- See also talk:Earth-Kzin Wars.
I never knew that Ringworld was integrated in to Star Trek. What's the source? Perhaps someone could add an episode name or something? -- Redge 22:56, 8 May 2004 (CEST)
- It isn't. I've removed the reference. Thanks for catching it! -- Michael Warren 23:01, 8 May 2004 (CEST)
If I remeber correctly, Kzinti was a species name in Ringworld. Coincidence? I think not! ;-) -- Redge 13:50, 30 Jul 2004 (CEST)
The Kzinti Hegemony Edit
The Kzinti are not a "Canonized" race of aliens but in the non-canonized tactical board game "Star Fleet Battles" they are a major politcal power. I was a playtester for Star Fleet Battles and can describe them for the sake of knowing more. Iron Mike
- While TAS explicitly includes the Kzinti, they have never been mentioned in what has generally been considered the canon universe. The existence of a conflict between Earth and the Kzinti in the 2060s seems very unlikely. Because it was about at the same time that Earth's First Contact with an alien race occurred in 2063 when Zefram Cochrane encountered the Vulcans. In order for these wars to have been real canonical conflicts, it would have to have happened sometime after first contact, circa 2064, or possibly 2063, shortly after first contact. But that wouldn't make a whole lot of sense either, since in 2065, the SS Valiant was launched on a mission of exploration. It seems unlikely that Earth space expiditions would have launched a ship for space exploration during a war. One could try to argue with this too by saying that the wars could have been over by 2065. But really now, it's unlikely that four wars would only last two years. Also, this was apparently a war that was ended by the Treaty of Sirius. It seems unlikely that a treaty would have been signed in the Sirius system, since speeds of warp two were not yet acheived. It would have taken ships forever just to get there, let alone have a war and sign a treaty there. It seems more likely that when Sulu mentioned that the wars were fought "200 years ago," he must have been just rounding it off to the nearest hundred. It's more likely that it was in the late 21st century, sometime in the 2090s, and the last of the four wars probably ended in the early 22nd century, not long before the formation of the European Hegemony. When understanding it this way, Sulu's comment was not innacurate, and the Earth-Kzin Wars can still be considered canon.
Somehow I'm not sure this explanation is necessary, at least in this format. --Alan del Beccio 06:43, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)
Xindi Felines Edit
Duh.22.214.171.124 20:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Let's see, don't look Xindi, not mentioned by any Xindi (who do make a point of mentioning the extinct Avians),not on the Xindi Council, fought a war with humans in the 2060s, roughly 100 years before humanity actually met a single Xindi of any kind. No, not Xindi. --OuroborosCobra talk 21:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Sure, could be. Maybe some reason the rest of the Xindi were embarrassed by the Kzinti. I mean, pronounce both words out loud. Further, what Sulu said can be theoretically and easily taken as definitive of what Sulu said. Don't mean he was right. O'Brien thought command in the 2200s wore red. He was wrong too. Sulu might have easily just been brain farting by 100 years. Exactly even. Also, if Kzinti were somehow an embarrassment to the other Xindi, they might have also been kept off the council. So what if the Avians are mentioned specifically. They cannot be contacted anymore, being extinct. Lastly, uhm.. Seriously... "Don't look Xindi"? If there are no Xindi felines, then you don't know what a Xindi feline looks like. If there are, you don't know of them and still don't. Unless they're Kzinti. Then they look like that. Except, you know, without the dark black outlines of toon town.126.96.36.199 08:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- All Xindi share general features with each other, particularly on their cheeks and foreheads. Kzinti don't share most of these features. Again, humanity encountered them in the 2060s, and would not hear about other Xindi until far later. O'brien not knowing fashion is an enormous leap from not knowing the century a conflict took place in. I don't know every detail on American World War II uniforms, but I still know D-Day was on 6 June 1944. The specific number of Xindi species was mentioned a large number of times.
- You are drawing for straws that simply are not there. There are a huge number of reasons and evidence for the Kzinti not being Xindi, and only one reason for them to have any relation, minor similarity in name. No, that does not cut it. They are not Xindi. In addition, remember that one of the plans for season 5 of Star Trek Enterprise was to have an encounter with Kzinti. That means there was an intention of them not being the same on the part of the writers. They are not Xindi. There is no evidence of them being Xindi. There is lots of evidence of them not being Xindi. They are not Xindi. This is worse than the attempt to label the Tzenkethi as Kzinti. At least with the Tzenkethi we don't have copious amounts of evidence saying that they aren't. The Kzinti are not Xindi. --OuroborosCobra talk 09:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- In addition, this talk page is for discussing the content and quality of the article, not for idle speculation... especially for something so far-fetched. So, this ends now, methinks. --From Andoria with Love 09:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I thought that mem alpha was for canon stuff, isn't TAS/Kzin non canonical IE from TAS? 188.8.131.52 01:57, May 12, 2010 (UTC)
- Please review the canon policy, but in short- we consider TAS canon.--31dot 02:00, May 12, 2010 (UTC)
Real Kzinti names Edit
In pretty much every Known Space document I've read, half-names like "Chuft Captain" are hyphenated - since it was never shown one way or the other, I think MA should do the same.--Ten-pint 04:42, May 27, 2010 (UTC)
STV "Kzinretti" reference needs citation Edit
I neither added nor have I removed this background note, which I have heard repeated as fact for as long as I can remember without a specific citation of who exactly called her this behind the scenes and/or where and how this information was relayed. In doing internet searches, I can only find it vaguely attributed as it is here. I am loathe to dismiss it summarily, as it could very well be true, but I think a citation is very much needed.--Side Rat (talk) 03:00, August 20, 2016 (UTC)
I am working on tracking this down, and have made some progress. Therin of Andor reports to me that it comes from an interview with Linda Fetters from one of three possible sources: (1) an issue of Starlog magazine, (2) the official "Handbook of Production Information" for STV, or (3) an online theatrical makeup forum. Not really specific enough for a proper citation yet, but I'll continue to try to narrow it down. If anyone else can look into it as well, I'd be glad of the help. Thanks. --Side Rat (talk) 14:23, August 25, 2016 (UTC)
Linda Howard (née Fetters) has stated on Twitter that she was not aware of being called this. In discussion with Therin of Andor following up on this, he maintains that there was definitely a legitimate source for it that he himself personally checked, and that it related directly to Fetters-Howard's makeup, but that in light of this the quote must have been from someone other than Linda herself, perhaps a makeup artist. He unfortunately does not have a specific record of what the source was, although seems to best recall it as being published in connection with a makeup forum (he doesn't rule out the other potential sources outlined above, though). He indicates that the information initially came to him through a secondary source on the Sci-Fi BBS, who misspelled the name as "kzinretti," and that subsequently he sought out the primary source himself and corrected the spelling to what was used therein: "Kzinrrett". As this primary source is yet to be located, and as his is the most reliably-citable report I know of at the moment, I have for now cited the reference to his site (seems better than no citation at all), along with citing Howard's recent statement. Hopefully, more specific information will surface in the future, but that's where things stand at the moment.--Side Rat (talk) 10:04, September 5, 2016 (UTC)
- It's definitely not from the Star Trek V Handbook of Production Information, so that source can be ruled out. --Defiant (talk) 10:13, September 5, 2016 (UTC)
- Most likely Starlog can be ruled out too (they're archived online at archive.org). In other words, the most probable explanation is the reference was made in an online forum. --Defiant (talk) 10:21, September 5, 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much, that is quite helpful. Although, I'm not sure archive.org's Starlog collection is entirely complete. They don't seem to have the STV "Official Movie Magazine" edition, not that I can find anyway.--Side Rat (talk) 11:21, September 5, 2016 (UTC)
Removed from background section Edit
Regarding the proposed design of the Kzinti vessel that might have been used in ENT Season 5, I removed this bit:
"It is notable that the concept design of the Kzinti vessel draws considerably from the Kzinti fleet as presented in the Star Fleet Universe, which have a similar layout to the design shown, including the same triple warp nacelle layout and pod-mounted drone (missile) launchers. Jimmy Diggs did that on purpose, hence the three nacelles, but with more emphasis on creating a believable warship."
I could not find a source for Diggs or Finney saying they deliberately drew on SFB designs, even though it doesn't seem a stretch to me that they might have. If anyone has such a source, I would be happy to work it back in. Or maybe it can just be simply stated that the proposed design bears a degree of similarity to SFB designs without it being necessary to establish that it was specifically intended? Would that be too speculative without a source?--Side Rat (talk) 14:37, August 21, 2016 (UTC)
I've now re-added the thought, less speculatively phrased and including a link from Amarillo Design showing Kzinti ships from the SFU for the reader's own comparison: "The revised design bears some similarities in its overall arrangement and coloration to Kzinti spacecraft from the Star Fleet Universe"--Side Rat (talk) 00:17, August 22, 2016 (UTC)
Shot of Final Draft script page showing characters' names. Note the "Fourth Kzin" and "Fifth Kzin." 
Also, this shot from later in the script: 
Proper singular form? Edit
The term "Kzinti" is used in "The Slaver Weapon" to collectively describe multiple members of the Kzinti race, and as an adjective ("a Kzinti spacecraft", "the Kzinti government", et al.) but NEVER to describe a singular individual. The proper term for such an individual is "Kzin". This singular term was used in the final draft script and attached storyboards for "The Time Trap" (TAS) to describe the Kzinti member of the Elysian Council, and is the ONLY time such an individual has been named.
As per Memory Alpha policy of using the name given in production materials where none is given in canon and Memory Alpha policy of using singular form for species in article titles, we really should be using Kzin (species) (as distinguished from Kzin (planet)) as the title of this one, with a redirect from Kzinti and a first line that reads "The Kzinti (singular Kzin) were..."
At the very least Defiant and whoever else keeps changing the line about the Elysian Council member being "a Kzin" to being "a Kzinti" should STOP DOING THAT. It is an improper usage and is NOT derived from nor supported by canon. In canon as defined by Memory Alpha, no term associated with a single Kzinti individual has been used, and the unsupported assumption that it is properly "a Kzinti" is counter-indicated by contemporary production materials (as well as by Larry Niven, I might add, though that's less relevant).--Side Rat (talk) 02:27, August 25, 2016 (UTC)
- You are seriously spending way too much time on this. You've made 57 edits to this article in less than a week, try to do your work in fewer bites. As far as your rant, perfection is not required, for you or for others, so please stop getting bent out of shape about this, as per your over-emphases, CAPS, bolding, and so forth in your comments. Thanks, and have a nice day. --Alan del Beccio (talk) 02:48, August 25, 2016 (UTC)
I am spending time making this article as complete, accurate, and encyclopedic as possible. I believe my edits have improved it immensely from where it was when I began a week or two ago, no offense intended toward anyone else who has contributed to it before or since. I am not "ranting" or getting "bent out of shape." I used some caps on a couple of words for emphasis, yes. Other contributors seem to mistakenly believe it is canon that "Kzinti" is properly used as a singular term, but it is emphatically not. The bold was simply to indicate article titles. I don't see what call there is to tell me how I should spend the time I have available to me in contributing here, or on which articles I should or shouldn't choose to focus. This subject happens to be a favorite of mine. Have you no points to add to the discussion other than to criticize my use of my own time? Respectfully, --Side Rat (talk) 03:19, August 25, 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, ultimately, Kzinti is the only canon term used to describe this species on-screen, which trumps the use of the word "Kzin", and is why the current namespace will always remain the primary namespace. Remember, this is an "adaptation", so things aren't always going to favor Nivins original work. --Alan del Beccio (talk) 03:44, August 25, 2016 (UTC)
But this isn't about Niven's original work differing. It's about what the Star Trek production materials indicate as compared (not contrasted, as I have noted) with what is said and shown onscreen. No referent to a singular Kzinti individual is ever used onscreen, because none is ever called for in the dialogue of "The Slaver Weapon". Where one was called for, in the script of "The Time Trap" and the attached storyboards to which it directly refers, "Kzin" was used. If the production material were at all in conflict with canon, we would absolutely give canon precedence, and rightly so. That is not the case here, though. The production material of "The Time Trap", which is our only source of identification of the Kzin on the Elysian council, is entirely consistent with the usage in "The Slaver Weapon". There is no conflict between them.
What has happened here is that an assumption has been made that the singular form of the species name is the same as the collective form, without this being established by the episode. It's understandable that this assumption would be made as common sense in the absence of counter-indication. But we have such counter-indication in the production materials that shows this to be an incorrect assumption.
If people don't want to rename the page (as would be consistent with policy) then that will not at all "bend me out of shape". But the Elysian councillor should be properly referred to, as a "Kzin", and all references to "Kzinti" should be either plural or adjectival. I have been very careful to make sure the article conforms to this usage, which is that used in the canon. --Side Rat (talk) 04:26, August 25, 2016 (UTC)
So you're saying Kzinti is plural? As in "a Kzinti spacecraft" = "a Romulans spacecraft".--Alan del Beccio (talk) 11:48, August 25, 2016 (UTC)
- It's still enough to go on, Side Rat. As Alan pointed out, the singular species name is used for spacecraft, and "Kzinti" is the only canon-used version, so it's definitely "Kzinti" we should use in all instances, never "Kzin" (apart from, obviously, explaining this in the bginfo). --Defiant (talk) 18:25, August 25, 2016 (UTC)
What do you mean "it's enough to go on"? It shows us exactly what was intended: that the proper adjectival form is Kzinti. You mean it's enough to guess that the singular noun form is the same as the adjectival form, because many other species names follow that pattern? Sorry, guess again. The collective name for the species as a whole or for multiple individuals is Kzinti. The adjective that refers to something of or belonging to that culture or species is Kzinti. But the name that refers to a single member of it is Kzin. Canon does not tell us otherwise. If it did, I wouldn't be arguing about this. Canon is king, I do not dispute that. But what you're saying isn't canon, it's simply a misinterpretation of it based on a demonstrably false assumption.
And "Kzin" should be used in reference to the Elysian councillor, which you'll notice is the only place I have used it. It is what this individual, who is not named in canon, is called in the production materials.--Side Rat (talk) 21:58, August 25, 2016 (UTC)
- We use the term "nagi" throughout MA, in bodies of a number of articles, as the plural of nagus, even though it was never stated in a canon production (nor was naguses, or any other plural). That situation is basically the reverse of this one; here, we have a plural with no stated singular, and we're making the canon assumption that both singular and plural are the same, even though it was stated otherwise in production material, and is contrary to Niven's books, on which Trek' Kzinti are based. I don't see any harm in using Kzin as the singular within the body of the article, even though it may not be 100% canon, any more than using nagi in numerous articles, despite the lack of canonicity. My 2 cents. :) -- Renegade54 (talk) 23:32, August 25, 2016 (UTC)
I am not familiar with the situation regarding this other issue. Is a particular plural form of "nagus" indicated in any production source? If one is, then we should use it where necessary in the absence of one being named onscreen. If one is not, then we should probably do what we can to avoid using one instead of assuming what it should be. If this is unfeasible, then I guess we have to pick one for our purposes, which should probably be settled by consensus through discussion. In any case, don't see what it really has to do with the situation at hand.
The blanket proposition that an adjectival form can be readily taken to indicate the form of the according singular noun is demonstrably false, not simply with respect to the Star Trek production materials in evidence in this case, but generally in real life: a spacecraft built by the inhabitants of Britain is "a British spacecraft", but one of those inhabitants is not "a British", for example. Defiant, I see you are in Scotland. Would you call yourself "a Scottish"?--Side Rat (talk) 08:14, August 26, 2016 (UTC)
- No, but that's entirely OT. The fact is... the singular form of this species name is established in canon as "Kzinti", as in "a Kzinti spacecraft". Would you say "a Vulcans spacecraft"?! No, of course not; the correct grammar would be "a Vulcan spacecraft". Similarly, in this case, "Kzinti" is clearly used as the singular noun. My opinion stands and, unless there's some radical development in this issue, I will no longer be discussing it with you, as the conversation is just going round and round, with no constructive conclusion reached. You should just accept the truth: "Kzinti" is the singular form of this species' name, and that's established in canon. End of. --Defiant (talk) 08:34, August 26, 2016 (UTC)
No, it is not established in canon. That the singular form is Kzin may not be strictly canon either. But it is most definitely NOT established in "The Slaver Weapon" nor in any other episode or film that a single individual of the Kzinti race is called "a Kzinti," not at all. Your usage is as non-canon as mine, if not moreso.
I would thank you to refrain from further editing my comments on this talk page as well. I can't imagine that can possibly be considered proper etiquette here.--Side Rat (talk) 09:07, August 26, 2016 (UTC)
- This issue appears to have hit the point of going in circles. My summary of reading it all is as follows:
- "Kzinti" was the only term used on screen
- "Kzin" is the proper singular term used in Niven's novels
- "Kzin" is used in reference (in production material) to the Elysian councilor
- So, based on that, I see no issue in the following resolution:
- The councilor should be referenced as "Kzin", with a BG note indicating the source of said name.
- The species is, by MA definitions, "Kzinti" by name.
- A BG note on the species page noting production material (NOT Niven's novels) usage of terms.
- And that, I believe resolves what's been going around in circles for way too long. -- sulfur (talk) 12:16, August 26, 2016 (UTC)
- This issue appears to have hit the point of going in circles. My summary of reading it all is as follows:
Thank you, sulfur. Would you agree that all uses of "Kzinti" in in-universe sections of articles should be one of the following: (1) collective (the entire species), (2) plural (multiple individuals), or (3) adjectival (attached to a noun) since those are the uses in the episode? That shouldn't leave us with any problems assuming something that has no basis in canon and is also counter-indicated by production intent, i.e. that one individual is referred to as "a Kzinti", full stop.--Side Rat (talk) 12:24, August 26, 2016 (UTC)
- How about use it like we use Ferengi. --Alan del Beccio (talk) 12:32, August 26, 2016 (UTC)
Today I have reviewed "The Slaver Weapon" and assembled all instances of "Kzin" and "Kzinti" therein, for the inspection of all:
- SPOCK: ...a Slaver stasis box discovered by archaeologists on the planet Kzin.
- SPOCK: The Kzinti now possess our stasis box.
- SPOCK: A Kzinti spacecraft.
- SULU: Kzinti aren't supposed to have phasers, are they?
- UHURA: I've heard all Kzinti telepaths are unhappy neurotics.
- SPOCK: But the Kzinti are meat eaters.
- SPOCK: In the presence of the Kzinti, do not say anything...
- SPOCK: Are you forgetting Kzinti females are dumb animals? In an emergency the Kzinti may forget a human female is an intelligent creature.
- SPOCK: ...but we may be able to seize an opportunity to escape if the Kzinti believe you have none.
- CHUFT CAPTAIN: Kzinti archaeologists found both boxes...
- SULU: The Kzinti fought four wars with Humankind and lost all of them.
- SULU: Then you're really working for the Kzinti government!
- CHUFT: If we are captured, the Highest of Kzin will repudiate us.
- SPOCK: The Kzinti now possess a weapon potentially deadly to the entire galaxy.
- SULU: They can call for help from the Kzin planet if they think the weapon's worth it.
- SULU: As long as you stay free, the Kzinti can't or won't do anything. But they could use Lieutenant Uhura as a bribe.
- SPOCK: Kzinti ribs have some vertical bracing.
- SULU: If the Kzinti had that, the whole galaxy would be their dinner table!
- SULU: It has the Kzinti frightened.
- SPOCK: The Kzinti have legends of weapons haunted by their owners.
- SPOCK: If not the Kzinti, the Klingons or some other species would have tried to possess it.
- SPOCK: That ancient war could have sparked a new war between Man and Kzinti.
- UHURA: Didn't you say the Kzinti have legends of weapons haunted by their dead owners?
It is clear that none of these uses refers to a single individual. And since it is unclear in canon that such an individual is called "a Kzinti" (full stop) then such usage should be avoided on Memory Alpha so as not to be making unsupported assumptions. My impression is that our goal here is to avoid unsupported assumptions categorically, in general. In this case, the production materials and Niven's other works simply serve to illustrate that this particular assumption, in addition to being unsupported by canon, is contrary to production intent, making it a doubly ill-advised and inappropriate one for Memory Alpha to make. Where we must make reference to a single individual of this species (other than the Elysian councilor) we should say "a Kzinti individual", "a Kzinti privateer", "a Kzinti crewmember", etc. (Sulfur, what is missing from your summary is a direct address of this specific issue.)
Additionally, there is a reference to "the Kzin planet" in the episode that I had not remembered. Personally, I am content to interpret this as being merely a different phrasing of "the planet Kzin" from earlier in the episode, but that is only my interpretation. It could also be interpreted as indicating "Kzin" is also used as a name for the species and/or an adjective, in addition to "Kzinti", in canon.--Side Rat (talk) 00:04, August 27, 2016 (UTC)
- You might be interested to know that in the novelization of The Slaver Weapon, the terms "Kzin commander", "Kzinti commander", "Kzin telepath" and "Kzinti telepath" are all used. There are also two sentences which use "Kzinti" as a singular noun:
Forgot to add to my above comment this excerpt from page 12 of the script for "The Time Trap":
- "...twelve men and women are seated on a dais. Each is a member of a different race: Klingon, Tellarite, Kzin, Orion, Andorian, Vulcan, Human, Gorn and three other alien types we have never seen before. See attached sheet for reference. Their spokesman is XERIUS, a tall Romulan with piercing eyes."
- Storyboard image of Council
I recognize that this doesn't change anything with respect to what's been said already, but I just wanted to have all the evidence to which I've referred in this discussion quoted verbatim here so that it can be seen by everyone without having to go elsewhere and scroll through PDFs to find it.--Side Rat (talk) 12:56, August 27, 2016 (UTC)
- For what it's worth:
- I reviewed the Final Script for "The Slaver Weapon" (dated 7-23-73). (An earlier First Draft script is undated, but presumably would be before 7-23-73.)
- There are five Kzinti characters identified in the script:
- Flyer (sometimes referred to as "Second Kzin" in the First Draft script)
- Telepath (the First Draft script calls him, inconsistently, "Telepath" and "Reader of Minds")
- Fourth Kzin
- Fifth Kzin
- There is another Kzin identified in the First Draft script. He is "Navigator." Flyer tells Chuft-Captain that "Navigator's suit lost considerable pressure." (In the Final Script, it's
Flyer'sTelepath's suit that gets ruptured.)
- There is another Kzin identified in the First Draft script. He is "Navigator." Flyer tells Chuft-Captain that "Navigator's suit lost considerable pressure." (In the Final Script, it's
- Note that "Kzin" is used as a singular.
- Also, there's this script direction:
- CLOSE ON STASIS BOX AND KZIN: "The mirror-surface cube flares with light, then becomes an unremarkable metal box. Chuft-Captain gestures and one Kzin opens it." (Scene 40)
- Using the plural "Kzinti" as an adjective isn't nonsensical:
- Sports medicine (The plural noun, sports, is more common than the singular noun, sport.)
- Media frenzy (Media is plural. The singular form, medium, is rarely used.)
- I think "Kzin" is indeed the singular (a term used in the episode only as their home planet's name), and "Kzinti" is the plural and the adjectival. No single Kzin is referred to in the episode; only in the script. This scripted use of the singular (where the canon episode is silent) is consistent with the singular form as used in Niven's books.
- --GSchnitzer (talk) 18:01, August 30, 2016 (UTC)
- Where's the script? --Defiant (talk) 18:12, August 30, 2016 (UTC)
Firstly, I would like to thank GSchnitzer for entering this discussion, and for providing valuable insight on this and many other matters regarding "The Slaver Weapon" script drafts that will enable significant improvement of our articles on related subjects. Secondly, I wish to sincerely apologize if the attitude I began this discussion with was off-putting, and to reiterate that I intended no disrespect toward any of my fellow contributors who have (or haven't) participated in it.
Nevertheless, I still believe an important point has been raised here that deserves further reconsideration. In one respect, the situation remains unchanged that onscreen canon gives us no singular term for one individual of the Kzinti race. But we can now conclusively say that in each and every instance where one was called for, the production materials for all episodes in which this species appears consistently use "Kzin". Further, based on those materials, there will now be no fewer than three separate unnamed-in-canon characters individually identified by that specific term in articles, under the resource policy. I personally do not see the reason in insisting that other individuals should elsewhere be referred to by a different term ("a Kzinti") that is neither prescribed or indicated by, nor logically inferred from, canon. Especially not when there are alternatives readily available which are less speculative and more accurate to the usage in canon, such as saying "a Kzinti crew member" and so forth.
As for the prospect I initially raised of this article being renamed Kzin (species), if that is a bridge too far for the community, then so be it. While I do see something of an inconsistency with our policy of using singular forms for article titles in that, overall I consider the issue of usage outlined above to be the more immediately problematic one. My thanks again to all.--Side Rat (talk) 10:35, September 1, 2016 (UTC)
Also, GSchnitzer informed me that he made one typo in his above comments: in the final draft script it is not Flyer's suit that is ruptured, but rather Telepath's, as in the aired episode. I took the liberty of amending that and adjusting his indentation (and consequently LauraCC's as well).--Side Rat (talk) 10:45, September 1, 2016 (UTC)
I believe I have now rendered the reference to the Kzin Elysian councilor in accordance with policy and what Sulfur has thus far said above. I would appreciate it if the reference is not changed back unless/until he (or she, if such be the case) or another admin indicates specifically that it should be. Respectfully, --Side Rat (talk) 09:37, September 5, 2016 (UTC)
- I still strongly oppose the use of "a Kzin". Firstly, I don't believe Sulfur has stated that that non-canon word should be used (apart from in bginfo). Secondly, I still believe the singular form is established as "a Kzinti" with the statement that references "a Kzinti" spacecraft. I've contacted Sulfur, requesting confirmation, and won't be changing the page myself. --Defiant (talk) 10:00, September 5, 2016 (UTC)
(1) It is not logical to infer that "a Kzinti spacecraft" indicates an individual of the species is referred to as "a Kzinti" (full stop). The reference is to "a spacecraft"; that is the noun in question, and "Kzinti" is an adjective attached to that noun. Again, the British would operate a British spacecraft, but this does not indicate that one of that nationality is called a British (with no noun attached). Even going by this illogical supposition that an adjectival form dictates a singular noun form, there is also a reference to "the Kzin planet" in the episode, so if we were to follow the thinking you suggest, then we would be led to the conclusion that both Kzinti and Kzin are singular forms.
(2) The production materials (now thanks to GSchnitzer, not only those of "The Time Trap" but those of "The Slaver Weapon" itself) clearly counter-indicate that the above inference is valid, because they use "Kzin" to refer to singular individuals while at the same time making all the references heard in the episode to "a Kzinti (this or that thing)". We don't even need to look at other Niven works, but if we do, we find the same practice there.
(3) There is no reference in canon to "a Kzinti" (no noun attached). Ultimately, what you're advocating for is making one assumption unsupported by canon, which happens to go against production intent, over making another assumption unsupported by canon, which happens to be directly indicated by that intent. I don't understand why you feel the former is the better assumption for Memory Alpha to make. If we want to make no such assumptions, we should simply stick to using "Kzinti" as a plural or an adjective, and never refer to either "a Kzinti" or "a Kzin". And that's the practice I recommend we follow, outside of the specific cases below:
(4) The identifier given to the unnamed-in-canon Elysian councilor in production materials is "Kzin". The identifier given to the unnamed-in-canon Fourth Kzin and Fifth Kzin is "Kzin". These particular individuals can and should be referred to as such on Memory Alpha under the resource policy. Why not? It does not go against canon, and it conforms perfectly to policy, from what I can see. What is the problem? --Side Rat (talk) 11:17, September 5, 2016 (UTC)
- (1) Why are you continually trying to misapply real-world naming format to the fictional universe of Star Trek?! Clearly, in Star Trek, if there was such a thing as "a British spacecraft" and the word "British" didn't have its real-world national identity in Trek, then yes, the singular form of the species name would most likely be "a British"! As has been pointed out on this page, we see that sort of thing again and again and again in Star Trek (for example "a Klingon spacecraft" relating to "a Klingon" and "a Vulcan spacecraft" relating to "a Vulcan"). As has also been pointed out on this page, "Kzin" is the actual name of the planet.
- (2) Sorry, but for in-universe info on MA, we use canon info if it clearly establishes one thing ("a Kzinti" in this case), even if that contradicts script info.
- (3) Need I remind you "A Kzinti spacecraft" is a canonical statement? In fact, "Kzinti" is the only canonical form of the species name, with "Kzin" never used at all on-screen. Therefore, imo, what I'm ultimately advocating for is making one assumption very much supported by canon, disregarding production intent which you yourself have admitted is contradictory.
- (4) "The problem" is your stubborn attempts to strong-arm your minority opinion over the rest of the community and harping on about this for ages. What's also problematic here is that, if we were to adopt the practice of using "Kzin" as the singular form, it would lead us, as per our policies and guidelines, into naming this whole page "Kzin" (remember: it's the namespace "Vulcan" we use rather than "Vulcans", and "Klingon" rather than "Klingons"). Thus, we would end up using an entirely non-canon term to name an entire page (and a relatively long one at that!) Conclusion? Best to use the canon term, the only canon term, in all instances: "Kzinti". --Defiant (talk) 11:52, September 5, 2016 (UTC)
"Strong-arming my minority opinion"? I am simply pointing out the facts. The facts are that canon never used Kzinti as a singular term, and the reason why it never did so is because Larry Niven invented a different one for that purpose, as evidenced by the TAS production materials and moreover by his other works. I think you will find the opinion that Kzinti is a singular term is in fact the minority one if you look...well, just about anywhere but right here. I'm not even sure it's truly a minority opinion here at this point! You and perhaps Sulfur seem to be the only ones continuing to espouse it despite the evidence.
The fact that many species names follow a pattern of the adjectival and singular noun form being the same is not remotely any sort of indication that they all do without exception, in the Star Trek universe or in any other. And the script for "The Time Trap" explicitly gives us a list of species names in the singular form, including those ones you cite ("Klingon, Tellarite, Kzin, Orion, Andorian, Vulcan, Human, Gorn...") clearly indicating that "Kzinti" is not the appropriate one in that context. References to other individual characters in "The Slaver Weapon" script show the same thing.
I began this discussion saying I think the page should be called Kzin (species); I don't see what is so odious about that. Policy calls for singular species names in titles, no singular name is given in canon, one is consistently given in production materials upon which that canon is directly based...seems obvious to me. But oh no! We can't have that!
"Using the canon term, the only canon term, in all instances" should also mean using it the way it's used in canon, which is never "X was a Kzinti", "this Kzinti was..."; that is Memory Alpha's made up usage based on nothing in canon, and flouting production resources that are not contradicted by anything in canon.--Side Rat (talk) 14:08, September 5, 2016 (UTC)
- Perhaps I should have been more specific; by saying "strong-arming [your] minority opinion", I was referring to your numerous page edits where you've changed "Kzinti" to "Kzin" despite multiple admins asking you not to. And no, you're not just "simply pointing out the facts." You make it seem oh so innocent, when really you keep tainting the facts to your own particular bias, and even trying to bend the truth to fit your will. Case in point is when you attempt to claim, "The facts are that canon never used Kzinti as a singular term." On the contrary, "Kzinti" is used canonically as a singular term, in "a Kzinti spacecraft", and is the only singular term used canonically for the species. The fact you want to ignore and dismiss that doesn't make it non-canon; it's there, it happened, so best you can do is face that fact (and it is an actual fact, unlike your false one). Also, when will you ever get used to the fact (again, another true one) that canon trumps script references for in-universe info? I even also find fault with you stating, "The fact that many species names follow a pattern of the adjectival and singular noun form being the same is not remotely any sort of indication that they all do without exception, in the Star Trek universe or in any other." Actually, afaik, all indications in Star Trek are that species names always follow a pattern of the adjectival and singular noun form being the same. Therefore, to assume otherwise is purely speculative. In conclusion, I urge you to stick to the actual facts. --Defiant (talk) 14:42, September 5, 2016 (UTC)
It is completely untrue that I have repeatedly changed the article when asked not to by admin. Sulfur initially said (and this was moreover before new evidence came to light from the "Slaver Weapon" script from GSchnitzer, before I quoted the actual dialogue from the aired episode directly, before I directly quoted the line from the "Time Trap" script that gives clear context of other known singular species names) that "The councilor should be referenced as 'Kzin', with a BG note indicating the source of said name." I still don't see how that was supposed to be read as "the councilor should be referred to as 'a Kzinti' in the article" even if Sulfur's own edit today of the page (which I have not altered) now seems to suggests that. And what other admin has been involved other than Sulfur? There is a specific provision in the resource policy for characters who are not named in canon (which applies to the councilor, to Fourth Kzin, and Fifth Kzin) to be named in articles as they are in the script or other valid production resource. And no, it is not a fact that "a Kzinti spacecraft" makes it canon that one individual of the species is called "a Kzinti"; that's not how grammar works. An adjective is an adjective, a noun is a noun. In any given case, they might be the same, or they might not be.--Side Rat (talk) 15:01, September 5, 2016 (UTC)
- Got to say I fundamentally disagree with that entire post. And stop trying to shoehorn real life grammar into Star Trek, please. --Defiant (talk) 15:08, September 5, 2016 (UTC)
- As for the posts of the other admin, I was referring to the posts made by Alan del Beccio. --Defiant (talk) 15:17, September 5, 2016 (UTC)
Ah, I overlooked that Alan is indeed an admin. However, he never asked me not to do anything that I subsequently did. I didn't change the page again until today, and I changed it in what I believed was complete accordance with exactly what was stipulated by Sulfur's earlier resolution. I called the councilor what he was called in the script, and put a BG note directly under the reference indicating the source of the name. As I see it, it was you who were not in accordance with that resolution in your edit immediately after it was issued. But I did not edit-war with you, I waited until I had further relevant information to add to the article to change it back, and made sure to meet Sulfur's stated requirements in doing so. I still don't see why he/she has now changed it back, but I certainly haven't done anything further with it since that.--Side Rat (talk) 15:40, September 5, 2016 (UTC)
Shot of Final Draft script page showing characters' names. Note the "Fourth Kzin" and "Fifth Kzin."