PNA - Thompson's planetEdit

The page, if it stays, needs a new name (it wasn't Thompson's planet; she just died there) and needs to be rewritten in the proper point of view. This may need to be merged with Unnamed Alpha and Beta Quadrant planets. --From Andoria with Love 10:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

If page titles must be taken from canon then yes, it needs a retitling. I tried to limit the canonic slight by stating first that the planet has no proper name. Yet i think there should be a page to gather what little we know about that world. Every other TOS planet has one - even "Shore Leave Planet"! I notice in the articles relating to the "By Any Other Name" episode that the writers have taken pains to dodge this lacuna. If you merge the page with "Unnamed A&BQ Planets", can there still be links to that world from the various episode articles? (Now i'll try to sign this): drom 10:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

In most cases where a planet is unnamed in canon and is not attributed to any specific individual (we could call it something like "Kelvan planet" I guess, but then ppl might confuse it for Kelva). If the page is merged, the info will still be included on the page to which it is merged since whoever merges this article's history should place the info into on the other page. If the page is merged to Unnamed A&BQ Planets, there can still be links to the planet's info. For example, if we call the planet "Kelvan planet" when it's on the Unnamed A&BQ Planets, we can use a direct link, like so: Unnamed Alpha and Beta Quadrant planets#Kelvan colony.

I hope all that made sense... it is pretty early, after all. ;) --From Andoria with Love 11:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

RemovedEdit

The many deaths among TOS Security Department members could give the impression that their famous red uniforms themselves were jinxed. But death in the other departments of the Operations division was less common, and Thompson was the only female fatality to have worn red.

Perhaps an interesting note for the episode in question, but completely off-topic here. -- Capricorn 05:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Torona IV or an unnamed planetEdit

I changed this page back to identify Torona IV as the planet seen on screen. While it is clear that in the final shooting script, Torona IV name was left out, it is my interpretation that since the planet name was used and seen on screen later on in Generations and is still mentioned in startrek.com, the writers/producers intent here is not to say the planet wasn't Torona IV, rather it was only to make the episode less confusing by leaving the identification of the planet out. And since we accept names from bgsources for unnamed things seen on screen, i think this qualifies. --Pseudohuman (talk) 23:17, November 17, 2012 (UTC)

There's a huge difference between something being given a name in a script, and the details of a situation changing between script and filmed episode yet you assuming the script situation is still valid. The facts about Jaradan space and the meeting place were completely changed for the final version of the episode, and even if an artifact planet still appeared, it's a huge leap to say that means the script version of the Jaradan's deal can be taken as fact. Startrek.com is not canon, and what it says is probably due to its tendency to get their info from scripts rather then writers and producers. I'm guessing that the art department (not the producers, let alone the writers) working from scripts is also what finally created a canon place called Torana IV in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, compare with this "error".

To conclude, while I'd be the first to admit that your opinion on the identification of the planet makes absolute sense, it is not supported by anything that is actually canon, and it's wrong to assume. I strongly feel that these changes weren't warranted. -- Capricorn (talk) 04:38, December 1, 2012 (UTC)

I'm not claiming that the script reference is a valid canon reference. I just think since we have this planet article anyways and a valid bg reference source and several apocrypha sources identify it as the planet seen on-screen, and no source gives it another name, it is better to have all the information here instead of creating a section into the unnameds for it. Our canon policy states this is what is done in these cases. --Pseudohuman (talk) 07:17, December 1, 2012 (UTC)

You're doing more then that though. You are taking a possible two planets, one unnamed one seen in "big goodbye", and one planet seen on a map in GEN, and merge them into one based on a script that's not even consistent with the episode. If the planet seen in the episode was named in the script, you'd be right, that's indeed the policy. But the situation is more complex. Script and episode are in effect two different versions of the story. In the script, the E is said to travel to the Jarada homeworld, while in the episode, the E merely travels to some prearranged point for a rendez-vous, and once we get there we can see that they're in orbit of some planet (there being no mention of a Jaradan homeworld at that or any point in the episode). The assumption that planet we see corresponds to a planet mentioned in a non-final draft of the script may be a small leap, but it's a leap nonetheless. If it helps you to grok my argument, consider this: for all we know the writers changed those lines because they got an idea for returning the Jarada in a later episode, and wanted to establish them as planet-less nomads. In which case your leap might have caused us to conclude something about the species ("they have a homeworld") which the writers explicitly did not want to imply. I was just speculating there of course, but I think it illustrates that unless the script and episode are in line, saying that that planet seen in the episode was that planet featured in, but cut from the script, is essentially a guess rather then a fact. -- Capricorn (talk) 08:22, December 1, 2012 (UTC)

The homeworld bit was apocryphal so i removed that, but I must clarify i am connecting the planets based on startrek.com, which is a valid bg reference source for naming unnamed things seen on screen. --Pseudohuman (talk) 09:18, December 1, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Capricorn - this change seems to "create canon" rather than just objectively reflect what's really there. -- Cid Highwind (talk) 10:31, December 1, 2012 (UTC)