Planet name Edit

Since Charles "Trip" Tucker makes a reference, in the script of ENT: "Desert Crossing", to "that Vulcan monastery on P'Jem," I suggest this undeniably, finally establishes the planet's name as P'Jem, as well as the monastery itself being called that (the latter first established in "The Andorian Incident"). --Defiant (talk) 10:31, October 23, 2015 (UTC)

Since there are repeated references to the "sanctuary at P'Jem" (both in script and screen sources), I suggest we create the page about the planet at P'Jem, with the page about the monastery at either P'Jem (monastery) or P'Jem (sanctuary). Alternatively, the former article could be at P'Jem (planet), with a disambiguation page at P'Jem. What's preferred? --Defiant (talk) 11:11, October 23, 2015 (UTC)

Undeniably, Finally, Non-canonically :p But seriously, unless I'm understanding this wrong you're suggesting taking info from a cut line? Its not quite the same as taking a character name from credits, or taking it from an interview where the writer explicitly says: "we didn't got around to mentioning it, but that planet is named x". For all we know that line was cut intentionally because calling the planet what the monastery was previously called was deemed an error or confusing. There's a good reason deleted scenes are inadmissible as evidence....-- Capricorn (talk) 06:13, October 24, 2015 (UTC)

But there's nothing in canon to dispute this idea that the planet is called P'Jem. Plus, we use omitted production material lots on MA. For example, see Category:Unused production material. I don't understand how anyone could dismiss this line as evidence, especially when there's nothing in canon to contradict it. In fact, I strongly believe that, judging by the canonical references to "P'Jem" alone, it would be hard to prove that the actual monastery was called P'Jem rather than the planet. For instance, Archer mentions the "sanctuary at P'Jem" and there's talk of him having found P'Jem in Vulcan starcharts. Why would he be more likely to find one little building rather than a whole planet in star charts?! So, proving the monastery's called P'Jem instead or as well as seems a far harder task than saying the planet's called that, imo. --Defiant (talk) 07:04, October 24, 2015 (UTC)

There's a valid argument that can be had about if the planet is called P'Jem or not, but in no way should deleted content have any weight in that discussion. That's what being non-canon means: as far as the "real" universe is concerned the statement just utterly does not exist. And make no mistake, the fact that we document unused production material does not mean that that is a kind of second rate or grey zone canon that you can work with if you're in enough of a fix that you're willing to squint. It merely means that apart from the Star Trek universe we also document certain categories of production related stuff. Due to its nature it look a bit like in-universe info, but the articles there are a fundamentally diffent thing. Our policy permits us to use non-canon names as a sort of placeholder for convenience's sake in a number of cases, but this is not one of those situations, and I think that makes sense. Because, look at it this way: that script is efectively an alternative version of the story, and any difference between it and the aired episode (i.e. canon) was presumably the result of someone making a reasoned decision to change it, deciding that for whatever reason the line should not make it in the episode. Even if the scene was just trimmed for time, it was the production staff deciding that the episode should not contain a line establising P'Jem as a planet, and canon wise that's the end of it.
As for the question if the planet is called P'Jem, I think that leaves us exactly where we already are: we don't know for sure the planet was named P'Jem, and so can't state it. It's too bad, but it's the only valid conclusion. Me, I would suspect that P'Jem is both what people call the monastery as well as the the region or planet it was located at, and I think the conversation it was first discussed in in particular makes more sense if it's a region rather then a planet, but ultimately its just not certain, so... can't be helped -- Capricorn (talk) 18:31, October 24, 2015 (UTC)

As I've already stated, I'd be inclined to dispute that we "don't know" what the planet was called, even if based on canon evidence alone. The fact of the matter is that deleted line just adds to the huge amount of evidence that the planet was intended to be called P'Jem. That is undeniable, regardless of whether you deny the obvious validity of the scripted quote or not. --Defiant (talk) 19:21, October 24, 2015 (UTC)

If you think there's an argument to be made for renaming the planet based on canon, by all means present it. That would be a perfectly valid discussion to have. (maybe it would be cleaner to start a new section for that though). My beef is solely with the script info: I get the impression you are fundamentally misunderstanding the added value of a non-canon line to such a discussion: it is ziltch, it does not obviously or undeniably add to anything to do with canon one bit. Cut stuff does not have some reduced but nonzero value compared to stuff said on screen, it's not canon and therefore has zero value in any arguments based on canon. And it does not illustrate writer's intent either, at least not about what the finished episodes were supposed to be about: it just illustrates that at one point writers planned to imply P'Jem was a planet, but for unclear reasons the plan got changed and we got a slightly different version of the Star Trek universe on our tv compared to the one envisioned in that script. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Capricorn (talk • contribs).
Quite frankly, that information, buried in a script shouldn't be treated that differently than any other script note otherwise deemed valid. Even if it is a deleted line from what appeared on screen, in the end, it's still a notation in a script from a primary source defining something that was meant, desired or intended, but not overtly stated. --Alan (talk) 18:10, May 8, 2018 (UTC)

Age Edit

The monastery was nearly 3,000 years old in 2151, so how was it built in the 9 century BC? ( 15:32, September 25, 2016 (UTC))

Well, if you subtract 3,000 years from 2151, you'll end up in 848, which is smack in the middle of the 9 century BC. -- Capricorn (talk) 21:31, September 25, 2016 (UTC)