We currently have a good number of articles that qualify their topic by being either of "Rigelian":
or of "Rigellian" origin:
In each case, the exact spelling may have been derived from the script of the episode that object appeared in. I claim that this difference may not be an intentional one, and that we should use one spelling throughout instead of two different ones, to avoid creating the intention that this spelling difference is deliberate (and also to help people find all those articles using the same search term). Precedence for doing so are articles like kemocite/kemacite or Anesthizine, where objects with two or more different script spellings are still considered "the same".
There are two different species which are currently being identified as Rigelian and Rigellian, respectively. I'm not necessarily suggesting merging these two species articles (although I wouldn't oppose doing so), but it has to be noted that one of these species has never been called "Rigel[l]ian" on-screen. This name and its spelling is derived from production sources only, which can be used for naming purposes but only if this doesn't lead to problems elsewhere - which, quite obviously, it does.
Since only one species has been named on-screen, I suggest to use their spelling (one 'l') for all other articles, and let the reader beware about the other species with potentially the same name by a disambiguation on top of those two articles (this disambiguation already exists and doesn't need to be changed).
- The canon policy quite clearly favors using the script spellings for things not named on-screen, as long as this does not contradict on-screen naming or spelling. The "problem" only exists because you consider having the different spellings (i.e. two different names) problematic. I'd be quite willing to change my argument if you gave me any sufficient example(s) where having the two spellings are actually problematic. And if there are pages whose namespace contains the spelling "Rigellian" but this is not from a script, I'd be willing for those pages to be changed to "Rigelian" too. However, scripts should not be counted as completely invalid resources, as is pointed out in the canon policy, though this is the exact same mistake you seem to be making! --Defiant 18:25, January 1, 2012 (UTC)
Yeah - although it seems as if they went the route of renaming one to avoid this whole debate. ;) In any case, if we assume that "Rigel[l]ian" is the adjective form of "Rigel" - basically, if both words mean "from some or another planet in (one of) the Rigel system(s)" - then there's even less reason for different spellings. -- Cid Highwind 20:14, January 1, 2012 (UTC)
- Without direct evidence that these were intended to be two different species- and since the pronunciation is the same here- they should be treated as the same species, as we do with kemocite and Anesthizine. --31dot 20:21, January 1, 2012 (UTC)
- Even more evidence that the "Rigelians" and "Rigellians" are indeed two different species can be found in the book The Art of Star Trek (p. 178), which states that Gene Roddenberry and his secretary, Susan Sackett, also considered them to be two different species. --Defiant 01:34, January 4, 2012 (UTC)
- That's certainly valid Background info, but that only proves what Roddenberry and Sackett considered them to be. I don't think that negates any of the points that have been made, here and on the hypnoid page.--31dot 02:43, January 4, 2012 (UTC)
Unless your copy of the book is wildly different from mine, it just states that (in the eyes of Roddenberry/Sackett) the TMP variant of the Rigel[l]ians was different from the "Journey to Babel" variant - not that there was a meaningful difference in the spelling of their names, or anything else for that matter. Please cite the exact quote if you want to discuss this further. -- Cid Highwind 10:59, January 4, 2012 (UTC)