Talk: Rigellian

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rigellian article. It is not for general discussion; for that, go to Memory Alpha's Discussions or Discord. Click here to start a new discussion on this talk page.

Two Rigelians[]

Do we really need two pages for Rigelians? There's one race, called Rigelians and apparently similar to Vulcans in some unknown way, which was never seen. There's another race of sentient turtles, which was never called Rigelians on-screen. If we strictly followed our own guidelines, that second race shouldn't even be called Rigelian here, and for all we know those two could in fact be the same species - I think it might be best to keep the turtles on the one and only article about Rigelians. -- Cid Highwind 22:59, 20 Feb 2005 (GMT)

Were the turtle Rigelians mentioned in TMP script? If not that means they are not canon right? Does backstage info count? Rebelstrike2005 23:01, 20 Feb 2005 (GMT)

Behind the scenes has counted around here as long as I have followed and the two Rigelians have lasted this long without question. Otherwise we have a LOT of stuff to delete, if we are not accepting behind the scene inforation such as this. --Gvsualan 23:10, 20 Feb 2005 (GMT)

"Behind the scenes" information is not accepted unanimously, but this is not necessarily what I'm talking about. Even if we accept the turtle "Rigelians" (open for debate), we still can't conclude from that the existance of more than one species called "Rigelian". Rigelians were called "vulcanoid", but with Vulcans basically being Humans with pointy ears and copper-based blood, and nearly every other sentient species in the universe called "humanoid", can we really presume that those turtles aren't vulcanoid? I don't think so... -- Cid Highwind 23:21, 20 Feb 2005 (GMT)

I believe this is the same case as the USS Yorktown article i worked on -- we can't prove that the Yorktowns were the same vessel, but we cant prove they were different either, so i list them in one article, under the simplest name, and put separate subsections for each uncertain ship (or species in this case) -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 03:25, 21 Feb 2005 (GMT)

Well from what I saw of the Rigelians in "Affliction" they really didn't appear to have the physique of a turtle. If so, they are going to have to do some esquisite make-up magic to fit a turtle face behind that. --Gvsualan 03:50, 21 Feb 2005 (GMT)

I don't know if that is an argument considering the way they have altered other alien make-up for ENT. I support keeping both of these on one page, now it comes back to the question I posed that spun this whole debate. here. Tyrant 04:17, 21 Feb 2005 (GMT)Tyrant

The makeup in ENT has not changed significantly enough to make your point valid, in my opinion. Also, having gotten a better look at the Rigelians in "Affliction" from various screen caps, they certainly don't have shells (if indeed the TMP ones had something of the sort) - and they definately lacks the "beak". If anything, and that is a big IF, they bare resembelance, at least from the shadows, to the Na'kuhl or Remans, superficially --> see: this file. Now if we want to play with the theory that there are two races native to Rigel called Rigelians, or perhaps the fact there may be more than one planet in Rigel that developed two types of "Rigelians", I, for one, cannot accept that these are supposed to be one in the same. --Gvsualan 06:08, 23 Feb 2005 (GMT)

The question, as I see it, isn't whether the Rigelians of Enterprise are the same as these Rigelians (clearly, they're not), but whether, given the on-screen evidence from Enterprise, we should still refer to these turtle guys as Rigelians at all. Yes, that's what Phillips & Fletcher called them, but since they weren't called that on-screen, we're left with a choice: either there are two completely dissimilar species, both called Rigelians, or the turtle-guys seen in TMP have another name. Despite the authorial intent of Phillips and Fletcher, I think Occam's razor favors the second explanation. I think that this page should either be deleted, or the note at the bottom expanded to indicate that the Enterprise Rigelians (named on-screen as such) may cast doubt on whether these turtles are Rigelians also. --Josiah Rowe 06:38, 23 Feb 2005 (GMT)

There being two species of Rigelian's is a distinct possibility, especially if they are from the same world, we have many Xindi afterall. My original point was that keeping both on the same page (with some rework) allows us to keep unclear references to Rigelian's open to either species. Tyrant 13:46, 23 Feb 2005 (GMT)Tyrant

I support the one page solution for the Rigelians, because by error the Saurians were named Rigelians in Fandom for quite a while. -- Kobi - (Talk) 14:46, 23 Feb 2005 (GMT)

The solution that seems to have worked is to have the "Rigelians" (with one "l") on one page and the "Rigellians" (with two "l"s) on this page. They appear to be different species to me, and there is nothing forbidding two species having similar names. As to including them at all, the revised canon policy permits this type of article (but it does need a notation as to it being non-canon). Aholland 05:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

That depends on the source for the spelling difference. Is it from a script or closed captioning or what? Anyone know? Jaf 00:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)Jaf

The script for "Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges", which I believe is the only "true" script available that references their name spells it with one "L". How is it spelled in whatever source references the "turtle aliens" with the similar name? --Alan del Beccio 01:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Is there one? Jaf 01:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)Jaf

RE: Aholland: There is of course the mess with Tarellians, Terellians, Terrelians, and Terrellians, all are apparently equally similar and equally confusing spellings for at least 3 different species, based on the various descriptions for "T-r-lians", so there is at least some support for the statement that "there is nothing forbidding two species having similar names." --Alan del Beccio 01:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Scratch that, there are two distinctly different looking species that carry the same name, Terrellians, to make up to 5 different species carring similar name spellings. --Alan del Beccio 01:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The answer to the question as to the spelling is to look in the only source that exists for this alien: Fletcher and Phillips in The Making of Star Trek: The Motion Picture. It has two "L"s. Aholland 03:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect Information[]

The only information I know of for the Rigellians comes from the notes of Bob Fletcher and Fred Phillips, available for review in The Making of Star Trek The Motion Picture. There are significant differences between this article and those notes. There is nothing in the notes about them having outgrown their shells and being forced to manufacture new shells. There is nothing to indicate they are, in fact, Federation members; they could have simply been visiting. There is nothing to indicate they come from Rigel IV. There is nothing in the article to reflect, from the notes, that they "learned to walk upright. Range from five nine to seven feet and over." There is also nothing in the article about the two other functions of the attendants: to "serve" and "care" for them in addition to bringing food. Unless someone has a different citation for the notes, I believe the article needs to be modified accordingly. Aholland 05:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Non-Canon[]

Please see Memory Alpha talk:Canon policy regarding this article being labelled "non-canon" before making further changes. Aholland 06:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, about making the change earlier. I was under the impression that some of the info was actually canon (they did show up on-screen and looked like turtles). The Making of... stuff is technically "non-canon" according to the canon policy, but not the appearance on Star Trek: The Motion Picture. That section needs to be reworded somewhat and a citation in the article needs to be provided to TMP.--Tim Thomason 06:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

If the article was "unnamed Turtle alien" and merely said that they existed, you'd be right and that much would be canon. However, all the information about this species in the article is from notes that Phillips and Fletcher made up. I understand your point and will try to make the distinction in the article. Aholland 06:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Did the Rigellians really appeared on screen? If so, which scene is it? Where are they? KiTeLetZ 12:20, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

Reptilian[]

Turtles are reptiles, true. However, why are we making up stuff about them being reptilian when, for all we know, the "turtles" the Rigelliens are decended from are amphibians? Since they are not turtles from Earth, they could even be mammals or something else altogether. The point is since the sum total of our knowledge of this species is about four lines of truncated text, I suggest we simply stick to the notes as is and leave it be. I am removing the line, although if someone can point to other production material Fletcher and Phillips came up with that said they were reptilian, I'll be happy to see it back in. Aholland 03:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Beaked Aliens?[]

It might be a jump but has anyone considered that the Unnamed humanoids (24th century) Beaked aliens from DS9 might be the same as these Rigellians? Feb 25th 2007 Andorian sushi

It is possible, but they are different enough that it is only speculation. It could not be said for sure. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 21:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Seen or unseen?[]

Reading other discussions, it seems that no one can visually place this species in the film. If this is ultimately true, then we should make this a real world article, and perhaps even move it away from this namespace and simply consolidate both spellings of Rigelian/Rigellian link to the one and only seen and confirmed species. Simply put, if it wasn't for these turtle guys, there would only be one to contend with in "canon". --Alan (talk) 17:10, February 12, 2019 (UTC)

In addition to the above, that would allow accommodations for the spellings used in Rigelian Trade Commission, Rigellian gene therapy, Rigellian hypnoid, Rigellian language, Rigellian ox, and Rigelian scoutship, whose names remain spelled like that of the turtle species, but really refer to the non-turtle species. --Alan (talk) 17:26, February 12, 2019 (UTC)

Back in the previous discussion, Side Rat created a gif that showed where the turtle species were in the film, but that gif is no longer accessible and I can't find them anymore. --NetSpiker (talk) 04:52, February 13, 2019 (UTC)

I remember going over that gif again and again and still not finding them. I've uploaded an image of my best guess of where one of them might be, but I'm still skeptical. (compare with detailed shots of the costumes here [1]^(X)[2]^(X))

In the end, I think it should be made a real world article. Among the discussions on this site I know of attempts at finding these fellows going back more then ten years, and nothing conclusive ever came of it. And it's not like it would be a huge job converting the article again if that ever changed. Georgiou's bookshelf is an instructive example: many of these books likely made it on screen, but we failed to determine which one, so had no choice but to make all of them real world articles. -- Capricorn (talk) 13:03, February 13, 2019 (UTC)

That does look like the headgear of the attendant. One other suggestion might be to qualify this page [Rigellian (turtle species)], or something equally inane, and give both Rigellian/Rigelian name spaces to the main species that all other references go to. Examples to support my point, include Phlox (Hierarchy), Galaxy class (23rd century), USS Discovery (24th century), all pages that got bumped because the alternative was significantly more prominent. --Alan (talk) 13:21, February 13, 2019 (UTC)

My apologies for neglecting MA for so long. I am very pleased to see this eventually got straightened out again. I'm not surprised that my GIF wasn't much help to people, because inevitably the images lost quality in the conversion, alas. The "Rigellian Lord" is correctly identified above. In preceding shots, his "attendant" is standing just to his left (our right). I have put together a few key frames (cropped with the two Rigellians at center) and the trading card images of the characters (along with the GIF I originally created from them) for reference here. I unfortunately cannot do my own Blu-ray caps. The source of the screencaps I used is here. --Side Rat (talk) 10:13, April 11, 2019 (UTC)