Star Fleet Medical Reference Manual Edit

I'm gonna run this past anyone before I edit it, then I'm going to change it if I don't hear from anyone: The image of the slime devil, I believe, was first printed in the starfleet medical manual from '77. The book cited in the article was printed in '89, and I am pretty sure the image is from the '77 print, even if it was reused in the '89 worlds of the federation book. -- 10:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, it's from Geoffrey Mandel's Star Fleet Medical Reference Manual from the year '77. --Jörg 10:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Background info added Edit

The following was added to this article (though I moved it to its proper place as background info):

According to the Star Trek Original Series Set Tourowner James Cawley, who personally knows not only members of the original cast, but also the people who built the stage sets for Classic Star Trek series, and who used copies of the original show’s blueprints he obtained from costume designer William Ware Theiss, and spent hours researching thousands of photographs to ensure its precision for his project, the Denebian Slime Devil has been misrepresented all these years by ALL OF THE ABOVE authors, because no one noticed there was an actual picture of one in Dr. McCoy's office hanging on the wall. Why? Because it was never spoken of in the original series by any of the characters, but it was there. That picture, which does show up briefly in the series 3, episode 11 show called, "Wink of an Eye," displays the creature on the wall in McCoy's office, as Delia and Captain Kirk, walk by the entrance. It looks, more like having the head of a spider, instaed of the blob-like creature imagined by those who never noticed the picture from the original series before.

I have some concerns about this, most of all the sourcing. How do we know this is said on the tour? How does Cawley know? How do we know the picture is what is claimed? And no one noticed this in 50 or so years? 31dot (talk) 10:56, September 13, 2017 (UTC)

For you to know that, you'd have to take the tour, but my jaw dropped on the floor when I saw this, and was told the above. Needless to say, they painstakingly made certain that all the props and images that go into the tour are 100% authentic. I took a photo of the image they have on the wall there, and then cross-checked with the brief moment the image is seen in the above Star Trek episode, and, they are the same. --Lightcarver
I believe the question is the authenticity of the content of the photo you took. As we are already aware of the image (seen here). We also already acknowledge the images in this entry. Otherwise, the way it is written is unacceptable in terms not being very "encyclopedic" in style, format and content. If there is a question, connect the two entries. If connecting to social media is an issue, upload the file to this site directly. --Alan del Beccio (talk) 11:17, September 13, 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I would further add that there is a difference between "misrepresentation" and a mere different interpretation or view of something(look at the Klingons we will see in Discovery). I would feel better if we heard this claim from the horse's mouth instead of Cawley, who essentially is just a fan who has recreated the sets and knows Trek staff. I still find it odd that no one has seen this in 50 years. 31dot (talk) 11:18, September 13, 2017 (UTC)

Or talk to Cawley himself which you can if you call the museum. --Lightcarver
OK, so, I was unaware that the image I've been talking about, is seen in McCoy's office, in the episode, "That Which Survives." I will take a look at that today. So, we have visual evidence that that image was on the original show, now, in two episodes, which is great. The question which must now be vetted is, the authenticity, from your end, on what the image portrays. James Cawley insists it's the Denebian Slime Devil, and I will tell you, again, the man is a fanatic when it comes to getting detail right. Other than waking William Ware Theiss out of bed and calling him, I'm not sure how else to verify this than to talk to Cawley himself as to his acquisition of the source image. -Lightcarver
Ok, now we are on the right track. So yes, what we should be investigating is the authenticity of the artwork compared to the original, and while it is clear that the original image and the (I assume) recreated-art from the tour both have similar placement of text on the image, comparing the word "DENEBIAN SLIME DEVIL" written on the photo[1] (neater consistency) to the screencap (exaggerated first letter to each word), it seems somewhat apparent to me that they are not written by the same hand, so it is difficult to confirm they "say" the same thing. --Alan del Beccio (talk) 11:51, September 13, 2017 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. More evidence, although by way of interpretation, is the way Denebian Slime Devils are depicted in the episode "Trouble with Tribbles." If you remember, the Klingon who makes all the trouble in the bar, goes out of his way to describe Kirk as being like a Denebian Slime Devil, and the opposite of a Regulan Blood-worm, which is, "soft and shapeless." And, he then goes on to say that, "Kirk...isn't...soft." Meaning, he's more like the DSD. That image we're discussing, definitely does not look, soft, and shapeless. It looks scary and spider-like--Lightcarver
I don't have any on-line accounts where I can upload the image I took on Sunday, but, and I know you folks don't like social media links, but, here it is on my page: Facebook link - the link to that image on the memory-alpha page, I can't read the words on it, it is too blurry. Is there another somewhere else on the site that's clearer?--Lightcarver
I meant upload it to Memory Alpha, however, that would if it was determined to be legit. The screencap image on the MA page is most likely the best image available, which brings us back to our original problem of determining if the words on a blurry screencap (aka canon) match the image you took. --Alan del Beccio (talk) 13:45, September 13, 2017 (UTC)
I would love to upload it to memory-alpha, but the upload function won't let me. It complains about, "The API can not be used to edit the content of this wiki." Do I need admin rights?-Lightcarver
Umm, folks? I just watched That Which Survives. Not sure how much more evidence you need now. It looks exactly like the image I saw on Sunday. It's even labeled. Facebook link-Lightcarver
Sigh. If you are referring to the screencap I've linked here twice, then I will repeat, while it is clear that the original image and the (I assume) recreated-art from the tour both have similar placement of text on the image, comparing the word "DENEBIAN SLIME DEVIL" written on the photo[2] (neater consistency) to the screencap (exaggerated first letter to each word), it seems somewhat apparent to me that they are not written by the same hand, so it is difficult to confirm they "say" the same thing. --Alan del Beccio (talk) 14:32, September 13, 2017 (UTC)
Very well then, I would highly suggest that you contact James Cawley at the museum, and ask him what proof he can provide to you. Otherwise, you will never be sure, whether Trek lore has been correct on this topic, for half a century. --Lightcarver
Please don't create work for other people. --Alan del Beccio (talk) 15:58, September 13, 2017 (UTC)
Well, if I ran memory-alpha, I'd be checking it out to be sure, but I'm not you. Do as you will. After-all, people are usually more comfortable with long established ideas, and are less likely to challenge doctrine, if it's been ingrained in them over long periods of time. If Star Trek has shown us anything, it's that. Have a nice day. --Lightcarverr
If you ran memory-alpha you probably would want to make sure that new users are not contributing complete bunk that cannot be confirmed as legit. The job of every user is to make sure what they are contributing is legit, in other words, don't dump a bunch of crap here and tell us to 'sort it out yourselves'. That's not how this works. This has nothing to do with whether this is challenging history, it's about legitimizing history with facts, *real* documentation, not supposition. --Alan del Beccio (talk) 17:11, September 13, 2017 (UTC)