Talk:Thy'lek Shran

Nomination (27 May - 07 June 2004, Success)
Self-nomination. A detailed description of events surrounding one of my favorite ENT-era characters. -- Dan Carlson 19:50, 27 May 2004 (CEST)
 * Seconded. Highly detailed for a character who has had so few appearances. -- Michael Warren 00:51, 1 Jun 2004 (CEST)
 * Seconded. It's a bit more ellaborate in it's discriptions then most articles, but that's good in this case. -- Redge 15:41, 5 Jun 2004 (CEST)
 * Seconded. Indeed a very good and detailed description on one of the recurring characters. Ottens 13:21, 7 Jun 2004 (CEST)
 * Seconded yet again. --Steve 17:47, 7 Jun 2004 (CEST)	::::: Archived, deemed as a "successful nomination" by User:MinutiaeMan on 16:39, June 7, 2004. "Featured" tag added by User:Redge on 05:35, June 30, 2004. --Alan del Beccio 23:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Reconfirmation (17 Jan - 03 Feb 2012, Success)
This article was nominated back in June 2004. I did some formatting to bring it up to modern conventions (such as sub-headings, behaviour of the appearance list etc.) and added some background information from actor Jeffery Combs which I think gives some interesting insight into the character. All in all, I think the article stands up well, and deserves to retain its featured status.–Cleanse ( talk 05:49, January 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * Support–Cleanse ( talk 05:49, January 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Also, here's a link to the blurb template: FA/Thy'lek Shran. - 16:00, January 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, One minor thing, I seem to remember Shran telling Jhamel something about his early life in one of the "Aenar" episodes. If that is so, it might be added to the a bit short "Early life" section at some time by somebody who has access to the episode. Otherwise fine...--Sennim 13:29, January 20, 2012 (UTC)

Part I
Archer's bio screen in gives Shran's first name as " Thy'lek". (Alphaboi867 20:02, 1 May 2005 (UTC))


 * Am I the only one does not care for that first name, if only for the reason that there is no previous evidence that Andorians have two names. Typically there have been two kinds of aliens in Star Trek:  Ones who have (in practice at least) only one name (Klingons, Vulcans, Romulans, Ocampans, Talaxians, Vorta, etc.) and those with two (Bajorans, Cardassians, Betazoids)


 * Actually, Ghee P'Trell is two names, and she was an Andorian. I think it's like the military (in fact, it is a military) Generals don't go around saying "Hi first lieutenant Paul Quimby!" it's just "Attention, First Lieutenant Quimby!" or something. I dunno, but the Andorians are more militaristic then most, so it's understandable that since we haven't really gone in depth into many Andorian characters, we've never gotten their full names. I would have likd to have heard it on screen, but, to keep it short, there's ALOT of things I'd've liked Enterprise to do that they didnt...-AJHalliwell 02:28, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * AJHalliwell is right, when I was in the military I didn't even know the first names of those comrades I knew from basic training. -- Kobi - (   ) 07:01, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * This is along the same lines as "S.G. Dukat" -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 07:47, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Aenar certainly weren't militaristic and they were addressed by one name only, suggesting they apparently had one name. As for the "S.G.", I've always speculated that was some sort of initial for a rank or title, rather than Dukat's name, something like Senior Gul or Supreme Gul (in keeping with the fact that Dukat still referred to himself as "Gul" even after he became the leader of Cardassia). It's also possible Ghee P'Trell is the Andorian equivalent of human surnames composed of two words like Van Gogh or Ben Zoma.


 * Since his first name was only seen in a profile once and never actually mentioned, is it a good idea to keep the article named Thy'lek Shran instead of just Shran? Just wondering... --From Andoria with Love 07:27, 17 Nov 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, no, maybe, possibly? Either of those answers will do. :-P --From Andoria with Love 07:41, 19 Dec 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't see any harm in it, as long as Shran stays as a redirect, and it is noted somewhere on the page. It's also not the same thing as S.G. Dukat since Thy'lek is definately not a possible rank (a rank of General was given in the bio).--Tim Thomason 07:48, 19 Dec 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay, that works for me. Thanks. :) --From Andoria with Love 07:53, 19 Dec 2005 (UTC)


 * Seems to me that some Romulans have two names. Dr. Telek R'Mor and Admiral Alidar Jarok come to mind. Also, I can't remember the episode, but didn't Spock say that the name "Spock" was just his last name and his first name was unpronouncable by humans? Another two slips. Mainphramephreak 10:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Another exemple for Romulans having two names would be Senator Kimara Cretak. I remember that about Spock's first name, too, but I don't recall the episode ^^' I'll dig for that asap. I think all information given in the series should be listed even if the info only appears on a PADD. So I think Thy'lek Shran is an appropriate title. --Trent Easton 08:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No need for digging... the episode was . Also, I, too, think info merely seen on a graphic (such as a PADD or computer screen) should be counted, I was merely saying that since he was only referred to as Thy'lek Shran once, it may be better to keep the article as Shran. The suggestion was shot down, though, so no worries. --From Andoria with Love 20:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Part II
I'd like to suggest that the name "Thy'lek" be struck from the main body of the article, as it has now been contradicted by a licensed novel (The Good That Men Do, which establishes his full name to be "Hravishran th'Zoarhi"); CBS, Trek 's owner, would never have allowed such a contradiction if "Thy'lek" was considered canonical. (Interestingly, though, "Thy'lek Shran" is retained as the full name of Shran's Mirror Universe counterpart in the novel Age of the Empress.) -- Sci 03:17 4 MARCH 2007 UTC


 * Isn't something like the bio screen considered canonical above a novel? -- Kevin W. Tlk 03:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * There's also the fact that we consider novels to be non-canon here, and rely on on-screen information/background information only ;) - Enzo Aquarius 03:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Even if the screen was hard to see. -- Kevin W. Tlk 03:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It was easier to see than you think. ;) --From Andoria with Love 05:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I assume by "would never have allowed such a contradiction" you mean, "except for that time it's used in "Glass Empires"? -AJ Halliwell 05:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * For the record, the reason "Thy'lek" was used in that Glass Empires story is because it was written by Mike Sussman, the same man who produced Star Trek: Enterprise and who wrote the arc as well as the production graphic seen in the second part of that arc from which the name "Thy'lek" comes from. In other words, Sussman used it in his book because that's the name he gave the Andorian in the episode. The Good That Men Do, on the other hand, was written by two authors who have had no experience with the canon Star Trek universe. Lastly, I think you're overestimating the amount of involvement CBS has with the specifics of a novel's story, which is next to zero. So long as they receive money for the use of the character names and images and the proper copyright disclaimers, CBS probably couldn't care less what Shran's first name is in the book. The same goes for Pocket Books. The only people who would be concerned with such matters are the authors, who obviously did not research enough to discover that Shran had already received a canon first name. --From Andoria with Love 05:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That's rather insulting to Mangels & Martin. Andy Mangels spends a lot of time interacting with fans on TrekBBS and Psi Phi, talking to the other authors, and even he worked on the TAS DVD material, where its controversial canonicity was discussed in detail, comparing TAS factoids with canonical live-action ones. Mike Sussman had already said online, in several posts and interviews, that the screen data which named Shran fully was written in a rush, contained several typographical errors, and was never expected to be visible onscreen. Sussman did not anticipate people doing HD freeze frames and posting those on the Internet - and some dates in the bio screens were already overwritten by canonical facts in the final three episodes of ENT before it aired. Mangels & Martin's novel did not HAVE to use "Thy'lek". And both novels, Mangels/Martin's and Sussman/Dilmore/Ward's would have been vetted by Paula Block of CBS Consumer Products - and she most certainly DOES "care". Perhaps "Thy'lek" is some kind of honorific? (Actually, I think it's great that it was used for Mirror Shran in Mike's MU novel.) By the way, Ghee P'Trell was only ever "of Andor", and several of the recent novels (eg. by Keith RA DeCandido) have decided that Ghee P'Trell of Andor was actually a Caitian. P'Trell has become the new head of Starfleet Medical, the post Beverly Crusher was originally planning on returning to at the end of "Nemesis". Ian McLean, lindsay96@ozemail.com.au (5 March, 2007)


 * How dare they not use my official canonical name? :-P Actually Thy'lek doesn't sound anywhere near as cool as "Hravishran th'Zoarhi". Thy'lek was a silly word I made up without much much thought under the pressure of a deadline -- I may have been subconsciously reminded of the blue skinned Star Wars species Twi'lek. Well, my name may be stupid, but it's canonical (sorta)... bite me, novelists! :P – Mike Sussman - VOY/ENT Writer-Producer 06:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * HA!!! Welcome back, Mike – long time, no see. :) I actually rather like the name "Thy'lek" ... although certain people continuously joke and say "Thigh-lick", labeling it as a porno name. Hravishran th'Zoarhi, on the other hand, is a bit too... long... for my tastes. :P So, thanks for giving us a nice, short first name, unconsciously Star Wars-inspired though it may be. ;) --From Andoria with Love 06:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Alrighty, here's what I'm saying. I'll re-state it as clearly as I can: Trek novels are required by CBS, Trek's owner, to be consistent with the Trek canon (i.e., the body of info established in the onscreen TV shows and films). Each Trek novel is read by and vetted by Paula M. Block at CBS (who did the same job at Paramount before the Viacom split), who makes sure each novel is consistent with the canon. The Good That Men Do was allowed by CBS to use a name other than "Thy'lek," while Age of the Empress was allowed to use "Thy'lek." Ergo, "Thy'lek" is not regarded by CBS as being canonical information, but, rather, as being apocryphal -- i.e., something that the novels may choose to abide by or not. One novel did, one didn't. To say that CBS and Pocket don't care about remaining consistent with the canon is blatantly false and a completely unfair accusation. The relative experience of Mr. Sussman or Misters Mangels and Martin in producing one-another's mediums is not relevant here, since none of those individuals owns Trek and therefore none of those individuals determines what is and is not canonical. (BTW, Mr. Sussman: Hi! Nice to have you with us!) Memory Alpha, if it is to remain consistent with its stated goal of only incorporating canonical information in its articles' main bodies, must therefore be consistent with CBS's determination of "Thy'lek"'s canonical status by eliminating it from the main body of the "Shran" article and putting it towards the end, referring to it as being as apocryphal as "Hravishran th'Zoarhi." I am not saying that the novel should tell us what Shran's "true" canonical name is, only that the contradiction between the bio screen and the novel indicates that the bio screen info is regarded as apocryphal by Trek's owner. -- Sci 22:52 4 MARCH 2007


 * I highly recommend you read the and  policies to understand why we don't use "Hravishran th'Zoarhi" and accept Thy'lek as a reference. If 'Thy'lek' was shown on screen, and nothing else on screen contradicts that, then Thy'lek is what we use. Look at Val Jean, Chakotay's Maquis raider. Despite the other names people have given it, "Val Jean" was shown on one minor display, and thus we use that name. ;) - Enzo Aquarius 22:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)




 * Indeed. And here's an actual screenshot of the bio screen from the episode where you can clearly read all of the text and that's what's canon here. --Jörg 23:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It's pretty clear the novelists just wanted to try and make Shran's name fit in their system they devised for DS9 novels, which is completely non-canonical. Its even possible that both names are accurate, but MA will always honor the onscreen version -- that's why we have "Erib" (a name used onscreen) rather than their own "Shelerib th'Zarath" used for the same person in the novel. -- Captain M.K.B. 00:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * As for "Trek novels are required by CBS, Trek's owner, to be consistent with the Trek canon", the novel Articles of the Federation moved the Federation Council to Paris, despite establishing shots in '. Star Trek novels are an art form. And as such, their writers are allowed artistic licence. If a writer wants to change a name to fit their story they may. But it doesn't change the fact the screen with "Thy'lek" was the sole image of a shot, and hence meant to draw the viewers attention. So within the Trek canon, Thy'lek will be used until a different name is given within canon'''. (Was it the writers intention for this to be visible? Maybe not. But it was.) - AJ Halliwell 00:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It was not my intention to insult or disrespect Mangels & Martin or their work; I'm sure The Good That Men Do is a wonderful book (I hope to buy it and Glass Empires sometime this week). My intention was to show that, as AJ stated above, authors are given a creative license and will change certain things as they please to fit the story or to suit their own personal wishes. And, let's face it, CBS will not be paying much attention to small little details like Shran's first name as it is not copyrighted; in addition, as you pointed out, the canonicity of the name is shaky at best and can be changed at a whim in a future canon production. All that said, the simple fact remains that, here on Memory Alpha, as per the policy Enzo provided above, we use what is seen on screen – no matter in what fashion, no matter how small. Novels are non-canon and therefore cannot be used in the naming and writing of articles. Any information from novels regarding a character can be added in the background or, if applicable, the apocrypha section of that character's article. But said information cannot be used in the article's main body and especially not as the article's name. For now, Thy'lek Shran is canon; everything else is not. Oh, and for the record, nothing within the bio screen which meantions Shran's name (with the possible exception of the years in service for the NX-01) has been contradicted on-screen, to my knowledge. Someone above said that it had; they're wrong. No offense. :/ --From Andoria with Love 07:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * From an email Mike Sussman once sent me, and also copied to the TrekBBS, "When I wrote this, I assumed the text wouldn't be legible (silly me). There are probably some errors in here. One I can spot -- Archer took command of Enterprise in 2151, not 2150. Some of this text would seem to be contradicted by the finale (which obviously had not been written yet)... I wouldn't really consider any of this 'hard canon', so take it all with a grain of salt. Both bios were slapped together hastily and weren't approved by the exec producers." That the tiny onscreen text wasn't seen or approved by the executive producers of the day before it was filmed would make me move "Thy'lek" to Apocrypha, but I'm not the one who makes the rules. Mike also misspelt "Prantares Ribbon of Commendation" as "Preantares" in one of the bio screens, and there were numerous other typos. So I'm not "wrong"; why do you call the incorrect date "a possible exception"? Hey, as you all know, I'm an Andorian fan from way, way back, and I love trivia as much as the next person, but I'm continually amazed at how "canon" can still ruin a Star Trekker's day. LOL. - Ian McLean, lindsay96@ozemail.com.au (5 March, 2007)


 * Ah, typos! Yes, those would certainly be contradictory, but I meant the facts that were stated, not the spelling... if that makes sense. Maybe not.... let me continue: I said "a possible exception" because, as I have stated many times before, the majority of apparent contradictions in canon can be explained away with great ease. To quote a note on the Jonathan Archer page which attempts to explain this contadiction, "it is possible that Archer assumed command of Enterprise in late 2150, which is corroborated in and that the Enterprise was officially decommissioned in late 2160 prior to the founding of the Federation." Another possibility is that it was a computer error. Anything's possible. Same for the typos. Basically, anything and everything can be explained; just use your imagination. In any case, the answer is pretty much "no" – the name will not be de-canonized. As Gene Roddenberry himself stated, what's seen on-screen is canon; the books are not. :) --From Andoria with Love 08:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You know, if Memory Alpha is going to break from its rule and accept as canonical that which obviously is not, well, hey, that's fine. But I would appreciate it if folks would at least read enough of my complaint to realize that at no point did I suggest that "Hravishran th'Zoarhi" should be accepted into the article; several responses have seemed to imply that I did, and I never did. It is my stated contention that both "Thy'lek" and "Hravishran th'Zoarhi" should be rejected as apocryphal. -- Sci 19:51 5 MARCH 2007 UTC


 * I'm puzzled... exactly which rule is being broken here as far as canonicity? And as Shran mentioned above, obvious typos are just that... typing mistakes. I the real world, the mistakes probably happened because someone typed too fast and nobody proofread, or the copy that they were working off of was misspelled... whatever. As far as the Trek universe is concerned, I see typos in my company's personnel records, so why couldn't there be typos in Federation records? If someone had mistyped Jonathan Archer as Johnathan Archer, would you say that was a simple typo, or that was a completely different person? -- Renegade54 20:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I've explained this before: The authors of The Good That Men Do would not have been allowed to use "Hravishran" instead of "Thy'lek" if "Thy'lek" was considered canonical by CBS, Trek's owner. Therefore, "Thy'lek" is apocryphal; ergo, Memory Alpha's rules about only adhering to canon information in its main articles is broken if it includes "Thy'lek." Others disagree. Well, okay, I tried. I was just irritated at the posts implying that I was arguing that "Hravishran th'Zoarhi" should be used, since I was not arguing that, and any such implication implied that the posters weren't paying attention to what I was arguing. -- Sci 21:27 5 MARCH 07


 * Well, but what is important here is what we at MA consider canon. Every site has a different canon policy it seems, ours is different from the one at StarTrek.com or Bernd's at ex-astris-scientia. Fact is, we consider canon, what is seen on screen or heard in dialogue. If somebody behind the scenes decides that something shouldn't be considered canon (like Gene Roddenberry is always said to have done with TAS, or parts of Star Trek V) it doesn't concern us because we have our own canon rules that we stick to. Thy'lek was seen on screen, so we consider "Thy'lek Shran" the full name of the character. I know you didn't intend to make the new novel first name canon here which would be way beyond what could be done at MA. But also we won't decanonize "Thy'lek" because there is no reason to do so, according to our canon policies. Memory Beta, on the other hand, that might be the place where this might cause more of a problem. --Jörg 21:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Just saw that the page was already moved on Memory Beta, that should pretty much be the end of the story then. There it was rightfully moved (I guess), here it will stay (according to OUR canon policy). --Jörg 22:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It's possible that Thy'lek is some kind of an Andorian military title or honorific rather than an actual name.


 * Unlikely given that we have seen the Andorians use standard military ranks/titles, such as Lieutenant, Commander, General, etc. --OuroborosCobra talk 04:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Part III
The canon policy page (which really should be called Acceptable sources) flat out says that we do not define canon--Paramount does. Every time on the talk page people try to discuss what canon should, they are shot down and told that they have to take it up with Paramount.

Well, guess what? CBS is Paramount. And we have a very compelling argument for saying that they do not accept this name as canon. As long as there is question about something's canonicity, we cannot use it.

Our purpose is to catalog canon, not decide what it is.

— Commodore Sixty-Four (TALK) 06:22, July 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * You are misunderstanding the policy. Paramount and CBS decide what sources are canon, but what is in those sources is what actually is canon. This name was seen, on screen, during an episode. That the episode is canon was determined by CBS/Paramount, what is in it is what is in it. --OuroborosCobra talk 06:31, July 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no question about the canonicity- the name the book uses is from a book, which are non-canon. The name this article uses was seen in an episode, which are canon.  Until CBS/Paramount says "All episodes and films are canon, except for Shran's name", that's what we go with. --31dot 10:06, July 7, 2010 (UTC)


 * To clarify the canonicity of the name, as stated in the background section of the article: The first name "Thy'lek" and his rank as general in 2164 were mentioned in Jonathan Archer's biography, seen in . We accept pretty much anything and everything seen within an episode or film as canon, Okudagrams and other computer readouts included. --From Andoria with Love 11:26, July 7, 2010 (UTC)


 * And novels (no matter that they're licensed, etc etc by CBS/Paramount) are still... wait for it... non-canon. -- sulfur 11:27, July 7, 2010 (UTC)

Part IV
I thought the Defiant database was non-canonical? (yes, I know this discussion ended five years ago) - Mitchz95 19:48, December 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * Why isn't it? It was seen on screen, as shown in the picture above.--31dot 20:16, December 18, 2011 (UTC)

I can't find it now for some reason, but I read on at least one article that the writing on the Defiant's database wasn't meant to be legible on-screen, so Mike Sussman said it shouldn't be taken seriously. I can't remember what page it was on, though. - Mitchz95 20:24, December 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * Such a comment makes for Background information, but doesn't change the fact that it appeared onscreen.--31dot 20:42, December 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * We have numerous articles on subjects not intended to be seen onscreen, such as Gene Roddenberry (Admiral), Rick Berman (Admiral) and numerous other "characters" from dedication plaques and other lists not intended to be read, but are valid information because they appeared onscreen. This isn't any different, regardless of intent.--31dot 20:45, December 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * The database is treated as "soft" canon on MA. If something in it is contradicted by other canon information, the info from the database is only mentioned in a bg note because Mike Sussman stated that they knew parts of it were incorrect but that it couldn't be read on screen. I would point out we aren't consistent with this though, as we have pages claiming the info isn't canon, and pages that claim it is. - 21:19, December 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * The name, though, has not been contradicted in canon AFAIK, so even using that standard the name would be permissible.--31dot 21:21, December 18, 2011 (UTC)

Actor or Played By
We use "Actor" or "Actress" on all other pages. Seems illogical to use "Played By" here. Ottens 12:09, 31 Jul 2004 (CEST)

Questionable reference

 * In an interview, Manny Coto claimed that, had Star Trek: Enterprise been given a fifth season, Shran would have joined the crew of the starship Enterprise permanently. 

Source please? I've never heard this one. -- Steve 05:24, 1 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I believe it is from an online chat conducted with Coto back in February. He was asked if they would see more of Shran if the show was renewed.  His response was "We would definitely see more Shran and I would even explore finding someway to get him on the Enterprise crew."  So it might be more a case of Coto wanting (not necessarily promising) to have him stay on the ship (something I personally would have love to have seen).


 * Here's the chat transcript

"The Aenar"
Info from this episode should probably be added.

Appearances
How about a list of appearances? --Werideatdusk 01:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * A list of appearances generally isn't necessary when information from all of his appearances (with all the episodes cited) are in the main article. While it may be harmless, I think it's unnecessary. All the same, here's how that list would look.
 * (referenced by name only)
 * (referenced in bioscreen only)
 * 10:44, March 29, 2006
 * (referenced by name only)
 * (referenced in bioscreen only)
 * 10:44, March 29, 2006
 * (referenced in bioscreen only)
 * 10:44, March 29, 2006
 * (referenced in bioscreen only)
 * 10:44, March 29, 2006
 * (referenced in bioscreen only)
 * 10:44, March 29, 2006
 * 10:44, March 29, 2006
 * 10:44, March 29, 2006


 * I might disagree with that assessment. --Alan del Beccio 23:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Protected
Protected from editing by anons due to constant stupidity. --From Andoria with Love 03:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed speculation

 * Shran was the name of an Andorian Starfleet officer in the unofficial parody manga Star Trekker, published in 1991. It is unknown whether the name was an intentional reference to the comic character.

Speculation without some proof it was intended as a reference. –Cleanse ( talk 03:44, January 17, 2012 (UTC)