Wikia

Memory Alpha

Talk:Krios Prime

37,590pages on
this wiki

Back to page

Needs attentionEdit

Krios - Someone with more information than me on this particular subject has to work on this article regarding issues like "is the klingon krios the same as the one seen in "The Perfect Mate" or krios prime mentioned in "Precious Cargo"? Furthermore the article needs (a) picture(s). --BlueMars 12:19, Jan 11, 2005 (CET)

The two TNG Krioses are hard to reconcile. Perhaps we should just have the two Krioses in the same article, with a similar note as the current one. IIRC, the ENT Kriosian monarch had the same spots as the "The Perfect Mate" Kriosian girl, so those are the same. So, have Krios Prime redirect to Krios, and have Krios have all info, with a note that the two TNG references could be different planets. -- Harry 19:06, 17 Jan 2005 (CET)
I also have my doubts about Ross having ever met Gorkon, who died in 2293 ... The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.131.113.238 (talk).
Ross actually met Gowron at Khitomer-Rebelstrike2005 14:44, 9 Feb 2005 (CET)
When Trip promises to send a message back to the sovereign monarchy and asks Khaitaana the name of her planet. "Krios..?", she emphasizes "Krios Prime" as though to distinguish it from a planet with the same name. --Vivec 02:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

RemovedEdit

It is theorized that the Klingon "Krios" shown in "The Mind's Eye" is not the same as the "Krios Prime" we see in "Perfect Mate" and which is referred to in "Precious Cargo", due to the planet's changing appearance from blue to green and the total lack of any reference to the Klingons in the latter two episodes. However, as no information from those episodes suggests this theory, we assume it is the same planet.

Theorized by who? --Alan 00:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

No Evidence that Krios = Krios Edit

Other than their name there is nothing in Star Trek canon presented on this site or any other site to indicate that Krios of Klingon rule is the same as Krios of Kriosian rule. Different images for the planets are used and it would be illogical to assume a centuries long war wasn't interrupted when the Klingons conquered them. If anything the Klingon assault on the Kriosian planet would have resulted in great bloody shed and certainly have resulted in a reallocation of resources to defend from the Klingon invaders. Other than name, I ask, what supports these to planets being the same?

This would be akin to saying Fayetteville was involved in the civil war. Well, which one? (Fayetteville, Arkansas; Fayetteville, Georgia; Fayetteville, Illinois; Fayetteville, Indiana; Fayetteville, New York; Fayetteville, North Carolina; Fayetteville, Ohio; Fayetteville, Pennsylvania; Fayetteville, Tennessee; Fayetteville, Texas; Fayetteville, West Virginia)

The direct on screen evidence is clear. Two different planet colors. The simplest explanation? Two different planets.216.175.116.249 08:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not immediately sure about this one.......one would think that the different images for the planet would clinch it, but it was never mentioned. Of course, would the characters need to mention it? (Wow! This Fayetteville is different than the one in Ohio!) I'm not sure where I stand yet. I've put up a pna to encourage discussion.--31dot 12:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Check out Vivec's comment above: "When Trip promises to send a message back to the sovereign monarchy and asks Khaitaana the name of her planet. "Krios..?", she emphasizes "Krios Prime" as though to distinguish it from a planet with the same name." This seems persuasive. I expect that the only reason this was scripted is that writers were already aware of the realworld potential for confusion. It looks to me like they went ahead and canonized the need for clarifying "which of 2 Krioses are you talking about". --TribbleFurSuit 17:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Further, though I don't know if it is a viable source, it is valuable in this discussion. [1] 216.175.116.249 17:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The nomenclature used in both TNG episodes is too similar to suggest that two different places were meant, the people both had the same name, and the appearance of the characters from TNG to ENT were also similar. This is also without saying that a recurring writer took his turn on both scripts... --Alan 21:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Not really, we are talking about 3 scripts. The 2 TNG's and 1 ENT. With [2] and [3]. There is a strong argument that they did not consider them the same. Certainly, it's the same name, there is no debate, but is it the same place? Eipy 21:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I am aware that we are talking about three scripts, but the most conflicting point (and really the only valid conflicting point) is the planets that appeared in the two TNG episodes, that again, were both home to the Kriosians and both were contributed to by the same writer. --Alan 21:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Other than the name, what evidence supports that Krios of The Perfect Mate is the same Krios of The Mind's Eye? Eipy 21:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
What I just said.... --Alan 21:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
LOL, Alan, I can see we are getting so far. Let me address comment more specifically. You state that the only valid conflicting point was that the planets appear different. This is a major point though and is a strong visual difference while there is no dialogue whatsoever to suggest strongly that these are the same planets other than name. Having the same name does not mean they are the same place (see above). As far as having the same writer, this does not support your theory that they are in fact the same place. If anything, this would suggest that the writer liked the name and simply recycled it, not realizing he had already used it. It certainly isn't a viable sourceable argument.
Further, the links provided to Star Trek.com a teritiary source are explicit that they are different places. A strong sourced argument could be easily be built that the Klingons would not allow a centuries long war that was ongoing to continue in their territory which is explicitly stated in The Perfect Mate by Captain Picard in the top of the episode. That is an alternative that makes less sense than the StarTrek.com explanation. -Eipy 21:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
On the other hand, another official reference source, Star Trek Encyclopedia, has one "Krios" entry.– Cleanse 23:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Eipy, you completely overlooked my other point, the thing found between the same writer thing and the valid conflicting point thing... --Alan 00:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Hey, for some reason I don't recall seeing that during my initial response. Weird, my bad. To respond to the statement the most conflicting point (and really the only valid conflicting point) is the planets that appeared in the two TNG episodes, that again, were both home to the Kriosians and both were contributed to by the same writer.. If you are from Rome, are you not a Roman? Regardless of whether you are from Rome of Italy or Rome from Ohio? The point I'm making is the name does not prove the relationship, thus continuing to use the name to prove the relationship (simply in a different form) does not seem to have any more weight than the original argument. The fact it was written by the same writer, in terms of canon, is irrelevant. How can we discern their intention? They may have intended it to be the same place. However, it is equally possible that they didn't intend for it to be the same place. -Eipy 02:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
In any case, you too have failed to respond to my points. I don't really want to have a battle over this. I believe they are two seperate worlds but if I can't convince you then what can I do? I looked around and the MA Style Guide says non-canon but valid sources (like StarTrek.com) can be included in a background section of an article. So that's what I'll do. -Eipy 02:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
This whole scenario is getting too repetitive for my taste. So somebody screwed up on the colors? It certainly wasn't the last mistake they made with "The Perfect Mate", which too seems to indicate that not only the women have metamorphic abilities. --Alan 06:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Alan, it could have been a production error. However, do you decide the writer's intent? Perhaps they wrote in the script, "A blue planet, to indicate a different world than previous Krios." (or green or whatnot) How do you know? I thought the assumption in MA was to assume it was intentional unless other evidence suggests otherwise? What's the answer? - Eipy 07:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, if something was written in a script, we'd know. They're not secret. Many of us either have copies of them or have personally seen copies - and I'm not talking about the fallible transcripts one finds on the Internet, but the actual production scripts. Even different drafts, sometimes. One can buy them, or go to one of a couple of different private libraries in Los Angeles to read them (Writer's Guild, for one). The preceding unsigned comment was added by TribbleFurSuit (talk • contribs).
MA's practice is to assume it is the same unless stated to be otherwise, especially when making speculation about "writer's intent". In more cases than not, the writer has no control over what the special effects people do (eg. Kohlar's battle cruiser). Transcripts only tell you dialog, just to nix that comment. If the script had said something I would have mentioned it already, but for the record:
  1. 21 EXT. SPACE - THE ENTERPRISE (OPTICAL) in orbit around Krios. ("The Mind's Eye")
  2. 1 EXT. SPACE - THE ENTERPRISE (OPTICAL) leaving orbit around the planet Krios. ("The Perfect Mate")
So, special effects aside, if the "writer's intent" was to be called into question, wouldn't the most logical conclusion, especially in a case where the same writer is involved in two episodes (verses two different writers who got confused or were unaware of the existance of something previously written) would not have been to have given the Kriosians from Krios the same name as the Kriosians from Krios, unless they were both the same Kriosians from Krios. --Alan 18:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
this is just silly. There is absolutely no evidence that there are two planets named krios apart from your feeling that a planet conquered by the Klingons is not allowed to have any cultural features except for it being a subject world of the klingon empire. You claim that the two "versions" of the planet are hard to reconcile but exactly what is is it that you can't reconcile? The only "hard" proof would be the colour but such snafu's are hardly unique in Star Trek. Vulcan changed colour too a few times. Thank god that wasn't used by ENT grievers to suggest the spock's vulcan was another planet than T'Pol's.
Think about this: if the writer intended the second Krios to be another planet, he woudn't have made it so by sending a memo to the art department about the colour, HE WOULD HAVE USED ANOTHER NAME. As for the line in ent, the most simple explanation to me seems that Trip either shortened the name (as is commonly done) or simply forgot about the prime, and it annoyed Khaitaana. Because that's her personality, she was annoyed by his nonchalance pretty much every time he said something. - Capricorn 21:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Capricorn, I'm disappointed you think it is silly. How can we have serious discourse if you believe the whole debate to be silly? I am struck by the languorous response here at MA as if the ability to exercise one's mind has been suppressed in favor not having to think about the problem. Simply perpetuating an incorrect assumption does not make it more correct, it simply makes it more widely known. Nevertheless, it is clearly wrong. I've been researching this seriously now for two days regarding a related story (as Memory-Beta notes, the author there is also in apparent agreement with my assessment) and any logical and reasonable explanation for them being one-in-the-same are quickly overcome by serious complexity. As MA favors simple explantions, the simplest is they are different planets. As recommended by MA, I'll do my best to present my arguments with properly sourced material on the page itself rather than in the talk page. If you have any support that they are one-in-the-same I make a call for it now. Please, it would be most helpful.-Eipy 01:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards the "they're the same" position, given that no statment that they were different was made. I am, however, interested in hearing arguments for the other side. It is a legitimate concern and not "silly", even if I disagree with the person that brought it up.--31dot 01:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Eipy, any info from your Memory Beta research that comes from the apocrypha should be left at the door. Also, as ambiguous as canon is on this matter, either position is an assumption, and it's just as wrong to flip to the other side as to the first. Having said that, there's no doubt whatsoever that there's at least one Krios, so that's where we have to start. Proceeding to canonize a second Krios violates Ockham's Razor, absent any more canon info than has been mentioned so far. There's really no evidence that Krios != Krios (or, for Basic users, that Krios <> Krios, or for handwritten math users, that Krios =/= Krios). Only opinions. Different planets is a less simple expalanation, not a more simple one. --TribbleFurSuit 03:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
31dot, I would too as a default. TribbleFurSuit, you are correct, I hadn't proposed an outright change, simply putting forth the position. Let the reader decide. Proceeding to canonize a second Krios violates Ockham's Razor is exactly what I plan to prove is opposite. It's actually having a single planet that violates Ockham's Razor with very small thought experiments. I think I have a fairly strong case, the problem is overcoming the assumption that there is only one planet instead of coming from a place of "I don't know... which is more likely?" -- Which is exactly where I started a few days ago. Thanks for the feedback, I hope to be persuasive in the ("Krios" ne "Krios") point. -Eipy 07:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Adding fuel to the fire. You can't assume they're different based on color alone because 200 years (even in the year between tng episodes) have passed and war could have changed their planet or perhaps global warming melted any icecaps turning their planet into more of a water world or maybe rampant pollution filled the air with some blue smog...who knows and any reason you come up with is just speculation. So color cannot be a defining factor in this argument. Especially since the art department has been making all new planets using better technologies they probably just chose a nice planet design and used it. Since color is not of any use...the name is the only thing we can go by. As someone said this version of kamala was arrogant so she corrected everything. I don't use the proper name for Los Angeles i just say L.A. someone who is anal about things might correct me and say the proper name of L.A. is El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora la Reina de los Ángeles de la Porciúncula. The people from TNG might be as lazy as I am. I don't refer to earth as Sol Prime. But this is speculation on my part. Since both episodes which feature the planet in question use the same aliens and almost the same story - I'd have to say it's the same planet. But it sounds like it will just have to come down to a vote since it appears that nobody can agree on anything. — Morder 08:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
What's very very clear is that it's absolutely not clear one way or the other how many Krios's there are. So, everybody can agree that a Krios exists, so we start with a Krios. There's no agreement at all whether another Krios exists, because none of the canon evidence is the least bit hard, so we can not canonize a second Krios. One can't prove a negative, so the burden of proof here lies upon those who don't already have a proof: there provably is one Krios. It's not provable that there's one and only one, but it's neither provable that there's more than one. So we're left with the one canonical Krios. Background notes are completely appropriate and absolutely sufficient to resolve this in the article. Nothing beyond that can be "made true" with or without a vote. Lastly: there's no canon facts about Krios that depend on there being a second one. Nothing is contradictory. Why is a second one necessary? Don't answer that: the answer is, it's not. --TribbleFurSuit 10:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I wholehardy agree with TribbleFurSuit (and wrote a long post saying exactly what he says but he beat me to it). There is significant circumstantial proof two Krioses exist. When we limit ourselves to hard canon facts however the only proof remaining is the planet colour. That's clearly a production mistake because if it was an attempt to differentiate the planets, they would instead have gone the route of giving them different names. There are lots of precedents for planets changing appearance without us splinting the article in two, even when there more circumstantial evidence can be found in dialogue (see the background note on Qo'noS for an example of how Krios should be handled). The reason we shouldn't split such articles is because there are many possible and plausible explanations, even if in this case it can be argued that your's is the simplest. I'm sorry for my provocative language earlier(tired, you know how it goes), but I'm disappointed you attacked that rather then my arguments, and imo you just keep repeating the same circumstantial hints without paying attention to the point repeatedly brought up against you that clues are just not enough to make something canon -- Capricorn 10:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
For what it's worth, we do have many articles about planets or stars, where information suggests that there may be more than one with that name, but without being too definitive - see: Deneb, Mira, Rigel/Rigel system. The common way of dealing with this, in those cases, is to neutrally present even contradicting information in the in-universe section of the article, and reference the possible multiple planets with that name only in the background section. This is the way that adds least speculation to the article... -- Cid Highwind 11:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Citation for Klingon Subjugation Statement Edit

TribbleForSuit, you removed my citation notice for "Sometime between the mid-22nd and mid-24th century, the Klingons established a colony on Krios and subjugated the Kriosians under their rule". I have recently reviewed the two TNG scripts and there is no quote like this, is there some image on screen that stated this? Otherwise, it is an assumption, plain and simple so a citation notice seems appropriate. -Eipy 19:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

From Help:Talk pages: New comments at the end. This would have happened automatically if you had used the "new thread" button.
From my edit summary: "Precious Cargo and Mind's Eye do establish the statement and they're already cited."
What TNG script do you expect to give any info about the 22nd century? "Precious Cargo" is ENT: , man.
Anyway: There doesn't have to be any specific line of dialog stating explicitly that "Sometime between the mid-22nd and mid-24th century, the Klingons established a colony on Krios and subjugated the Kriosians under their rule". If there had been any such line of dialog, it would have named a date a lot more specifically than sometime during a 200-year span. We, without speculating, logically infer that the entire statement is true, because in "the [mid] 22nd century, the Kriosians were under the rule of the Kriosian Sovereign Dynasty", but by "mid-24th century, the Klingons established a colony on Krios and subjugated the Kriosians under their rule". If the Klingons were not the rulers in the mid-22nd century but they were by the mid-24th, then the only possibility is that they took over "Sometime between the mid-22nd and mid-24th century". All the facts are already cited and are not assumptions. --TribbleFurSuit 19:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Of course, this depends on there being one and only one Krios. I mean, you're not saying that the part about how "the Klingons established a colony on Krios and subjugated the Kriosians under their rule"" is the uncited part, are you? But that's another subject, let's not entangle the two while we don't have to. If the 2nd Krios hypothesis is ever canonized, then you by all means should revisit this. --TribbleFurSuit 20:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Last thing: The appropriate handling of "a plain and simple assumption" is not {incite} tagging, but removal. Memory Alpha articles are not personal speculation. --TribbleFurSuit 20:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, thanks, didn't know. Newbieness. -Eipy 20:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused. I thought all MA articles had to be something cited from canon. In the case of the Qo'noS article the logical inference is italicized and indented, set away from the canon facts presented in the article. This sounds like the appropriate location for such text as "logical inferences" are not valid resources. Am I wrong?-Eipy 20:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

It is not inappropriate to state that: "Sometime between the mid-22nd and mid-24th century, the Klingons established a colony on Krios and subjugated the Kriosians under their rule" and cite it to the "before" and "after" (or in this case "during") references: "Precious Cargo" and "The Mind's Eye". It does not make a definite statement, it merely states the facts as per what was established in the two given timeframes. We know that it did not happen before the given 215x date and not after the given 236x date. --Alan 20:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
[edit conflict] OK, indeed, Eipy, I completely understand the confusion. Let me take this to your User Talk: page, if we're done here. Qo'noS is full of examples that are actually different from this one. --TribbleFurSuit 21:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
At the risk of igniting this discussion yet again, I feel the need to point out that the existence of a ruling monarchy does not imply sovereignty. History is full of puppet puppet rulers, King Faisal I, made ruler of Iraq by the British, and Belgian King Leopold III, sucking up to the occupying Nazi's even when his government went in exile specifically come to mind. Furthermore, the Klingon involvement on Capella IV, while being a very different situation, suggests they are not above such tactics. Thus, Krios might or might not have been under Klingon rule in the 22nd century, just like it may or may not have been under Klingon rule still when it was shown as an apparently sovereign actor in the perfect mate. -- Capricorn 23:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
The relationship between Earth and the Klingons in the 22nd century was such that if the Klingons had been ruling Krios during the events of "Precious Cargo", we would definitely have seen them and it's doubtful Enterprise would have been on that mission at all. Klingon absence is evidence of... waaaaait for it... Klingon absence. --TribbleFurSuit 23:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

TribbleFurSuit, why then wouldn't your argument extend to TNG:The Perfect Mate, that is to say. If the absence of Klingons is evidence of the absence of Klingons, then wouldn't the absence of Klingons in TNG:The Perfect Mate indicate... you know where this one's going :D - Eipy 02:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC) Alan, if that were the only logical inference, this yes, you'd be correct, but isn't it just as possible the Kriosians joined the Klingon Empire willing and did not subjugate them? Why couldn't that have happened? - Eipy 02:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, that is assuming the Klingons were gone. That fact was never established one way of the other in "The Perfect Mate". There are two possible explanations for this: the one you are implying above, or the implication that rebels succeeded and the Klingons pulled out. --Alan 02:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

So, Alan, assuming that the planet is singular, the only reasonable explanation is that they pulled out? Would this be an unequivocal conclusion? - Eipy 02:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see now, you are saying that the part about how "the Klingons established a colony on Krios and subjugated the Kriosians under their rule"" is the uncited part. OK, well, I got nothing. I was arguing about the 200-year timeframe this whole time. So, you read the scripts, or transcripts or something, what do they say about Klingon rule? --76.247.104.76 03:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I studied the scripts available at the WGA, which was only the Star Trek TNG ones. The only episode Klingon rule is mentioned is in The Mind's Eye. The only real information that was given was by Vagh who states it is the only Klingon colony on the Federation border (with the Klingon Empire) and that the Romulan border is too far away for them to gain from taking this planet. The other episodes make no mention of Klingon rule. Captain Picard asks Kell if the High Council is considering abandoning the colony. Kell answers along the lines of yes, and conquer it later. (wish I had that quote) -Eipy 03:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I never said that the Klingons pulling out was the answer, merely that that fact was never established, one way or the other. I only suggested one of two possible conclusions that can be inferred by the absence of that fact: the Klingons either pulled out, or they didn't. All that can be said is that the Kriosians requested that the Federation transport their Ambassador from Krios to Point B, with or without "permission" from the Klingons, if indeed any was needed at that point. However, a special request of the Federation alone implies much of its own.
Regarding the lines in "The Mind's Eye":
* PICARD: "You are prepared to grant them independence?"
* KELL: (shrugging it off) "Perhaps. But we will conquer them again later if we wish to."
All of this, of course, is not taking into consideration the ramifications of events in this episode, which opened the doors to several outcomes, including the incarceration of Kell and the Klingon Civil War... --Alan 03:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
And what I said, though my comment appears not to have got saved, was that the Caaptain's Log states that (at least some) Kriosians are "fighting for independence". If "subjugated under Klingon rule" is the point we're debating here, I'd say that this plus Kell's attitude quoted above do suggest subjugation. OK, I grant, it's only a suggestion, and probably the whole thing is subjective anyway. Eipy, I really think all the data is before us. An {incite} is a request to verify information, it's not a protestation of the content's accuracy. The way to fix this is not find something new to cite, but to amend what's been written here. So, why don't you please propose what you want it to say instead of asking for some citation which nobody has revealed here yet and almost certainly doesn't exist?
Changing subjects, regarding "Klingon pullout", I don't even know why we're talking about this, since there's no such suggestion one way or the other in the article nor in canon. More importantly, it has nothing to do with Citation for Klingon Subjugation Statement --TribbleFurSuit 18:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

TribbleFurSuit, Good day, it's been busy weekend for me. Hope yours was well. I agree the subject of Klingon pullout theory is out of bounds for the moment. However, the incite seems quite appropriate for what I was looking for... A citation, I don't have access to the episodes so a data screen or other line may have been added that was not in the script that in fact indicated exactly what I'm debating ("Klingon Subjugation" per thread topic). It seems like it would be rude of me to simply rewrite or delete a reference that I cannot disavow with total assuredness. When proposing radical changes from the status quo, I prefer an even-handed approach. As such, I was hoping that someone could cite a reference that I was previously unaware of. If, as it seems you believe, there is no such reference, then it is now appropriate to propose a change but I didn't want to jump the gun. As you likely see, I was simply unwilling to make the assumption that I was right so I made a request to verify information. I'll try and make a neutral change and see how it goes over. - Eipy 18:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Good Monday. 10,368 bytes later, I think we're getting somewhere. This is the other problem with using {incite} all by itself - it's not always clear which point is the one being questioned, even in a single sentence. A little Talk: page note can help people from failing to read your mind. Whatever you think "conquer" and "fighting for independence" implies, if "subjugation" isn't it, go ahead and spell it out, now that you know the state of canon, spoken and otherwise. --TribbleFurSuit 18:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Good Monday again, Hey, I made a big mistake so please forgive any harsh comments you may have seen from me. I can take back the Talk: page comments, but I can't take back the edit summary comments. At any rate, I've contributed to the article again so that nothing is treated as speculation there. What's there now is completely supported by dialog and not at all speculative. We do want to minimize that type of content, and in this case it's possible to do so by sticking hard and fast to the explicit scripts. --TribbleFurSuit 19:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki