Non-canon names Edit

In a deleted scene, Tokath addresses Sentith (a Romulan) and Ba'ktor and Turla (Klingons). I realise this data isn’t canon but if they can be seen in the broadcast episode would we be able to use it? Definitely in the script. -- Archer4real (talk) 13:56, March 2, 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure how we should determine who is who. Do you have a link to this script? Tom (talk) 14:08, March 2, 2016 (UTC)

[1] -- Archer4real (talk) 14:17, March 2, 2016 (UTC)

Found the lines. The problem is we cannot tell if these individuals were seen in the episode or if there were completely different performers for this scene. IMO, the names should be created as realworld articles and within the Category:Deleted material. This would be the best way. Tom (talk) 14:26, March 2, 2016 (UTC)

Sorry didn't I say? The scene's on the Blu-ray. That’d surely help the identification process -- Archer4real (talk) 16:31, March 2, 2016 (UTC)

Important information. ;) Will have a look. Tom (talk) 16:47, March 2, 2016 (UTC)
"Turla" is the female Klingon played by Inez Edwards, "Sentith" the Romulan played by Ted Parker, and "Ba'ktor" the Klingon played by Charles McIntosh according to this deleted scene. We now have to settle if information from a deleted scene can be used to portray in-universe information. Tom (talk) 19:23, March 2, 2016 (UTC)
Isn't it the same like with Livingston? If the characters were still seen in the finished episode, I'd say names from the script are as good (or better) a production source. Kennelly (talk) 22:04, March 2, 2016 (UTC)

Support renaming; if you've done so by now jolly good ;-)--Archer4real (talk) 14:16, March 4, 2016 (UTC)

The deleted scene was a means to an end: identification. There’s no issue about canonisation of deleted material given that each person’s in the finished episode(s?). So, are three new articles coming up, and if not why not?--Archer4real (talk) 16:13, March 18, 2016 (UTC)

Seems as well to point out that Gi'ral wasn't named in spoken dialogue either but mentioned in the above script 33 times. That's in case anyone were to use that as a barrier against creating articles for the three identified "unnameds". Snarls defensively ;-)--Archer4real (talk) 09:29, April 12, 2016 (UTC)

Richard Hill has his own article as opposed to just "Hill" because half the name's mentioned verbally with the other half only scripted; a trio of appearances by characters actually seen surely qualifies. I mention this with but the slimmest of hopes of anything happening--Archer4real (talk) 10:42, May 27, 2016 (UTC)