Retnax, not Retinax Edit

Hi, according to Star Trek Encyclopedia the drug is called 'Retnax V', without 'i'. Someone with the proper rights should move the article. Best regards, -- 17:58, September 17, 2015 (UTC)

This reproduction of the script spells the drug "Retinax". This reproduction of the script spells it "Retlax". This transcript of the film spells it "Retnax". On MA, scripts take precedence over both transcripts and the Encyclopedia, so it wouldn't be "Retnax"; the only question, then, is which version of the script is correct? -- Renegade54 (talk) 19:17, September 17, 2015 (UTC)
Whichever agrees with what was said in the film, with a bg note regarding other variants. --LauraCC (talk) 19:19, September 17, 2015 (UTC)
The problem is that it's not always clear what was said in the film, as can be seen by the transcript. -- Renegade54 (talk) 20:14, September 17, 2015 (UTC)
Hi, yes I know it's mentioned different in some transcripts, however I believe the Star Trek Encyclopedia by Michael and Denise Okuda is the canonical source here. Best regards, -- 12:59, September 18, 2015 (UTC)
This script, which I believe comes directly from published sources, has the word written as "Retlax". On that basis, I would vote for a rename to this spelling. --| TrekFan Open a channel 15:29, September 18, 2015 (UTC)
The scifiscripts above is also from an official source. And some of the bits in it suggest that it's a slightly later version than the st-minutae version. As such -- let's hold off on this for now, and I'll do a bit of research to see if I can get ahold of any better versions/etc, especially since the film was definitely not 'retLax'. -- sulfur (talk) 15:45, September 18, 2015 (UTC)
The dialog changes seem to suggest these are different generations of the script, rather then a case of a typo slipping in during their digitization. (and for sanity's sake you got to accept that these are all genuine scripts, rather then derivatives where tiny details were maliciously altered for some reason) Although common sense would suggest using the latest version (the one labeled revised final draft?), interestingly what to do in such a situation doesn't seem to be addressed in our policies. However, I think that if all else fails it might be ok to to use the Encyclopedia as a tiebreaker: it's pretty clear that the Okuda's were making use of scripts writing it, and if they used a certain version of the script, I think that can be interpreted as there being a "prefered" or "good" version. Shaky reasoning I know, but in the end it might turn out to be the best we've got. -- Capricorn (talk) 16:37, September 18, 2015 (UTC)