Two RigeliansEdit

Do we really need two pages for Rigelians? There's one race, called Rigelians and apparently similar to Vulcans in some unknown way, which was never seen. There's another race of sentient turtles, which was never called Rigelians on-screen. If we strictly followed our own guidelines, that second race shouldn't even be called Rigelian here, and for all we know those two could in fact be the same species - I think it might be best to keep the turtles on the one and only article about Rigelians. -- Cid Highwind 22:59, 20 Feb 2005 (GMT)

Were the turtle Rigelians mentioned in TMP script? If not that means they are not canon right? Does backstage info count? Rebelstrike2005 23:01, 20 Feb 2005 (GMT)
Behind the scenes has counted around here as long as I have followed and the two Rigelians have lasted this long without question. Otherwise we have a LOT of stuff to delete, if we are not accepting behind the scene inforation such as this. --Gvsualan 23:10, 20 Feb 2005 (GMT)

"Behind the scenes" information is not accepted unanimously, but this is not necessarily what I'm talking about. Even if we accept the turtle "Rigelians" (open for debate), we still can't conclude from that the existance of more than one species called "Rigelian". Rigelians were called "vulcanoid", but with Vulcans basically being humans with pointy ears and copper-based blood, and nearly every other sentient species in the universe called "humanoid", can we really presume that those turtles aren't vulcanoid? I don't think so... -- Cid Highwind 23:21, 20 Feb 2005 (GMT)

I believe this is the same case as the USS Yorktown article i worked on -- we can't prove that the Yorktowns were the same vessel, but we cant prove they were different either, so i list them in one article, under the simplest name, and put separate subsections for each uncertain ship (or species in this case) -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 03:25, 21 Feb 2005 (GMT)
Well from what I saw of the Rigelians in "Affliction" they really didn't appear to have the physique of a turtle. If so, they are going to have to do some esquisite make-up magic to fit a turtle face behind that. --Gvsualan 03:50, 21 Feb 2005 (GMT)
I don't know if that is an argument considering the way they have altered other alien make-up for ENT. I support keeping both of these on one page, now it comes back to the question I posed that spun this whole debate. here. Tyrant 04:17, 21 Feb 2005 (GMT)Tyrant
The makeup in ENT has not changed significantly enough to make your point valid, in my opinion. Also, having gotten a better look at the Rigelians in "Affliction" from various screen caps, they certainly don't have shells (if indeed the TMP ones had something of the sort) - and they definately lacks the "beak". If anything, and that is a big IF, they bare resembelance, at least from the shadows, to the Na'kuhl or Remans, superficially --> see: this file. Now if we want to play with the theory that there are two races native to Rigel called Rigelians, or perhaps the fact there may be more than one planet in Rigel that developed two types of "Rigelians", I, for one, cannot accept that these are supposed to be one in the same. --Gvsualan 06:08, 23 Feb 2005 (GMT)
The question, as I see it, isn't whether the Rigelians of Enterprise are the same as these Rigelians (clearly, they're not), but whether, given the on-screen evidence from Enterprise, we should still refer to these turtle guys as Rigelians at all. Yes, that's what Phillips & Fletcher called them, but since they weren't called that on-screen, we're left with a choice: either there are two completely dissimilar species, both called Rigelians, or the turtle-guys seen in TMP have another name. Despite the authorial intent of Phillips and Fletcher, I think Occam's razor favors the second explanation. I think that this page should either be deleted, or the note at the bottom expanded to indicate that the Enterprise Rigelians (named on-screen as such) may cast doubt on whether these turtles are Rigelians also. --Josiah Rowe 06:38, 23 Feb 2005 (GMT)
There being two species of Rigelian's is a distinct possibility, especially if they are from the same world, we have many Xindi afterall. My original point was that keeping both on the same page (with some rework) allows us to keep unclear references to Rigelian's open to either species. Tyrant 13:46, 23 Feb 2005 (GMT)Tyrant
I support the one page solution for the Rigelians, because by error the Saurians were named Rigelians in Fandom for quite a while. -- Kobi - (Talk) 14:46, 23 Feb 2005 (GMT)
The solution that seems to have worked is to have the "Rigelians" (with one "l") on one page and the "Rigellians" (with two "l"s) on this page. They appear to be different species to me, and there is nothing forbidding two species having similar names. As to including them at all, the revised canon policy permits this type of article (but it does need a notation as to it being non-canon). Aholland 05:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
That depends on the source for the spelling difference. Is it from a script or closed captioning or what? Anyone know? Jaf 00:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)Jaf
The script for "Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges", which I believe is the only "true" script available that references their name spells it with one "L". How is it spelled in whatever source references the "turtle aliens" with the similar name? --Alan del Beccio 01:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Is there one? Jaf 01:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)Jaf
RE: Aholland: There is of course the mess with Tarellians, Terellians, Terrelians, and Terrellians, all are apparently equally similar and equally confusing spellings for at least 3 different species, based on the various descriptions for "T-r-lians", so there is at least some support for the statement that "there is nothing forbidding two species having similar names." --Alan del Beccio 01:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Scratch that, there are two distinctly different looking species that carry the same name, Terrellians, to make up to 5 different species carring similar name spellings. --Alan del Beccio 01:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
The answer to the question as to the spelling is to look in the only source that exists for this alien: Fletcher and Phillips in The Making of Star Trek: The Motion Picture. It has two "L"s. Aholland 03:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect InformationEdit

The only information I know of for the Rigellians comes from the notes of Bob Fletcher and Fred Phillips, available for review in The Making of Star Trek The Motion Picture. There are significant differences between this article and those notes. There is nothing in the notes about them having outgrown their shells and being forced to manufacture new shells. There is nothing to indicate they are, in fact, Federation members; they could have simply been visiting. There is nothing to indicate they come from Rigel IV. There is nothing in the article to reflect, from the notes, that they "learned to walk upright. Range from five nine to seven feet and over." There is also nothing in the article about the two other functions of the attendants: to "serve" and "care" for them in addition to bringing food. Unless someone has a different citation for the notes, I believe the article needs to be modified accordingly. Aholland 05:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


Please see Memory Alpha talk:Canon policy regarding this article being labelled "non-canon" before making further changes. Aholland 06:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, about making the change earlier. I was under the impression that some of the info was actually canon (they did show up on-screen and looked like turtles). The Making of... stuff is technically "non-canon" according to the canon policy, but not the appearance on Star Trek: The Motion Picture. That section needs to be reworded somewhat and a citation in the article needs to be provided to TMP.--Tim Thomason 06:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

If the article was "unnamed Turtle alien" and merely said that they existed, you'd be right and that much would be canon. However, all the information about this species in the article is from notes that Phillips and Fletcher made up. I understand your point and will try to make the distinction in the article. Aholland 06:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Did the Rigellians really appeared on screen? If so, which scene is it? Where are they? KiTeLetZ 12:20, September 3, 2010 (UTC)


Turtles are reptiles, true. However, why are we making up stuff about them being reptilian when, for all we know, the "turtles" the Rigelliens are decended from are amphibians? Since they are not turtles from Earth, they could even be mammals or something else altogether. The point is since the sum total of our knowledge of this species is about four lines of truncated text, I suggest we simply stick to the notes as is and leave it be. I am removing the line, although if someone can point to other production material Fletcher and Phillips came up with that said they were reptilian, I'll be happy to see it back in. Aholland 03:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Beaked Aliens?Edit

It might be a jump but has anyone considered that the Unnamed humanoids (24th century) Beaked aliens from DS9 might be the same as these Rigellians? Feb 25th 2007 Andorian sushi

It is possible, but they are different enough that it is only speculation. It could not be said for sure. --OuroborosCobra talk 21:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

ENT script confirmation Edit

Just to clarify, I've moved the ENT: "Cogenitor" info here because the reference to the multi-gender species is spelled "Rigellian" in the final draft script of that episode. --Defiant (talk) 16:01, December 26, 2015 (UTC)

The article as it is know doesn't make much sense. The Rigellians as seen in Enterprise clearly aren't intelligent turtles. Either we have three species know called Rigellians/Rigelians or we assume that the writers of Enterprise didn't care much if they spelled the same species with one or two "l".

Are the intelligent turtles actually seen on screen and/or referred to in Star Trek: The Motion Picture? I've been thinking along the lines that that sentence is just supposition that someone's probably incorrectly included in the in-universe info, when it should actually be bginfo. --Defiant (talk) 23:38, August 15, 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty certain the turtle aliens were not named on screen. As for if they were actually seen, I always assumed they were but I'll be damned, it would appear they were not. That's actually great though, it means we can banish them to the background with an "another species with the same name almost appeared" type of introduction, and not have to deal with two canon species with the same name.
Though in other turtle news, the species info that is quoted in the background section mostly calls them Rigellian, but also calls them Regellian once (as in the blood worm). That might be a typo in either the magazine or by the person transcribing the text here.
Also, Defiant, I see you've moved the aliens from ENT:Demons here, while not moving the aliens of Affliction. Is that an oversight? Because the two still share a page at unnamed Unnamed Rigelians.
By the way, I don't suppose there's any way the Affliction aliens could be wearing the same makeup as the ones later seen in Demons? I can't say, I'm so bad at comparing makeup, but if they were, and they were spelled with a single L, then that might be a smoking gun indicating that the writers are just inconsistent in spelling their name, and the two pages might be merged into one. I mean, less then a year ago this page was exclusively about the turtles, and every other Rigelian was at Rigelian with one L. It's only since Defiant got his hands on Enterprise scripts that he started sorting different references by spelling and we ended up with two humanoid rigel(l)ian species. -- Capricorn (talk) 14:48, August 16, 2016 (UTC)

There's no oversight, regarding the scripted spellings. All references in the "Terra Prime" and "Demons" final final drafts are to "Rigellian", whereas all references in the "Affliction" final final draft are to "Rigelian". A big red alert would be going off in my head if the scripts showed the spellings are interchangeable, but they're clearly not, each of the 2 names spelled as consistently as possible. I've just been moving the pages gradually, in an effort not to create a big upheaval. As such, I was already well aware of the "unnamed Rigelians" issue. The make-up certainly doesn't look the same for the 2 species, as far as I can see. Having said that, the lighting of the aliens in "Affliction" is very dark, so it's not the easiest to tell what they look like. However, questioning if they look identical and how much so is always going to produce a subjective answer, whereas it's a fact the 2 names are consistently spelled differently in the final final drafts. So, let's go with what can be proven, alright? --Defiant (talk) 16:53, August 16, 2016 (UTC)

You can't see that the ones in "Affliction" and the ones in "Terra Prime"/"Demons" are the same in spite of the dark lighting? I think they indeed are. Look at the noses, and the distinctive triangular darker areas around the eyes are even visible if you look closely. IMO, we should have Rigellian and Rigelian link to the same page, with background notes about the variations in spelling among the various scripts, and including the saber-toothed turtles from TMP and the aliens described behind the scenes as "Rigels" from "Broken Bow" (who by the way I thought were supposed to be an updated version of the turtles, though I have no way of substantiating that). The arrangement as it stands makes no sense because, again, the "Affliction" and "Terra Prime" ones are clearly THE SAME. --Side Rat (talk) 08:00, August 17, 2016 (UTC)
Maybe it would be possible to contact Manny Coto, Mike Sussman or someone similar to confirm whether they (from Affliction) had the same makeup and were supposed to be the same species as in Terra Prime/Demons? Kennelly (talk) 08:21, August 17, 2016 (UTC)
Sure, that'd be good, yet I think the visual evidence (plus simple common sense; I think it HIGHLY unlikely they'd introduce two different species with identical-sounding names only a few episodes apart) is sufficient in this case.--Side Rat (talk) 09:00, August 17, 2016 (UTC)
I think how Defiant is handling things thus far is entirely the correct approach at least with the information we currently have. The two spellings should certainly not be merged without some kind of compelling evidence that they're the same. The makeup could be that, but we're not there yet. I doubt mr. Sussman still checks his talk page, but he's on twitter - don't you youngsters use that to contact your idols these days? ;). Or Tom might have the ability to contact the Affliction actors and quiz them on their make-up. Or, an entirely different avenue might be that the upcoming encyclopedia might conflate them.
Anyway, enough about the humanoids, but what about my idea to proposal to split of the turtle Rigellians? Even if we can't reach a conclusion on the others, that might be an useful thing to do. -- Capricorn (talk) 11:27, August 17, 2016 (UTC) p.s. try to be mindfull of idents everyone!

Thanks for your support, Capricorn. Guys, let's just wait for the Encyclopedia (in a couple months) and proceed from there. --Defiant (talk) 12:06, August 17, 2016 (UTC)

I can't believe the the Rigelian/Rigellian pages have been messed up on the basis of a minor spelling difference in the scripts. The Rigelians from Affliction and the Rigelians from Demons are obviously the same species. You can tell by their noses and brow ridges. You are only claiming that it's subjective to justify your theory that the extra L is referring to a separate species. Rigelian and Rigellian are interchangeable spellings of the same name. It's not uncommon for two different scripts to spell a word in two different ways, even if those scripts were written by the same writers. For example, the Future Tense script uses the spelling "Zephram Cochrane" while the Regeneration script uses the spelling "Zefram Cochrane". Both scripts were written by Mike Sussman and Phyllis Strong.
The TMP Rigellians are clearly a separate species. I propose that the pages be renamed Rigellian (humanoid) for the ENT Rigellians and Rigellian (turtle) for the TMP Rigellians or something similar to avoid confusion. I don't think the Encyclopedia is going to include the TMP Rigellians. NetSpiker (talk) 13:39, August 17, 2016 (UTC)
Were the "turtle" Rigelians even seen onscreen? The photo used here seems like a publicity photo to me and not an actual screencap. Kennelly (talk) 13:50, August 17, 2016 (UTC)
Maybe they were, maybe they weren't. There were a lot of blurry figures in the background of the air tram scene. It's the same with the K'normian and the Shamin. NetSpiker (talk) 13:58, August 17, 2016 (UTC)
That the extra L denotes a separate species isn't a "theory", it is basic caution. Not making guesses has been our policy when dealing with the many, many near-homophonous species the canon is rich and its the only practical way of doing things. (remember, apart from Rigellian and Rigelian, we also have Regellian and Regalian - where do you draw the line?). However, there can be strong evidence that two differently spelled names indicate the same thing, the Zephram cochrane thing is an example of that being the case. If the makeup between Affliction and Terra Prime is the same, then that would be one of a number of possible smoking guns making it very clear they are meant to be one species(I assume everyone, including Defiant, would agree on that), but tantalizing as that possibility is, I don't think we've clearly established that yet at this point in the discussion - all I see is some opinions.
Also re the turtles: 1) I personally really don't see anyone that could be them in the air tram crowd. 2) Surely we could do better then Rigellian (turtle) (both might be considered humanoids, and the turtle connection is not very evident, just derived from background sources). -- Capricorn (talk) 09:03, August 18, 2016 (UTC)
We don't have separate pages for Gardner and Gardener even though we have no proof that they are the same character. We also don't have separate pages for anestazine, anesthizine, anesthezine and anesthetine even though we have no proof that they are the same chemical. We don't need absolute proof because it's common sense. In the Rigelian-Rigellian situation, we should also go with common sense. NetSpiker (talk) 12:11, August 18, 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but we don't work from speculation (i.e., what you're mistakenly calling "common sense"). There's no proof (at least not yet) that the Rigellians and Rigelians were intended to be one and the same, so we don't consider them such. If you really want them to be linked so badly, you'll have to await proof, if there's any at all forthcoming. If not, accept that and move on. --Defiant (talk) 12:27, August 18, 2016 (UTC)

So you're saying we should have separate pages for anestazine, anesthizine, anesthezine and anesthetine? NetSpiker (talk) 12:49, August 18, 2016 (UTC)

Unless there's proof they're intended to be one and the same, yes. --Defiant (talk) 12:58, August 18, 2016 (UTC)

(1) The turtles were seen onscreen in TMP, no maybe about it. They are standing just east of the twin airtrams near the center of the screen in the wide shots of the tram station. The lord is facing the camera and his attendant is facing west, holding his staff just as in the publicity photos. They both remain visible (barring other characters passing or standing in front of them) as Kirk and Sonak come up the escalator, until the camera cuts from the wide shot to a closeup, at which point the attendant abruptly disappears, while the lord remains (just above Sonak's head) and continues conversing with (I think) a humanoid female. A much better selection of HD screencaps than at TrekCore can be found here.
(2) The proof that the "Affliction" Rigel(l)ians are the same as the "Terra Prime"/"Demons" ones is the screencap currently attached to the Rigelian article. The face may be shadowed, but the makeup is still recognizable. What's speculation is that the variation in spelling between the scripts means they are intended to be different species, who by some unbelievable coincidence were written with identical-sounding names, made up with the same features, and introduced two stories apart. That's what should require proof. From other examples pointed out (and others) we can see that such a difference in spelling between two scripts should not be taken by default to indicate that the scripts are referring to two different subjects.
(3) Both times "Rigellian" was used in TNG scripts ("The Schizoid Man"; "The Vengeance Factor") it was consistently pronounced onscreen with a hard "g" sound (identically to "Regalian" in "Final Mission" and "Regellian" in "Equinox, Part II" [VGR]). "Rigelian" on the other hand has always been pronounced with a soft "g" ("j") sound, which is the pronunciation used in both "Affliction" and "Demons," right? (It's not lost on me that we'll still have the same headaches to deal with in handling other instances of similarly-pronounced-but-differently-spelled species names, but when you peel away all these other distractions this case is as clear cut as the Zephram/Zefram Cochrane "issue" IMO.)
(4) I must say I don't get the "let's just wait for the Encyclopedia in a couple months" suggestion. As it is, in the course of those months, how many people will come here looking for information and leave with a mistaken impression of the facts as presented onscreen? Yes, the fact that the name was spelled differently in the two scripts should absolutely be noted in the article, and I thank and applaud Defiant for discovering it. But it's background information, IMO, not a proper basis for separating the "Affliction" and "Demons" aliens in-universe despite all evidence to the contrary. If anything, the suggestion of waiting should have applied in doing the splitting in the first place!--Side Rat (talk) 09:17, August 20, 2016 (UTC)
I still can't seem to spot the turtles on that screenshot, tbh. Some people that kinda look like them, but no one that seems to fit completely. Mind you, not that I don't believe you. But could you give more details about where they are? Though, even if they were seen, I still think splitting them of would be useful. What kind of support is there for that? I'd love to hear from Defiant in particular, because although he's been heavily involved in this discussion I've not read his opinion on that yet. -- Capricorn (talk) 11:03, August 21, 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm fine with that suggestion. --Defiant (talk) 11:15, August 21, 2016 (UTC)

I can't see the Rigellians in the film, either, and I've tried both consulting the screencaps posted by Side Rat, and actually watching the Blu-ray of the film myself. If they're there at all, they presumably look quite different from the image on this page. --Defiant (talk) 11:52, August 22, 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not the turtle Rigellians appeared in TMP or not, Side Rat's other point is still valid. The Affliction make-up and Demon make-up look the same so our default position should be that they are the same species unless it is proven otherwise. The current Rigellian article's first sentence says The Rigellians were a species of intelligent turtles, but the pictures to the right are obviously not turtles. You have to admit that looks like messed up article. It is extremely unlikely that the Okudas will make the conclusion that the Affliction Rigelians and Demon Rigellians are two different species, since the make-up is the same, the pronunciation is the same and the two stories were only a few episodes apart. So please revert the Rigelian and Rigellian articles to the way they were before. NetSpiker (talk) 12:55, August 22, 2016 (UTC)

No chance. And the makeups may look the same to you, but they don't to me. --Defiant (talk) 12:59, August 22, 2016 (UTC)

Even if we were to conclude these are only 1 species, that species would still be here, at "Rigellian", not at "Rigelian", because we go on what's most frequently used. There are thirteen uses of the name "Rigellian" in the scripts of "Terra Prime" and "Demons", whereas there are only seven uses of "Rigelian" in the "Affliction" script. --Defiant (talk) 13:06, August 22, 2016 (UTC)

One issue, in regard to the possibility of splitting off the TMP info, is precisely what to do about the info from "Cogenitor" and "United". I'm still fairly sure the turtle guys don't actually appear on screen in TMP, so I still think we'd get away with relegating all the info about them to this article's bginfo. --Defiant (talk) 13:13, August 22, 2016 (UTC)

I created a frame animation from the screencaps (with the publicity photos for comparison) so you can see the chelons in TMP better; you can view it here (hope that link works).
Defiant, would you be so good as to check the TOS/TAS scripts you have at your disposal to see how the name was spelled therein, because I happened to have my copy of Bjo Trimble's Star Trek Concordance out and I noticed that it uses Rigellian for things that the Encyclopedia uses Rigelian for, and Trimble claims to have worked directly from the scripts. Without having any scripts to examine myself, I'm wondering if maybe the two spellings were used interchangeably from the beginning, and she picked one while Okuda picked the other? Or did Okuda go with one because the other ended up being pronounced differently on TNG? I'm very late for bed now, so I will have to think on it more tomorrow. Anyway, I'm thinking it may not be so clear-cut as "Rigellian means this, Rigelian means that," even if the note in The Art of Star Trek regarding the turtle guys seemed to suggest such an arrangement to us initially. (I'm also waiting on a copy of Roddenberry and Sackett's Making of ST:TMP from a local library to see if this was actually suggested therein or something the Reeves-Stevenses interpolated from it.)
It still seems perfectly clear to me that "Affliction" and "Demons" show the same species, whether we decide they are more properly called Rigellians or Rigelians, and however we decide to treat the turtle people from TMP. I must sleep now, but I'll return to the discussion tomorrow, perhaps with further and more rested thoughts about the spelling/pronunciation issues and how to treat the pages. Good night all.--Side Rat (talk) 14:11, August 22, 2016 (UTC)

It still seems perfectly clear to me that the species from "Affliction" and the later two-parter are 2 different species. I've checked the script of TOS: "Journey to Babel". If someone could list the other episodes that are relevant, I'm all ears. --Defiant (talk) 15:16, August 22, 2016 (UTC)

Re what to do with the Cogenitor and United references in case of a split, I think the most logical (though maybe not completely satisfying) thing would be to leave them here. Remember, the aliens seen in TMP are technically not really called Rigellians. Canonically speaking, they're an unnamed species, we've just attached a label to them for the sake of convenience.
Regarding the question if the Affliction and Terra Prime makeup is the same, it seems we essentially have a deadlock here and are in need of more opinions, preferably from editors who have some experience looking at that kind of stuff. -- Capricorn (talk) 23:48, August 22, 2016 (UTC)
I thought it might be interesting to see which spelling the subtitles use. The United, Affliction and Demon subtitles all use the "Rigelian" spelling. The Cogenitor subtitles use the "Rigellian" spelling. The Terra Prime subtitles use the "Rigellian" spelling in the context of "Rigellian gene therapy". In contrast to the scripts, the subtitles always use the spelling "Zefram" for Zefram Cochrane. NetSpiker (talk) 02:57, August 23, 2016 (UTC)
Re scripts (rather than subtitles): So do I take it that "Journey To Babel" uses Rigelian, since that's where the reference is currently located? The other TOS references would be the fevers mentioned in "By Any Other Name" and "Requiem For Methuseleh" (for both Trimble uses Rigellian and Okuda uses Rigelian, which is what ended up onscreen in "Cold Station 12". Do I take it that the other ENT scripts all use Rigelian? "Unexpected"? "Dead Stop"? "Future Tense"? "Twilight"? "Broken Bow" does, that much I know.) Then there's the hypnoid in TAS:"Mudd's Passion", which Okuda of course doesn't cover. DS9 scripts seem to consistently use Rigelian (but occasionally conflict slightly in their pronunciation guides, with "Vortex" and "You Are Cordially Invited..." saying "ri-JELL-ee-an" whereas "Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges" says "RYE-jill-ee-an"). If I recall, Nimoy's pronunciatons vary and fall somewhere between the two. As already mentioned above, TNG always used Rigellian, but always had it pronounced "ri-GAY-lee-an", and confusingly later introduced Regalian with that same pronunciation, as did VGR later still with Regellian. The phrase "splitting headache" comes to mind, in more ways than one!;-)
To set aside the spelling/pronunciation issue for a moment, Defiant, what specifically do you see as being different about the appearance of the creatures from "Affliction" and "Demons"?
And in the spirit of not making assumptions, why should we assume that the aliens from "Affliction" are the same ones mentioned in "Journey To Babel", for that matter? We know that there are many planets in the Rigel system, and that their inhabitants include many distinct races who may or may not be endemic to them, and at least two of them are referred to as "Rige(l)lian". There is fairly specific indication that the ones mentioned in "Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges" are the ones from "Babel" because of the context (Tuvan Syndrome affecting mainly Vulcans, Romulans, and Rigelians). But there is no such specific link in other cases.
I do not see a reason for treating the turtles as unnamed. Our policy is to use names from production sources in cases where (1) they are given therein, (2) no name is given onscreen, and (3) there is no conflict with what is onscreen. And again, there is no contradiction or conflict in there being more than one race called Rigel(l)ians, since canonically there are multiple planets in the Rigel system that support life. (Incidentally, I have now checked Sackett and Roddenberry's The Making of Star Trek: The Motion Picture and there is no suggestion therein that the double consonant was specifically devised to be of significance in differentiating this species from the "Babel" Vulcanoids, as some have previously interpreted the Reeves-Stevens' note in The Art of Star Trek to indicate. All it mentions of them is what's in Fletcher's notes.)
Maybe what we should have at both Rigelian and Rigellian is a master disambiguation page that summarizes all the various appearances and mentions of species and objects referred to by either spelling, combining each set that we have good reason to think are the same under unique identifiers with their own pages, with a note at the top of each that links back to this master disambiguation page and says something to the effect that "this species may or may not be the same as one or more others referred to as Rigelian or Rigellian." For instance, the "Journey To Babel"/"Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges" references would have their main article at Rigelian (Rigel V), the TMP turtles would be at Rigellian (chelonian), the "Cogenitor" reference at Rigellian (multi-gendered species), and so on. In my opinion as contrasted with Defiant's the "Affliction"/"Demons" should be together, perhaps at Rigellian (Coalition of Planets member) or Rigelian (Coalition of Planets member) (whichever one we chose, the other would redirect there) but if the consensus ends up being they should be separate, then so be it. Discussion might yield different identifiers than those, but I think you get the general idea of what I mean.
This disambiguation page would include (listed by category) humanoid species (which would also have links to Kalar and a page for Rigel X inhabitants for instance), non-humanoid species (Rigellian ox, Rigelian hypnoid), ships (Rigelian freighter), objects (Rigelian chocolate, Rigelian flamegem, Rigellian phaser rifle), diseases (Rigelian fever, Rigelian Kassaba fever), and of course the star system and each of its planets as well. At the bottom under "See Also" would be: Regalian and Regellian blood worm because of their similar pronunciations to TNG's Rigellian.
The main question that would have to be settled by discussion would be how to treat the references that can't be readily lumped in with others by context and/or to which a unique identifier cannot be readily assigned. Some options would be (1) just put their information on the disambiguation page, (2) put them all together on an "assorted" or "uncertain" page, or (3) use episode names as unique identifiers. (Though I take it the last option would ruffle feathers because it isn't from an in-universe POV?)
Anyway, sorry to be verbose, just my thoughts. Peace and love to all, --Side Rat (talk) 07:32, August 25, 2016 (UTC)
Instead of worrying about which script uses which spelling, I think it's best to just wait until the Encyclopedia comes out. Then Defiant will see that he was mistaken and the articles will be reverted to the way they were before.
After that, we can rename Rigelian to Rigellian (humanoid) and rename Rigellian to Rigellian (chelonian). I like your "Rigellian (chelonian)" idea but I think "Rigellian (multi-gendered species)" and "Rigellian (Coalition of Planets member)" are too wordy. I think "Rigellian (humanoid)" is a better name for the ENT Rigellians. I know the TMP Rigellians have two arms and two legs, so they are technically humanoid too, but the ENT Rigellians are more humanoid (think about how the term Xindi-Humanoid was used to distinguish them from other Xindi species).
I'm not a fan of having half a dozen Rigellian pages with notes everywhere saying "this species may or may not be the same as this species". That would massively overcomplicate this situation. NetSpiker (talk) 09:35, August 25, 2016 (UTC)
Affliction Rigelian or Rigellian or whatever

Affliction Rigellian

To the right is another screenshot from "Affliction", that shows the facial makeup more clearly. That is definatly the same species as in Demons. I now think we should merge the pages. -- Capricorn (talk) 00:37, September 24, 2016 (UTC)
I think going by script spelling alone is a terrible idea because of one simple reason, to do so is to assume that the writers all conferred with one another and unilaterally decided this spelling means this species and the other spelling means another species, when the truth is: they didn't. --Alan del Beccio (talk) 02:42, September 24, 2016 (UTC)
Anyone else? -- Capricorn (talk) 14:39, September 30, 2016 (UTC)
Your screenshot proofs it without a doubt. So yeah, it should be merged again. 18:22, October 3, 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, great screenshot, Capricorn – far better than the one already here, which seemed to show them as having more accentuated reptile-like skin texture. I agree the articles should be merged again. Various Star Trek insiders, including the Okudas, have related to me that they're probably all meant to be the same species. So, the difficulty now is deciding where to merge them to: is one spelling more frequently used than the other(s)? I can't really remember. --Defiant (talk) 13:53, October 25, 2016 (UTC)

Did by chance one of those two spellings appear on a sign/viewscreen, maybe in one of the the Enterprise episodes? Kennelly (talk) 14:05, October 25, 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe so. --Defiant (talk) 14:15, October 25, 2016 (UTC)

Rigelian fever was seen spelled on screen. Not ideal, but as the only example as what something from Rigel is called it may be enough? -- Capricorn (talk) 00:05, October 27, 2016 (UTC)

Sorry; I was mistaken. When I asked the Okudas if the turtle-like aliens in TMP were meant to be the same guys as appear in ENT, they replied, "Thanks for the note. I don't think the question has ever been addressed definitively. That's an interesting question as Star Trek has shown a number of different inhabitable planets in the Rigel system." Due to ongoing obligations, the Okudas weren't able to address the issue when I asked them, commenting, "It would require a bit of study to look at everything that's been done to this point." To clarify, it's definite that the Rigelians/Rigellians in the ENT episodes were intended to be the same species as each other... but it's still unknown if they're meant to be the same as the turtle-like TMP aliens. --Defiant (talk) 08:28, October 27, 2016 (UTC)

Also, I would still argue that very little changing need take place (certainly nothing as drastic as merging the 2 pages). Precisely how the names of any of the Rigelian viruses are spelled is absolutely beside the point, imho, and I'd be inclined to suggest that the only change we should make would be to move the "Affliction" info (and image) verbatim from the "Rigelian" page to this article, with a bginfo note stating, "The final draft script of 'Affliction' spells the species name of these kidnappers with a single 'L', although their makeup is clearly identical to that of the Rigellians in "Demons" and "Terra Prime"." Ordinarily, I would make that change myself, in accordance with the MA guideline to "edit boldly", but since a lot of you guys have objected to similar changes I've made, I've decided to just suggest this idea. --Defiant (talk) 09:11, October 27, 2016 (UTC)

Are we even still debating whether the ENT and TMP aliens may be the same species? They look nothing alike, even taking the possibility of updated makeup in account. This is a case like Terrellian: same name but obviously not meant to be the same species.
As for if a complete merge is in order, I don't understand the reluctance. We now have evidence that both spellings were used when the same species was intended. If Affliction calls someone a Rigelian, and there are other mentions of Rigelians, why not sort them together? Trying to not make assumptions doesn't do it as a reason anymore at this point, because saying that those Rigelians from TOS etc were different from a species known to be spelled the same is just as much of an assumption. The only really clean option at this point would be using the scripts to argue that the Demons and Affliction aliens are different species even though they look the same - but I hope we can all agree that's a bit too absurd.
Defiant, you rejected using the spelling of Rigelian fever, which is fine, it was just an option I wanted to highlight. But that leaves us back at your question which spelling was used the most, and given the availability of some of the scripts I think you're going to have to answer your question yourself. -- Capricorn (talk) 21:29, October 27, 2016 (UTC)

As I said, I'm utterly opposed to a full merge. --Defiant (talk) 00:42, October 28, 2016 (UTC)

I checked the Encyclopedia. They use Rigelian, even when it conflicts with the script, as in the case with "Cogenitor". Entry for Rigelian is on page 223 of the second volume.--Memphis77 (talk) 07:19, October 28, 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I found that out too. I guess that proves the 2 spellings were indeed meant to be interchangeable (sigh). --Defiant (talk) 08:57, October 28, 2016 (UTC) Btw, I've also noticed that spelling is additionally used (for the species) in the script of Star Trek: The Beginning. --Defiant (talk) 09:05, October 28, 2016 (UTC) In fact, "Rigelian" comes up with substantially more results in a search of the bginfo archive than "Rigellian" does, so I reckon we should merge back to there. Sorry for the rigmarole, folks. --Defiant (talk) 09:21, October 28, 2016 (UTC)

The two pictures of the ambassadors that are shown in this page are not Rigellian, they are Rigelian, from the same solar system but not the same planet.
This page contradicts this page. Not only that but if you look at them, they are clearly a different species. They don't have a beak, there skin is far more mammalian, whereas Rigellians are reptiles.
--Noah Tall (talk) 15:59, June 5, 2017 (UTC)
Yes, see all of the above. We more or less on agreement that the modern species ought to be on one page, at Rigelian to be specific, with less clarity as to what would happen with the tmp turtle species, though I suppose those would logically stay here treated as a separate species. However, no merge has happened since, I would guess because it's pretty daunting. -- Capricorn (talk) 22:12, June 5, 2017 (UTC)