Temporarily removed from articleEdit

Remans, a subspecies of the Romulans

Was this really said anywhere? I'm sure it wasn't during the briefing scene in Nemesis, so I think this is just speculation. If it is canon, though, it should appear on "Reman" instead, anyway.-- Cid Highwind 22:44, 26 May 2004 (CEST)
I can't remember a reference from the movie (someone with the DVD?). But I can tell you that Westmore created the makeup being non-humanoid and non-vulcanoid according to the interview in Star Trek Communicator #142. Though I'm no expert in Biology and evolution: to me it appears to be quite impossible that the Remans could be a subspecies of the Romulans.-- Kobi 19:47, 27 May 2004 (CEST)
A lot of the History section seems to be somewhat non-canon. The only detailed information we have comes from Star Trek Nemesis which I only watched again the other day, and that mentions very little of this.
I agree, the History here feels made-up. I've posted a similiar comment over on Talk:Reman --Steve 00:17, 5 Jun 2004 (CEST)
You're right. i've already fixed that... --BlueMars 00:33, Jun 5, 2004 (CEST)

Binary planetary system? Edit

My question regards the following passage:

Romulus and Remus form the so-called "binary planetary system". Remus, though definitely a planet, acts as a moon of its sister, Romulus. Romulan scientists believe that there was an astronomical event in the past of their planetary system that caused Remus to leave its orbit and shift towards Romulus, taking a new orbit around it. Thus Remus is turning around Romulus, and at the same time is turning around its star following Romulus' course.

What is the source of this? As far as I knew, Remus was an entirely seperate planet from Romulus. Even if I am wrong about that, when have we heard these theories from Romulan scientists? Was this from deleted scenes or unused script material in Nemesis? If that is the case, should that not be noted, as that would make it non-canon? --OuroborosCobra talk 02:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I am removing the section, as Nemesis establishes that Remus is a seperate planet, with a seperate orbit. --OuroborosCobra talk 05:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Romulan system map

Graphic from Nemesis showing seperate orbits

Phase IIEdit

I only recently heard about Star Trek Phase II and the the plan for two worlds and castes within the Klingon Empire. It seems to me that alot of the relationships between the two planets and how they view each other possibly was taken from this early klingon view.-- Andorian sushi 15:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Star TrekEdit

Remus - destroyed? Maybe - shockwave could have been in a different orbital plane than Remus was in at the time, which is speculation anyway, or a thousand other things. See: Praxis explosion. Quite simply, we don't know the shape of the shockwave of the exploded star and therefore it's possible that Remus wasn't destroyed. - Archduk3 21:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC) with excerpts from Morder

Basically...there's no proof and we can't infer it was as there is a canon example that might save it, therefore we can't say for certain it was destroyed.. — Morder (talk) 22:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I believe we need to remove this article from the Star Trek (XI) hidden categories page since there is no reference to Remus in the new movie. --Jh9594 19:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
There is a background note which has spoilers on the new movie, even if not directly stating anything about Remus, in this article. --OuroborosCobra talk 19:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Status of Remus Edit

We don't know whether Remus survived the destruction of Romulus or not. Indeed, it might seem most likely that a shockwave capable of destroying one planet in the system would also destroy others, at least those in nearby orbits; however, to say that it was or was not destroyed is speculation. I think the best thing to do is to put the entire article into the past tense, leaving its "current status" ambiguous. —Josiah Rowe 18:40, July 21, 2010 (UTC)

If it isn't in past tense, it should be, as that's the policy. :) --31dot 18:43, July 21, 2010 (UTC)
I know this is an old talk topic but looking at the picture of Romulus' destruction you can clearly see a 2nd planet being destroyed before Romulus was destroyed also if you look close you can also see the small moon (located on top of Romulus), since Romulus has always been shown to have 2 other "planetary bodies" in orbit around it (a moon,and Remus) and unlike the "Shockwave" that Praxis gave off, this was a SUPERNOVA the sun grew larger and larger destroying the Romulian star system not just one planet the sad fact is Remus is gone as well Chasemarc (talk) 11:41, March 14, 2013 (UTC)
Actually, you may have just confirmed that the planet closest to the sun was destroyed (see the graphic 2 sections above), not Remus, since Remus is farther from the sun than Romulus. This is the best case yet for Remus to also be destroyed, but it's not conformation either. - Archduk3 (on an unsecure connection) 16:22, March 14, 2013 (UTC)
Romulus appeared to have two moons in the night sky based on TNG. My guess is that these were them. --Pseudohuman (talk) 19:22, March 14, 2013 (UTC)
no Romulus has two planetary bodies in the night sky, in Star Trek: Nemesis one of those bodies was shown to be Remus the other was un-named, and as Archduk3 said above it is the best case yet that Remus was destroyed, it was a SUPERNOVA not a SHOCK-WAVE and it was going to wipe out all life in the galaxy per Spock (Prime) if it could wipe out all life in the galaxy you do not need to wait for a movie to tell you "oh by the way Remus was vaporized with ALL of the other planets in the Romulian Star System" look at the updated picture one is from Nemesis that points out the two planets are Remus (the far one) and Romulus (the one Enterprise is orbiting) then look at the 2nd picture from the SUPERNOVA in ST09 the 2 planets are located in the same place Chasemarc (talk) 20:01, March 14, 2013 (UTC)
We still don't know it was destroyed, even if it is likely. The images in each comparison could be from different angles, so it's hard to say they are in the same positions. 31dot (talk) 20:41, March 14, 2013 (UTC)

Real-world comparisons Edit

I removed the following real-world comparisons from the "geographical" section of the article:

  • Similar to the way that the moon orbits the Earth in the Sol system.
  • The situation may be compared to that of Earth and Venus, which is often called the Earth's "twin" because of its similar size. Romulus like Earth, with a quick rotation and a temperate environment; Remus like Venus, smaller, with an extremely slow rotation, and a harsh environment. The main difference, other than Venus being totally uninhabitable, is that Remus orbits farther from the primary star than Romulus, whereas Venus is closer to its sun than Earth.

Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 00:42, June 8, 2011 (UTC)

Location in the Beta Quadrant Edit

I believe that an encyclopedia should be consistent. For those items that were crafted by the art department, I interpret that there are three tiers. (There is a fourth tier, in which real world material is used. This material has its own set of challenges. This tier is not relevant here.)

Tier 1 - An example of this is the Sector Z-6 map. I can read the map clearly. The material in this map is considered canon.
Tier 2 - An example of this is the dedication plaque from the USS Enterprise-D. I can see the plaque in the episodes; however, what is written on the plaque, is illegible. I learn what is written on the plaque from an outside source. The material in this is considered canon.
Tier 3 - An example of this is the Grankite Order of Tactics (Class of Excellence) for Jean-Luc Picard. I can not see this award. I learned of its contents from an outside source. The material in this is not considered canon.

The question, as I interpret it, is, where is Romulus and Remus located? What is our source for the location of these bodies? There is a PADD that shows the location of the Romulan Star Empire. What tier does this PADD fall into? I believe that the PADD is a Tier 2 source. I can see the PADD on Picard's ready room on the Enterprise-E and I learned of its contents from an auction. For me, what is on the PADD is as canon as what is written on the dedication plaque.Throwback (talk) 05:07, August 10, 2014 (UTC)

Removed speculations Edit

I've removed several speculations from this article. Firstly, the episode TNG: "The Defector" was in the appearances list, with a bracketed note stating, "uncertain". There was also a note explaining, "In 'The Defector', two planetary bodies were shown in the Romulan sky, one of which might be Remus, which would make the other a moon of either Romulus or Remus. Alternatively, both might be moons." This almost-entirely speculative note was accompanied by an image: File:Valley of Chula, remastered.jpg, which had the speculative caption, "The sky over Romulus showing two planetary bodies, one of which might be Remus."

Another note I've removed stated, "In "The Aenar", two Romulan drone ships were seen departing a planetary body without an atmosphere, with Romulus being visible in the background. It remained unclear whether the scene was supposed to show Remus or merely another asteroid or moon. However, the final draft script of "The Aenar" referred to it as a Romulan moon." I suppose this is good to have (still) displayed here, on the talk page, but we probably shouldn't list this uncited note on the page itself. Anyway, it was accompanied by an image I've removed: File:Romulan drone ships near Romulus.jpg, which had the caption, "The two Romulan drone ships rising from what might have been intended to be Remus."

Lastly, I've also removed a theory that the Romulan and Reman cultures took certain pertinent names from Human mythology. The note speculated, "This would indicate that 'Remus' and names related to that one (such as 'Romulus', 'Romulan', and 'Reman') were names drawn from Earth mythology, not their own terms, which makes sense because the Reman/Romulan languages are different. There is ample precedent, as many peoples on Earth have called themselves by different names than those which others use for them." --Defiant (talk) 20:13, January 21, 2017 (UTC)