Talk: Ni'Var

Name

Someone posted that the origin of the name was for a Sol planet once thought to exist inside Mercury's orbit. Not only is this not canon, I don't think anyone has remotely suggested this as the origin. It would make more sense to me that the planet was named after the Roman god of the forge, a hot unforgiving environment, particularly given the likelihood Humans will continue this practice in the early days of interstellar relations. Tfleming 20:11, 25 Dec 2005 (UTC)

The use of 'Vulcan' in this context would most likely have originated from the name of the god. However, the person who mentioned 'our' solar Vulcan does not deserve too much criticism - as can be seen from article linked above, the hypothesis was given considerable merit during the 1850s when it was first suggested to explain eccentricities in the orbit of Mercury (now accounted for by an improved understanding of gravitation). The article also points out, quite truthfully, that during the 1960-1970s the notion of Vulcan was enjoying a new revival. It is not unreasonable to assume that Gene Roddenberry could well have been influenced by this in choosing the name for Spock's planet. - Adaru 16:24, 01 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Canon Geology

I once contacted a Geologist about his take on the Geology of Vulcan. He recently got back to me with his observations. I was wondering is there anyway his professional observations straight from Star Trek Movies and Episodes can be integrated into Memory Alpha? I'm not in the prosses of having him clarfy a few things said, and won't post till then, I just need to know the policy on this.

If I understand this, Mount Seleya would have this added, "Mount Seleya was once a river bed that was later eroded by a glacier. Mount Seleya also shows signs of Volcanic Activity, The Temple itself is on the eroded neck of the Voclano, and the Alter is on a Vent." Something to that effect.

It does meet Canon requirements, it was all on screen. --TOSrules 22:30, Dec 26, 2004 (CET)

Well, no, Mount Seleya could have been formed by Preserver terraforming or Q. We really don't know canonically.

If you wanted to make a background information section, or a note outside of the POV, that might be acceptable as long as your facts were clear and stated so as to not mislead the reader, as the above text might if you included it. Also, spelling corrections: "Volcano," not "Voclano;" "Altar" is correct, the homonym "Alter" is not. Furthermore, American English does not capitalize any nouns except proper names. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 22:44, 26 Dec 2004 (CET)

I don't see how the Preservers would have anything to do with a Sargon Colony. Nor do I see why the Q would have any interest in changing the landscape. Thanks for the corrections BTW. Good guidelines on how to add such observations. --TOSrules 22:52, Dec 26, 2004 (CET)

Why were the TAS pic(s) removed from the page? The mix of live and animated images were creating a very rounded feel. Tyrant 00:34, 23 Jan 2005 (CET)Tyrant

Needs attention (obsolete)

Vulcan (planet). Article needs to be updated and expanded with information form Enterprise's Season 4. --BlueMars 19:50, Nov 30, 2004 (CET)

Quadrant

This page lists Vulcan is being in the Beta Quadrant. Is this canon. I always assumed it was in the alpha quadrant, epsecially since both "In the Pale Moonlight" and I believe "Home" mention Vulcan being extremely close to Earth (I think they said 7 lightyears in Home). Jaz 22:23, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC)

ENT gives a distance of 16 ly, which correspons exactly with 40 Eridani A. You can check whether that star lies in the Beta Quadrant. -- Harry 22:27, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Despite common the common belief, galactic quadrants are not actual scientific terms. They exist only in trek and other SF. It seems unlikely though that something only 16 ly away would be in another quadrant, even though Earth is the near the border. Is there anyone with a definite answer? Jaz 03:57, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC)

The border, whether fictional or real, has to be somewhere - and if this border happens to be located between Earth and Vulcan (planet), then those planets are in different quadrants even if they are only some lightyears apart.

However, we can't really know all this from canon sources. We don't know the exact location of Vulcan, and we don't know the exact location of the AQ/BQ-border. That's why I already tried to start a discussion about using the term Alpha or Beta Quadrant throughout. That discussion is probably located in one of the Ten Forward arhives at the moment. -- Cid Highwind 09:14, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC)

According to the Stellar cartography page, the border between the Alpha and Beta Quadrants is a line going from the galactic core and passing thru the Sol system. So, Earth isn't even in the Alpha quadrant all year. Alpha Centauri could easily be in the Beta Quadrant for all we know. I'm not sure of the canonical source for this info though, other than probably a tech manual somewhere.--Tim Thomason 09:41, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC)

UPDATE: According to the star chart from "Conspiracy" Vulcan is to the right of Sol, so that would put it in the Alpha Quadrant I believe.--Tim Thomason 16:03, 1 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Is that your right or mine? :P --Schrei 16:43, 1 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that chart doesn't even clarify whether you are looking at it from galactic north or galactic south -- and where on it does it mention alpha or beta? i'm not sure why you think there's so much insight in it -- i've told you before, the information just isn't there. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel^talk 14:24, 17 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Planet classification

Was Vulcan ever stated to be Class M? It seems more in line with Class H to me.. Nimbus III seems a lot more Class M than Vulcan ever has.. Skold 09:37, 17 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Amanda and Perrin lived a great deal of their lives there, so it's safe to say Vulcan can support Human life. Class H worlds can't. --Aurelius Kirk 09:57, 17 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I think there's some leeway in how hospitable a Class H planet is.. Two of the example ones were shown to just be deserts (like Vulcan) with people wandering around without much trouble. Two other ones had domes and were a lot worse off. So either Vulcan is one of the friendlier Class H planets, or the examples for Class H should be checked.. Skold 11:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I think most of the "examples" were not canonically referred to as being "class H". - which means we shouldn't add more assumptions to that by adding Vulcan to that list. If you want to check the classification pages, more power to you! This is something which is long overdue, I think. :) -- Cid Highwind 12:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

You're going to make me dig out a bunch of dvds, you know this.. :( Skold 03:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Water on Vulcan

How big are the "scattered small seas" on Vulcan and how frequent are they on the planet ? Are there also rivers and pocket forests on the surface of Vulcan ? How would Vulcan compare in terms of availability of surface water to other fictional "dry" planets capable of supporting life like Wayne Barlowe's Darwin IV from the Discovery Channel special "Alien Planet" ? – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.177.195.27.

None of those questions were ever answered on screen, at least not in canon Trek. --Jörg 18:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Satellite of Gas Giant Planet ?

Seen that on ST:The Motion Picture. The planet looked like a rendering of Jupiter, with some other satellites in orbit, and Vulcan was portrayed AS one of those satellites. Play the tape s...l...o...w...l...y to see that. You'll need the original tape. 205.240.144.226 20:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Length of a Day

What is the length of a Vulcan day? – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.34.60.14.

I don't think that is answered in canon. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 03:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Wilderness Preserves

In "Life Support" Leanne talks about wilderness preserves on Vulcan full of plants and animals, could this be mentioned in the article? TarEldar 15:08, September 19, 2009 (UTC)

Star Trek

Since Vulcan didn't appear in the film before the Narada changed the timeline, this Vulcan wasn't in that film; the other Vulcan was. Unless of course someone has a screenshot showing the contrary. - Archduk3:talk 18:49, September 22, 2009 (UTC)

I have to disagree with you here...events and some defining attributes of people changed (Kirk growing up without a father), and surely many people will never exist in the new timeline, but it's a bit much to think that the destruction of the USS Kelvin and the death of George Kirk changed the physical planet itself. People and events will have alternate histories, but the planet is the same rock. subsailor 02:17, February 10, 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to agree with subsailor, even though the planet could be radically changed in terms of just about anything you could think of: population, technology, locations, it even could have physically different characteristics if they were derived logically from the incidence of the alternate time line -- something like a war destroying a continent or the accidental leaking of a certain pollutant changing the color of the atmosphere and thus the image of the planet from space-- the planet is still (as subsailor so eloquently put it) "the same rock." ("The needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many" - James T. Kirk 20:57, September 22, 2010 (UTC))

Sector?

What sector is Vulcan in? It can't be Sector 001, but I have heard somewhere that it was Sector 008... Any canonical reference to this? (I could be wrong) --[[Ben10Joshua]] 10:37, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

I don't know of any canon reference - and if there was any, it would probably already be mentioned here. ;) The Star Trek Star Charts, on pages 18-19, show some of the sectors neighhbouring Sol. There, Vulcan is located in the "Vulcan Sector" a.k.a. "Sector 005" (as the fifth sector to be explored by humans). -- Cid Highwind 12:55, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

Speculation about the year

The background section contains speculation about Vulcan's year, but if we are to assume that Vulcan does indeed orbit the star 40 Eridani A, then it is actually possible to determine its year based on the size and luminosity of its star, and how far away from it Vulcan would need to be to remain habitable. SolStation has already worked it out: "The distance from 40 Eridani A where an Earth-type planet would be "comfortable" with liquid water is centered around 0.61 AU -- between the orbital distance of Mercury and Venus in the Solar System. At that distance from the star, such a planet would have an orbital period of almost 203 days, or more than half an Earth year." Seems pretty straightforward to me. Should it be added? Wratched 19:55, May 20, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but there's no guarantee that, in the Star Trek universe, the rules of the star system are the same. Therefore, it would be stating something not stated in canon (which is a no-no on MA). -Angry Future Romulan 19:57, May 20, 2010 (UTC)

The only way anything like that could be in the article is if Star Trek writers/producers have stated that they had such calculations in mind when they were writing/producing, or commented on it after the fact.--31dot 20:09, May 20, 2010 (UTC)

Roddenberry's comments, about Vulcan "seasons", the fact the 40 Eridani A (AKA: Keid) should yield a shorter year, and "discrepencies" in Vulcan history in Enterprise to me suggest that the Vulcan "year" or orbital period might be closer to 1/3 of Earth's or a "Vulcan season". So 2.8 Earth years being 9 Vulcan seasons, is really 2.8 to 9.0 orbital periods. This would mean P'Jem was colonized in the 12th Century CE, not the 9th Century BCE, after the "Time of Awakening", and possibly even after the "1500 years" mentioned by Soval; also the Vulcan calender mentioned in Yesteryear would have began in 525 BCE. --Laboratory gnome 05:14, November 18, 2011 (UTC)

A Vulcan season might not be a quarter of a year. If it is actually half of a Vulcan year, then that makes 1 Vulcan year about 211 Earth days long, which is consistent with the habitable zone around 40 Eridani A. 99.110.181.41 05:12, August 6, 2013 (UTC)

"Unification II" and "Gambit, Part I"?

TNG: "Unification II" is included in the appearances list, yet I can't find it in the episode. Does anyone know where it can be seen in that installment? --Defiant 22:09, September 13, 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the same applies to "Gambit, Part I", as Vulcan doesn't appear to be in that outing, either. --Defiant 23:58, September 13, 2011 (UTC)

I think in Gambit Part I they only talked about Vulcan in reference to the Stone of Gol, though I can't recall at this moment. I think the same applies to Unification II- perhaps in reference to the Vulcan ships.--31dot 00:03, September 14, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah; for sure, they both appear to be references-only episodes. No appearances of Vulcan are even in the episodes' scripts. --Defiant 00:25, September 14, 2011 (UTC)

Speculations?

Okay, so, it seems to me that it's not okay for us to have a bg-segment on the article called "speculations", since we dont allow speculative comments on articles. this seg contains valid reference works information. They are "speculations" from our point of view because we consider only on-screen data to be "real data" and everything else is producers/reference works/writers speculating on what things might be if they were stated on screen, but as far as i know, everything in star trek is fiction, so just the fact that someone made up fiction is not really a solid case for calling it "speculation" when that source is a licensed product from the producers of star trek. so that is my reason for suggesting we use a non-biased segment title like "other reference works information" etc. --Pseudohuman 22:37, October 27, 2011 (UTC)

Something like that would solve my problem with the title you gave it: just "reference works", since it's obviously information from ref works rather than the ref works themselves. However, I don't see the problem with it being called "speculations", since every which way I look at it, that's what it is. I don't really see what you mean by calling it "biased" to use that name. --Defiant 23:33, October 27, 2011 (UTC)

"Speculations" sounds like it is just fan speculations- I know it's not, but it seems that way.--31dot 23:44, October 27, 2011 (UTC)

But then it wouldn't be in the bg info section, would it?! Is it too much to ask that users put 2 and 2 together to make 4? People shouldn't need every single little detail pointed out to them. --Defiant 23:57, October 27, 2011 (UTC)

Plus, if newbies are foolish enough and/or simply not acquainted enough with the formatting of MA layout, they can always check the content in that section. IMO, it's definitely clear enough. --Defiant 00:02, October 28, 2011 (UTC)

How about something like "Official speculations"? Would that help to clarify the situ more? --Defiant 00:06, October 28, 2011 (UTC)

I think its biased to state that an official licensed non-canon informational statement is speculative, when the source doesn't state that it is speculative. Lots of ref works fill in the blanks without the intention of being speculative about it such as the tech manuals for example. I stand by my suggestion that it is changed to "other reference works information". --Pseudohuman 03:20, October 28, 2011 (UTC)

I still find that title too problematic, as I find "miscellaneous speculations" to be too long a title (which was why I tried changing it to just "speculations", before that was contended) and "other reference works information" is even longer, as well as being unclear about its meaning (clarifying the meaning would result in something like "other information from reference works", though that is an even more obvious culprit of the too-long-for-a-title issue). I stand by my point that "speculations" refers to any notions posited off-screen, whether it be from an official or apocryphal reference work. That distinction is very clearly made here, IMO. I don't see an issue with "speculations" or "official speculations" as being the title. --Defiant 03:35, October 28, 2011 (UTC)

Why not just "miscellaneous"? That would work for me, though I like Pseudo's suggestion.--31dot 09:55, October 28, 2011 (UTC)

Split?

The Background section is now around 4/5th of the article. Should we split most of it to a real world pov article like "Establishing the planet Vulcan" or something like that? --Pseudohuman 00:48, December 11, 2011 (UTC)

I'm gonna oppose that suggestion (at least for the time being). I think the in-universe content just needs to be added to. I've been working on a references list, first. Additionally, there's still a little more info that needs to be added for the "spinoff" bg info (from the audio commentary for ENT: "The Forge" as well as John Eaves' blog, and possibly also Doug Drexler's). Once the in-universe info is filled out as fully and concisely as possible without being too wordy/superfluous, I'll be open to reviewing the situation again. --Defiant 02:30, December 11, 2011 (UTC)

While some of the studio models have been split off of their class articles, I'm not sure something similar is a good idea here, mainly because we're not discussing a "singular" object like a model, but everything involved with depicting the planet, including the sets, matte paintings, and the models. - Archduk3 01:11, February 29, 2012 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Defiant that, if there is more information to add, we should wait until it is added before any decisions on this. --31dot 01:20, February 29, 2012 (UTC)

It turns out that adding such info is not as easy as I thought. It seems to me like a lot of the info that is currently in the "history" section should be removed, being much more relevant to other articles, such as the articles on Vulcan history and Vulcans themselves. Otherwise, I fear that the way it's been laid out will lead to a lot of repetition between the pages. --Defiant 13:36, June 3, 2012 (UTC)

I think the history-segment if rewritten, could basically collect info on what species evolved on the planet, what major changes occurred regarding the planets political station in the galaxy and list the times when the planet came under attack. I'm not bothered about repetition, as this page can sort of just collect the major stuff and not go into so much detail on those subjects as the other pages do. but mentioning every time some character mentions the planet Vulcan seems a bit pointless. --Pseudohuman 14:22, June 3, 2012 (UTC)

Well, for some references, yes. But there's a minor reference, for instance, in ENT: "Unexpected", with Trip asking if Vulcan grass is green, a question that goes unanswered. I think that, for example, could provide interest to the article, while also being a minor reference. I personally consider the planet's political allegiance to be completely irrelevant to this page, with it seeming much more relevant to Vulcan history and Vulcans themselves; it's only because of the Vulcans themselves that the planet has such allegiances. The majority of the animal lifeforms on the planet (sehlats and Le-matyas, etc.) probably don't give any thought at all to such Vulcan-relevant goings-on. --Defiant 14:56, June 3, 2012 (UTC)

Removed

The location of Vulcan on "The Explored Galaxy" star chart

In 2293, the location of Vulcan in the Milky Way Galaxy was labeled in a star chart that was in Captain James T. Kirk's cabin aboard the USS Enterprise-A. (Star Trek: The Motion Picture; Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, production art; VOY: "In the Flesh"; ENT: "Home")

This is relevant to the Vulcan system page.Throwback (talk) 14:04, July 19, 2014 (UTC)

Past or present tense?

The opening sentence of this article begins, "Vulcan was..." and throughout the article, the planet is referred to in the past tense. However, as far as I know, the planet Vulcan was never destroyed in the prime time line, only in the alternate time line. This article is about the Prime Vulcan. Shouldn't Vulcan be referred to as still existing? Stekev (talk) 23:28, March 12, 2017 (UTC)

MA:POV. --Alan del Beccio (talk) 23:30, March 12, 2017 (UTC)

Vulcan in Lethe

Is it really safe to say that planet from which Sarek takes off in Lethe is Vulcan? I don't think there's anything to establish that, the sky, while not unprecedented, looks atypical for Vulcan, and this very episode actually shows another Vulcan world that looks pretty much indistinguishable from Vulcan. -- Capricorn (talk) 17:39, October 23, 2017 (UTC)

Having rewatched the episode, I've noticed there's no on-screen evidence to prove whether the teaser footage you refer to or the flashback graduation planet is the planet Vulcan or a Vulcan colony. So, I then considered what the production personnel have to say about this. As far as I can see so far, the closest we have is this twitter post naming Vulcan as the graduation planet: [1] However, I have no idea if Anthony Oliviera actually worked on the episode or was just an observant bystander, so I'm looking further into what the production staff have to say about this issue and will let you know. --Defiant (talk) 03:21, October 24, 2017 (UTC)

Capricorn, what elements of the other planet make you think it could be Vulcan? Here is an image of the planet and its moon. [2] Personally, I am not seeing it. It looks a larger version of our moon or Mercury to me. I just checked the Star Trek: Star Charts (pp. 22, 58). which is being used as a source for this series. In the book, the inner planet T'Khut was of the same class as Mercury, so the artist or artists might have been instructed to make a Mercury-like planet.--Memphis77 (talk) 03:50, October 24, 2017 (UTC)

I have it on good authority (now) that the graduation flashbacks are intended to be on the planet Vulcan. --Defiant (talk) 22:12, October 24, 2017 (UTC)

I initially misinterpreted the graduation site as the seventh moon of Eridani D (took me three views to figure out that that wasn't true), hence my talk about another Vulcan world in my initial comment. Good to hear that there's cause for establishing it as being on Vulcan. However, what about the scene in which Sarek sets off? -- Capricorn (talk) 16:20, October 25, 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I've confirmed that's meant to be Vulcan too --Defiant (talk) 23:33, October 25, 2017 (UTC)

Ah, very cool. I don't suppose you could integrate this confirmation in the article? -- Capricorn (talk) 16:33, October 26, 2017 (UTC)

How do you propose we do that (aside from, of course, listing "Lethe" in the "appearances" list)? --Defiant (talk) 21:36, October 26, 2017 (UTC)

When you said you've confirmed things, I was assuming you had some kind of citable source. Or at least "x confirmed this in a mail" or something. Anything to make clear within the article that this isn't just the unexplained assertion of whoever added the info. -- Capricorn (talk) 17:32, October 30, 2017 (UTC)

I'd prefer not to publicly disclose my sources, as this information comes from private messaging. --Defiant (talk) 19:39, October 30, 2017 (UTC)

Seriously, what other planet should this be? Let's try not to be MA/de here... --Jörg (talk) 19:44, October 30, 2017 (UTC)

A Vulcan colony world, like for example one with moons ;). But seriously, Defiant, I appreciate your position, but is there absolutely no way around this? Information needs some kind of source... even stating that it was confirmed by a production member who wishes to remain anonymous, a la this, seems infinitely preferable. Or maybe you could ask Tom for advice, I'm sure he's come upon this kind of situation before. -- Capricorn (talk) 23:40, October 30, 2017 (UTC)