shelby". -- Dan Carlson 17:32, 1 Jul 2004 (CEST)


 * Well, there's been a "Lieutenant Janeway" mentioned as a crewmember aboard the Enterprise-D...

An acquaintance found the reference for me. Many thanks to Bond! :-D


 * Well.... my intent when I wrote the line was that this was indeed the same Shelby from BOBW. I thought it was a cool reference to throw in for the fans, but I had completely forgotten that John Ordover & Co. had very specifically and very politely asked us if we had any intention of ever using this character again and we (including me) had said, "No way -- do what you want with her." This very salient fact was pointed out to me after the show had aired and I had a rather sheepish conversation with Paula Block over in licensing and with John via e-mail explaining what had happened. Since I only used Shelby's last name in the episode, you're free to look at this either way -- it's really her or it's someone else with the same last name (it's a big fleet, after all).

So, I guess that settles nothing, eh? Heh... -- Dan Carlson 15:08, 2 Jul 2004 (CEST)

I might be inclined to revamp the article to another configuration someday, based on that. However, I think my last edit worded it so it could be taken either way also. --Captain Mike K. Bartel


 * Let's remember the legal implication of the term "officially licensed"- it refers to a license granted by the owner of copyrighted and trademarked materials, for their limited use by another person or organization.


 * "Officially licensed" doesn't mean it's "approved as canon"; it just means that someone (in this case, Peter David) obtained lawful permission from Paramount to use trademarks (such as the title "Star Trek").


 * I think we can safely eliminate the "contradiction" by stating that the "conflict" is between a canon source (the episodes in question) along with a canon/semi-canon source (writer/producer commentary), vs. an entirely non-canon source (novels). The choice of which to believe seems pretty clear to me. Roundeyesamurai 04:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

MKB- Which foreign translations identify Shelby from DS9 as "him"? This is important, because in some languages, it is customary to refer to a person of unknown sex as "he" (English, in fact, being one such language). Also, in some societies (and some military organizations), a person in authority is referred to with male pronouns, regardless of gender. Roundeyesamurai 04:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we all need to have a few things clarified about "the two" Shelbys -

1) RDM states that the intent was for "Captain Shelby" to be the same as "Commander Shelby" from BOBW;

2) Peter David's books are NOT canon.

Based on this, including a statement that the two Shelbys are likely one and the same isn't a "speculation", it's a reasonable deduction based on the facts presented. Roundeyesamurai 00:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Ronald D. Moore also later stated that the two Shelby's could just as well be different -- and Peter David's books explain that comment away just fine, despite not being canon.


 * I removed the "the reader should assume" comment because we are not a vehicle for speculation -- please don't tell the reader what they should do under any circumstances..


 * tell them what could be true. (as in "it could be the same person, or it could be a similarly named person..)


 * The separate section is to allow for the ambiguity, the background note is to explain it, not to prove or disprove it. -- Captain M.K.B. 03:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Mike, in this article you have consistently applied the most specious reasoning I have yet seen on this website.

Let's examine each and every one of your statements in your post:

1) RDM stated that the viewer is "free to look at this either way"- and made this statement only AFTER discovering that he had created a conflict on the issue with Peter David. A novel is NOT CANON, NOT EVIDENCE OF CANONICAL INTENT, AND DOES NOT SUPPLEMENT CANON.  Period.

2) You also removed my "the reader may assume" statement. In other words, you've removed ANY statement to the effect that the two character MAY be one and the same.

The statement that the reader MAY assume is NOT SPECULATION. IT IS DEDUCTION. IT IS A DEDUCTION BASED ON THE WRITER'S INTENT, and the only "disagreement" is FROM A NON-CANON NOVEL.

3) See above.

4) No-one is attempting to prove or disprove anything here- except for you, by removing any trace of information which states anything other than "There are two Shelbys". You are attempting to enforce your OPINION and your SPECULATION as statements of fact, and you are utilizing NON-CANON NOVELS as "evidence" while dismissing CANON information and WRITER'S INTENTION.

I am going to revert your edit. Roundeyesamurai 17:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * First off, I don't like this tone. I don't think you are going to get a productive discussion addressing this to me in the personal.


 * Please do not characterize me by my judgement (re: specious). This is a personal comment and does not reflect what we are discussing. It has made me conclude that there is irrationality present here.
 * Ronald D. Moore stated that the viewer should be allowed to look at this "either way" -- this is why i am removing notes from archivists stating that we should look at this one way or another. Stop adding such comments
 * We should re-add a "reader may assume" statement if you feel so strongly about it. What made you think you couldn't? What I removed was a "reader should assume" statement. Do you recognize the difference between stating someone should do something, and stating that someone may do something? Its an important distinction those of us familiar with English should be familiar with.
 * A deduction is the conclusion of speculation. Do you need a dictionary? My making a deduction, you are engaging in speculation. I'm trying to draw a line in the speculation, and it ends up altering the language of your supposed (one-sided) "deduction".
 * I'm not trying to "prove" anything either.. i was removing language that recommended one of the two possibilities over the other. What don't you understand about that
 * This article also does not need a long explanation of the term canon. By stating the novel is "non-canon", we have allowed the reader to link and understand. -- Captain M.K.B. 18:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Hidden Frontier Reference
I am taking out the Hidden Frontier reference. Its non-canon, and not even part of the franchise.Jaz 05:06, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * yeah, remove the garbage to "fan films" or something -- Captain M.K.B. 03:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Title
Should her title be change in the opening paragraph to match her last known rank? I'm unsure of the protocol. Jaf 01:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Jaf
 * We're also unsure of her actual last-known rank, according to the background information surrounding Captain Shelby. I'd leave it be for now -- Captain M.K.B. 18:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

problems with "Background"
I recommend changing this text, for reasons stated above:
 * Writing staff member Ronald D. Moore has commented that the character of Captain Shelby of the Sutherland'' was meant to be a reference to the continuing career of the "Best of Both Worlds" commander, although this was never directly stated.


 * The Star Trek: New Frontier'' series of novels has Shelby as a major character who spent much of the Dominion War in a temporal shift, precluding her from being the "You Are Cordially Invited" character. Peter David wrote passages into a later novel explaining that there were two unrelated Shelbys in Starfleet, but this is non-canon supposition and comes from a non-canon source, and may be canonically disregarded.
 * Based on Ronald Moore's statements, and the fact that Peter David's books are non-canon, it can be presumed that "Captain Shelby" of the Sutherland is, in fact, the same Shelby from .

Why do we need to say "non-canon" so many times? do you think readers are stupid? A simpler explanation would be a lot easier to phrase

Why do we need to cite Ronald Moore to state that a presumption is possible? They have very little to do with it.

Why do we need to keep removing Ronald Moore's later admission that the characters could either be the same or separate? Is it because that statement contradicts the conclusion that the readers are supposed to draw? doesn't that mean that we are speculating that they are the same, and that, in accordance to that speculation, we are removing evidence to the contrary that does very well exist? Keep in mind that neither case was stated in the episode, so either conclusion ("same person" or "different person") would be speculatory! -- Captain M.K.B. 18:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

protection
Because of the many reversions, the page Shelby is now locked from editing. I was trying to add a note that other archivists could refine, not revert. If you wanted to correct some points of language, rather than a complete reversion, then that would have avoided the page being under dispute.

As it stands now, I think its important that we recognize canon -- the DS9 episode is the only canon facet of the discussion, and it is open ended. There has been no canon declaration of "who" the Captain Shelby really is. The writer of that episode has stated first that they were meant to be the same, and then, later, that they could be different.

So thats no help -- neither of his statements are "canon", and they are contradictory and indefinite.

recognize that "they may be thought of as the same person" does not mean "they should be thought of as the same person" (conversely, "they may not  be thought of as the same person" does not mean "they should not be thought of as the same person")

i think the article as it stands is sufficient to introduce the reader to both possibilities, and summarize all the canon info. i'll take suggestions for refining further on the talk page. -- Captain M.K.B. 18:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * In other words, you've locked it so that no-one can alter it so as to disagree with you. Readers, feel free to view my talk page for more on this subject. Roundeyesamurai 21:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

This comment iss off topic, has nothing to do with the article -- save your accusations for someone who cares, and a different talk page. You don't seem to have any input on how the note should be rephrased.. am i to take this as you think that the article is fine how it is?

i think the article as it stands is sufficient to introduce the reader to both possibilities, and summarize all the canon info. i'll take suggestions for refining further on the talk page. -- Captain M.K.B. 13:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * My thoughts on this subject would be to assume it is the same character unless given evidance that it is a different character, because to do otherwise means we are going to have to do the same with other characters. And there are endless situations where a reference has been made to a character by name that could be debated in this fashion. Jaf 21:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Jaf


 * This is a growing trend on all wiki sources recently. Moderators protecting pages because their opinion is one of the minority... There is INSUFFICIENT ON SCREEN or Canoninically accepted proof that Elizabeth Paula Shelby is the Captain Shelby described in the Deep Space Nine episode. This page now is displaying a blatant lie and should be deleted if this protection is not removed and the comment returned to that of a speculatory nature. The main argument that everyone seems to be overlooking is the simple fact that there can be more then 1 shelby in Starfleet, of the command ranks.


 * Look at it this way, in the population of 19 million of Australia, there are 13,000 Williams families living in the country, very few of them are actually related. In the Australian armed forces, there are 21 Williams' holding an officer rank. In the fictional population of the Federation, with trillions of sentients and millions of Starfleet officers, why does there have to be only ONE Shelby? - 59.167.8.24 04:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Who is Elizabeth Paula Shelby? --Alan del Beccio 04:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No idea. I am not even sure what the problem is anymore. The background states that it is possible that the two Shelby's are not one and the same. Oh well, I guess I should stop expecting humans to be as rational as Klingons. --OuroborosCobra 05:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * For the record, from what I can tell, the article was protected because of constant editing, allowing the community to talk about this issue without putting a workload on the database. It had nothing to do with opposing viewpoints. Perhaps if certain users brought it up for discussion here and waited to see what other people had to say – like they're supposed to do – rather than repeatedly reverting an article to the state which they believe to be correct – which they're not supposed to do – then maybe protecting the article wouldn't be necessary.
 * Now, having said that, I think the way the article is at the moment is just fine. The alternative would be to give Captain shelby her own article, with background information stating the origin. As has been explained above, since Moore stated it was meant to be her and later stated it may not be her, it could go either way, so the one thing we can't do is say that the Shelby seen in BoBW was, without a doubt, the captain referenced in YACI. --From Andoria with Love 07:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: I used "Elizabeth Paula" as a qualifier for the Shelby we know from BOBW, since that's a commonly known name for her outside of canon. - 59.167.8.24 08:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind us allowing for two characters here as long as we also do it on other pages, such as the VOY and TOS background characters. I don't see why this page should get special treatment. Jaf 12:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Jaf


 * Which characters in particular are you referring to? Ambiguous officer names out of a million officers, with a common surname? or characters we KNOW are obviously the same ones? Like a small pool of Maquis names on a ship of 150? By your logic, you would want to join Ensign Janeway of the Enterprise and Admiral Janeway of Voyager because no two people in existance could possibly share the surname "Janeway" - 59.167.8.24 14:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm just saying that whatever way we do it we have to do it the same in all cases and not pick and choose which ones are the same and which ones are different. I'd support a disambiguous approach as long as it's consistently enforced. Jaf 14:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Jaf
 * I really don't think there will be a huge need for that concern: When else have we had a situation where a writer has intended for a character to be continued, but then retracted that intention in a later explanation of what the episode meant?


 * To wit: Lets say that Lieutenant J.Q. Smith from TNG was intended to be referenced again by a mention of Commander J.Q. Smith on DS9. Are there really any other cases where we have a writer coming from behind the scenes and saying: "we intended for them to be the same, we messed up the facts though, so the the viewer could just as well assume they are different characters"?


 * This is such a unique case that I don't think there would be any other cases we would have to apply this to. And making it ambiguous would be out of respecting the writer's wishes about what the matter truly is -- he felt "sheepish" having accidentally broken a promise not to mention Shelby. -- Captain M.K.B. 15:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * ''<>
 * Ronald D. Moore: ''Well.... my intent when I wrote the line was that this was indeed the same Shelby from BOBW. I thought it was a cool reference to throw in for the fans, but I had completely forgotten that John Ordover & Co. had very specifically and very politely asked us if we had any intention of ever using this character again and we (including me) had said, "No way -- do what you want with her."  This very salient fact was pointed out to me after the show had aired and I had a rather sheepish conversation with Paula Block over in licensing and with John via e-mail explaining what had happened.  Since I only used Shelby's last name in the episode, you're free to look at this either way -- it's really her or it's someone else with the same last name (it's a big fleet, after all).
 * Maybe we should go ahead with a separate article, based on his wishes. And, as Jaf suggested, for consistency's sake, make a facet of our policy to honor the writer's wishes in cases where the writer's wishes are documented. -- Captain M.K.B. 15:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That wont work either. Ira Behr wished that the finale of DS9 showed it was all Benny Russell's dream, that didn't come to fruition on screen. Do we honour his wishes and make DS9 an act of fiction in a fictonal universe? - 59.167.8.24 06:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That was merely an idea he was playing with which thought would be interesting if played out, but knew the production staff wouldn't go for it, so he never brought it up. In this case, something thought up by a writer actually made it to the screen, but he later had second thoughts about it. Because it was never specified in canon that Captain Shelby was the same person from BOBW, the only two choices available are to leave the article as it is or to seperate the two. --From Andoria with Love 06:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

picture
couldn't we find a better looking picture? --
 * What's wrong with the picture? --OuroborosCobra talk |undefined  17:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

"Captain Shelby"
I don't know if this should be included, because Dax refers to Captain Shelby as a "he" in DS9: "You Are Cordially Invited". However, since Ronald D. Moore has stated it was supposed to be a reference to her, it's unclear. Kyle C. Haight 06:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No she doesn't:
 * DAX: "I wanted to thank you for the show."
 * ATOA: "Thanks for getting me the day off."
 * DAX: "Captain Shelby owed me a favor. Several favors actually. In fact, how'd you like another two days off?"
 * Seems pretty gender neutral to me. --OuroborosCobra talk 06:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Jadzia actually says "Captain Shelby owed me a favor. Actualle he owed me several." -- Tough Little Ship 12:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Time to split the articles?
Since the Shelby in "...Cordially..." is referenced as male, doesn't it mean we can split it into Shelby (Captain) and Shelby (Lieutenant Commander) and close this long running debate? Maybe Terry Farrell added the "he owed me several in fact" line, as she was a Trek fan before joining DS9. -- Tough Little Ship 23:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd like some confirmation, like someone watching the DVD first. --OuroborosCobra talk 03:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. It's going to be rather sad to find out that a bunch of trek geeks were fighting about this issue for a year without anyone watching the episode. Jaf 04:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)Jaf
 * I know I'm jumping in a little late on this, but noone seems to have any on-screen reference here yet. The order of operations is supposed to be on-screen reality, followed by script, not the other way around.  The video itself has Dax saying "he."  It's quick and hard to notice, but it's there.  Check it yourself.  – 82.83.101.249 16:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have checked the script, and it does not say "he". --OuroborosCobra talk 04:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Only a short additional information: In the MA/de the article was splitted up to Shelby (Commander) and Shelby (Captain), but that shouldn't influence you much. Only to prevent you from wondering, why there are two german articles link to this one.--Bravomike 20:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * To add on to what Cobra said, the subtitles do not say "he" either. In listening really closley to Jadzia said, here is what I heard: "Captain Shelby owed me a favor, in fact, owed me several..." Case could be made either way. Willie 16:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thats a negative, after watching the DVD my self, several times in fact, Terry does say "HE" Jesse Poland 00:54, May 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * If that's true, then that's a reason to split them(which should have been said in the first place)- but there seems to be disagreement as to whether or not that was said.--31dot 01:01, May 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * IF i were to put up a link to a site that would give you the show, and you watched it and confirmed it, would you or would you not amend the article? Im just saying that it seems to me that those who had a "passing" glance at the article & episode would modify the article to fit what they thought fit the needs. True trekies would own the DVD's and there for be able to back up their claims. Jesse Poland 01:15, May 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * Please don't post links to sites to view Star Trek unless they are authorized by Paramount/CBS. I do own the DVDs(and this is not the forum to debate who is a "true trekie" and who isn't) and will watch it again at some point, but my point is that there is apparently, according to others posting here, room for interpretation.  If that's the case, then we should fall back on the script(which does not say "he").  If it isn't the case, then we might want to consider a change.  --31dot 01:24, May 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * I just listened to the line on headphones about ten times (how's that for true trekkie-ness). It's very hard to make out. I do think there is a quick "he" in there, though I'm nowhere near 100% certain.–Cleanse ( talk 02:25, May 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * This is what I hear: "Captain Shelby owed me a favor, actually owed me several." - 03:32, May 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * Then can we have a consensus on this issue? it seems very drawn out, and i believe needs to resolved sooner rather than later by the community than a select few. I my self have listed to it, and i hear a He. Jesse Poland 04:05, May 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * "Captain Shelby owed me a favor, actually he owed me several." - Clear as day, thats what i hear. placed the part from 27:45 - 27:47. ending with "in fact, how would you like to have another two days off." between 27:49 - 27:52. Those are the time stamps. I have just listened to it several times. It is confirmed. Listen to it with your headphones Jesse Poland 04:41, May 14, 2011 (UTC)


 * What I hear clear as day is Terry Farrell flubbing the line from "Several favors actually" to "...actually owed me several" with what sounds like an extra "s". You'll excuse me if I don't take your word as conformation over my own ears, since it's clear as day this still wouldn't be an issue if it was so simple as just listening to the episode. It's also clear as day that the episode subtitles don't contain any "he", so maybe this issue is more like a foggy afternoon. - 05:11, May 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * Then perhaps we should ping Terry Ferrel via twitter as to the actual script lines, Or perhaps Ronald D Moore on twitter in regards to the actual script phrasing. Jesse Poland 08:02, May 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sure Farrell would remember one line after 10+ years.....and we have the "actual script phrasing" which does not mention "he". --31dot 08:36, May 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * As I've said below, I'm for splitting these two, since much like the random male Sulu reference in VOY there's no way in canon alone to know who they were talking about. If we're going to have that page there because the non-canon information doesn't agree with itself, then surely there isn't any harm in splitting this for the same reason. That said, there simply isn't any useable noun in the dialog here, and even if there was some half-spoken aborted word in there, there simply never was suppose to be one according to every production source we have. If anything, Terry Farrell was saying "she", but I doubt everyone would get on board with that, since the whole point of this exercise is to get the canon and non-canon works agreeing with each other. - 09:12, May 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * I could live with that; I objected to the initial reason given("no use being there") more than actually doing it.--31dot 09:22, May 14, 2011 (UTC)

Again with the Captain Shelby...
I've had to reword the page to fall into our POV, which removes the ambiguity that was in the article before about her "Captaincy," or lack thereof. This is in line with the way we're treated other references, like the USS Excelsior. Personally, I'm for splitting the two, since we have a writer saying it was suppose to be a reference, but that it was a mistake, more or less, and there's just no way to have any real ambiguity about the subject if our POV is from an "all-knowing" person at the end of time. - 09:59, January 15, 2011 (UTC)


 * I've removed the Shelby Captain part as it has no use being there. If any issues please look at the item below to reference the 'captaincy' issue Kystien 19:17, May 13, 2011 (UTC)


 * I've restored it. We need a better explanation than "no use being there".  If it was mentioned in canon, and there is no canon evidence that this was a different person, it should go on this article. --31dot 19:29, May 13, 2011 (UTC)


 * The Background information states these facts about Shelby, noting them twice in the same page is not needed. All indications include items as "non-cannon" that are on this site state otherwise. Wait and see what happens, if you like that one lil blurd so much, then toss it on that specific episodes page, not on her bio. Everything else should stay the same. 199.126.24.236 22:12, May 13, 2011 (UTC)


 * It's "canon", not "cannon". The first mention in the article is the canon information given in DS9's, the second mention is the explanation of this situation in the Background section. Two different things.--31dot 22:14, May 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * Ahh 1 spelllling mistaaake. mi baaad. Anyways, go ahead and reverse it again. I have a feeling im gonna tick you off with the next thing. 199.126.24.236 22:18, May 13, 2011 (UTC)