Talk:Efrosian

the article consisted solely of: "Named after makeup artist Mark Efros." Dead-end sub-stub, I'm deleting until there is useful content. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 21:08, 16 Jan 2005 (CET)

Blindness

Could blindness be a feature of the Efrosians? Looking at the one in Star Trek IV it looks so and Nicholas Meyer stated that the Efrosian Federation president was blind as well in the Star Trek 6 DVD commentary Rebelstrike2005 00:03, 12 Mar 2005 (GMT)

I don’t think so; the Efrosian who appeared in Star Trek IV didn’t seem to be blind. And so if for some reason Efrosians never required sight during their evolution, then they wouldn’t have evolved eyes in the first place. User: Pheon 17:52, 22 July 2005 (GMT)

The Efrosians first appeared in ST:IV which N. Meyer was not involved with. There was no indication they were blind. One served as an starship helmsman. Nor does Kirkwood Smith appear to be portraying a blind person in ST:VI. I would would say Mr. meyer is mistaken, being ironic and searching for something to say during his commentary.--24.84.40.210 00:44, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)

• It could indicated basic light perception, not necessarily full blindness. Maybe a subterranean species? Jaf 05:46, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC)Jaf

Priest?

This page shows an additional Efrosian that supposedly appeared in ST4. I do not recall seeing him, but I seem to remember him being in the FASA sourcebook and described as a priest.--StAkAr Karnak 02:29, 28 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Species Name?

What is the resource basis for the name of this race? I cannot find it in either film cited. Is it only in the game material the Star Trek IV Sourcebook Update? Aholland 01:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The names of the Star Trek IV species are derived from the makeup department notes (which were in turn used to name them in the sourcebook). So, the names originate behind-the scenes at the studio, but were not used in the film itself. The game book uses those names, but is not the original source. -- Captain M.K. Bartel^talk 04:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

That would then make the names "Restricted Validity Resources" under the new canon policy, and would be okay for an article like this given its nature. But one thing: how do we know they were makeup department notes? Did the Sourcebook reveal its - so to speak - sources? Aholland 04:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't have the proof that you seek, but this is what i learned about the species name 10 or so years ago (on the message board/irc chat scenes, '97/'98 or so). I think the correlation between Mel Efros (a producer) and "Efrosian" was how i came to trust the information, but we'll need to dig deeper to find someone who actually knows. -- Captain M.K. Bartel^talk 04:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Just checking back in; anybody have a resource for this name that we can point to other than gaming material? Aholland 03:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid this might take substantially more time. This is the kind of reference that was probably read out of an old fan magazine, or worse, a more obscure type of reference like a piece of background production artwork in a private collection. We do have a solid lead, in that there is supposedly a person named Efros who worked on the film. It seems likely, if they were naming things behind the scenes, that it would be named for a behind the scenes source. We have accepted data like this in the past (for example, Worene was referred to as such by the actress who played her, and this was documented in daily staff sheets on the film production where her part was referred to as such, even though the various names there never got into the script.. they were reprinted by secondary sources later (just as the STIV aliens names were printed in a game book, that publication was given the data from the studio sources who provided them photos and info on the makeup effects).

I'm not sure how to get that kind of research done given my current resources, but i wouldn't recommend moving or changing this article in the mean time. -- Captain M.K. Bartel^talk 03:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, we'll give it some time for someone to come forward with something before suggesting anything drastic. But for purposes of the article I'm sure we will end up needing some kind of appropriate cite for the name beyond what currently exists here. Aholland 04:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for being so generous and giving us archivists permission to work on this, sir. -- Captain M.K. Bartel^talk 12:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for adding that to the article Cap't Bartel. But in addition to saying that it was named after someone, can you add the permitted resource for that information to the end of the statement as a citation? That's all I've been looking for. Thanks! Aholland 12:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I think we're getting a weeeeee bit ridiculous now, IMO. It's a well-known fact that the Efrosians were named after Mel Efros. I respect the quest to find the source of this information (anybody try the STIV commentary or the backstage notes?), but in this case, it's just obvious common sense. And if you look here, a lot of other sites seem to agree. ;) (Note: Apparently the term was popularized in Cinefantastique magazines, according to a user here.) --From Andoria with Love 12:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Did you read everything I wrote above? If you're so sure that no citation exists, then nominate the article for deletion. Not sure what's to be accomplished by asking the same question over again, when I've said that it might take months for me to locate the right people to ask, because this circular discussion seems to be a waste of my time.

I'm not sure what kind of citation you want me to pull out of my hat given the twelve or so hours since the last time I answered you that it might take substantially more time for e-mail to be answered, or if i choose to resort to paper mail to seek out someone i used to correspond with years ago. Please try and read my above responses. -- Captain M.K. Bartel^talk 13:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I responded to your note on my Talk page, Captain, in a little more detail there. At heart, I had thought the addition of Efros to the article was the end of the research, not the start. I apologize for jumping to that conclusion. Please see my Talk page for more, including some of the numerous ways we might be able to retain the name intact. Aholland 14:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Thinking it through, let me reproduce here part of my Talk response for clarity around why I care at all about this minor thing:

• My basic concern is that we not have data on here that is based on anything other than sources that someone can pick up, see, or hear themselves. Otherwise someone (not you, but possibly "The Mighty Monkey of Mim") could just make something up, say they heard it from a legitimate source, and "poof", it becomes the basis for an article. If there is a permitted resource that claims Efrosian as a name for this species, my sole contribution to the article would be to place that citation in there (probably noted as non-canon depending on the source, but there nonetheless). It could be a script, a graphic, a Star Trek Encyclopedia article, Startrek.com, notes from the production staff that are reproduced somewhere, any of a number of permitted things. However, if there is no permitted resource for the name, I would propose that the content of the article stay, that the title be changed or lumped with unnamed aliens, and that the name "Efrosian" be put into Background or Apocrypha. Otherwise we will just be making this stuff up as we go along and pretending it is accurate, which isn't the intent of the site. Aholland 14:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Any progress from anyone on finding a good resource for this species name? Just following up . . . . Aholland 21:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I've done as much digging as I can and - absent the FASA material - there appears nothing linking this name "Efrosian" to the makeup seen. In the 1999 Star Trek Encyclopedia all that is said, for example, is that "The Federation president in Star Trek VI had makup identical to that of the navigator aboard the ill-fated U.S.S. Saratoga in Star Trek IV, so one might assume that both individuals were members of the same species." If the name "Efrosian" was in use by the production staff during STIV, one would think that 13 years later the name would have been used in that discussion in the Encyclopedia at least. Unless anyone objects (and brings forward some permitted citation), I'm going to create a section on "White Haired Alien" under Unnamed humanoids (23rd century) and place a redirect here. I'll be sure to note the apocryphal name of "Efrosian", though. Aholland 19:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd appreciate if you didn't. I'm still hoping to possibly email the creators of either the makeup or the FASA reference to get the confirmation of the name's origin. Could you please leave the article alone for the time being? Perhaps a PNA message could be added to see if any other archivists coming along could help (Template:Pna-research perhaps?)

Regardless, I'd appreciate if you didn't make another grand edit war out of this and try and realize there are other people working on this besides just you. -- Captain M.K.B. 22:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy if others are continuing to try to find the source for this name, but given the lack of any noted progress over the past month I figured everyone had concluded what I had: the name is a creation of FASA. If it is important to people I'm okay waiting a bit longer. But the sooner we can tend to it the better for the site as a whole; we do not want to perpetuate myth through inaction. (By the way, if there is a good and permitted reference for the name, I'm all for it.) As far as I can tell the FASA material is it, and while letters from FASA or the makeup staff about events over 20 years ago can certainly be used as background material, they wouldn't serve as a replacement for contemporaneous production material. So please feel free to do interviews and such for information, but I believe policy would require that a modern letter be confined solely to background in an article. If someone can cough up for public viewing a filming call sheet or movie production memo, though, we might have a winner as that would be enough (I think) to warrant keeping the name of the species. If anyone actually is searching for a permitted resource, please post status in here from time to time so we can see where things are (or aren't) going. I'll check back in in a couple of weeks or so and see if anyone's doin' anything. Aholland 01:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've checked the scripts for both Voyage Home and Undiscovered Country and have Google searched as much as I can and still haven't been able to find an official source for the name "Efrosian". I can't even find any reference to it in the Star Trek Encyclopedia. As fond as I am of the name, it appears to have been a creation of FASA which has made its way into Star Trek lore. --From Andoria with Love 01:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

If it comes from background notes we may as well keep the name. There is nothing to contradict it, and appears to be its creators' intentions. Also, having an unnamed species for two unnamed characters makes it very difficult to find. What would be call it Unnamed Federation President's unnamed species? Jaz ^{talk | novels}File:United Federation of Planets logo.png 01:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

If anyone has anything at all that indicates that the contemporaneous intention of the producers was that this alien would be called "Efrosian" rather than, say, "Westmorian" or "Longhairian" or "Blindie" please let us know what that is. The problem is that some people are saying "that's the production intent so keep the name" but no one can say how they know that to be so. We can't base MA data off gaming information, or rumor, or supposition, so where can we find this out? That's all I've been trying to get at for over a month. So if you've got anything, let's have it! And if not, are you going to be searching for it? Thanks! Aholland 02:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

A little bit of an update! I once again ventured out onto the web to find something on this name that might support it (since I don't want to ditch it just for grins) and ran across a 2003 book by Decipher (inheritors of FASA's license) called "Star Trek Roleplaying Game Aliens". In it the UFP President is no longer an "Efrosian", he is an Atreonid from Atreos IV. Some reviewers who pay attention to such things speculate that Paramount forced a name change (as they apparently did with a species called Kaitians that was forced to be renamed Regulans). See this for the full information. See here for a page that probably duplicates what is in the Decipher book. That is further support, I believe, that however cool the name is it was never anything but a FASA pipe dream that has now been even further debunked. And since Atreonid is no more valid than Efrosian, I still think that the redirect to Unnamed Humanoids is the way to go. Aholland 03:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The name should stay Efrosian. The name difference is indeed a direct consequence of the different licence applied to Last Unicorn because they were not allowed to use any FASA material. I also looked up for references in w:startrek:Main Page and a quick search for Efrosians revealed references in modern novels. Fortunately that book is available in amazon search I'm also trying to find some action figures which were published in the movies era, some I know of confirmed other less known names. -- Kobi - (Talk) 10:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

From a licensing standpoint, if Unicorn was forbidden to use "Efrosian" because of FASA's rights in it, then that would have to mean that the name was FASA's creation and not Paramount's. Otherwise Paramount, as the licensor, would have been fully able to grant any and all rights in and to it (like "Romulan" or "Klingon"). So take a look, keeping in mind that under policies and practices games, novels, and toys can only be the basis for background or apocryphal information, not separate articles names in their own right. We would still need something that showed production use, at minimum, during Trek IV or VI of "Efrosian" to support the continued application of the name to this makeup. Aholland 12:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

A few more data points, and I'll post whatever else I find (or don't find) as I come across it:

• Vonda McIntyre's novelization of Star Trek IV did not identify the helmsman of the Saratoga by name or species. (I checked.)
• I found Captain M.K.B.'s citation from the "Mighty Monkey of Mim". He only made a naked claim that "Efrosian" was named after Mel Efros. See here.
• My search has turned up no toy figures for an "Efrosian" (or "Atreonid" for that matter). The closest was a hand-made version at a website, presumably because an official version wasn't made. Aholland 15:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Can we move this already? So far the only reason I can see for keeping it where it is, is because no one wants to admit that Aholland is correct yet again. Nice research Aholland. Jaf 15:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)Jaf

I seem to recall admitting he was correct. :P --From Andoria with Love 16:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it turns out the use of the name is permitted according to a discussion with User:Harry Doddema here. I guess that pretty much ends this discussion: Efrosian stays, as per the wishes of the founders. --From Andoria with Love 17:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Seems like this does end the discussion. I'll continue my research, of course, but the majority here supports keeping the name based on our best possible source into the data -- the researchers for the non-canon sourcebook that wrote this information about the canon species. -- Captain M.K.B. 17:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I hate to be the bearer of bad tidings, but the conversation with Harry only netted the following question from him: "Is it true that these names actually originated from the production notes?" In the context of the discussion Harry was saying that he agreed that production notes could be a permitted resource, but asked if "Efrosian" was, indeed, from those notes. Captain M.K.B's response was to state that "I'm afraid I can't quite cite a source for that information" and (I think) he simply recalled the assertion here, in which some unknown person only stated a conclusion. I think the topic is still live until someone can answer Harry's question and - by doing so - mine. Aholland 18:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

And, of course, the implication of Harry's note and the mandate of MA policies and practices would be that if there is no such source that the name shouldn't be used as an article heading. Just in case anyone was wondering what it all meant :) Aholland 18:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the topic is very much a case of someone beating an issue to death. Let sleeping dogs lie and drop the issue, since this was created on 10 Jan 2005 and has not been questioned until now; as it stands, you appear to be the only person questioning its legitimacy. That's not to say public opinion is always right, but perhaps someone told someone who told someone else, etc until the fans got hold of the info - unlike cases where a name's source is apocryphal, this obviously came from somewhere. Jaz put it best when he mentioned the notion of a page dedicated to unnamed characters from an unnamed species... which is ridiculous. With all due respect, please stop ruining Memory Alpha for the rest of us. --Vedek Dukat ^{Talk | Duty Roster} 19:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your speculation about why the name Efrosian didn't enter any later valid (as you call it) book might indeed be, that Paramount's policy was to talk FASA material/origins dead much like it was done with FJ's Technical Manual. We are also talking about the inclusion of the species name only, not the other parts published in the source book like the Efrosians coming from an icy world, are the youngest members of the Federation (having entered just 8 years ago) and were originally contacted by the USS Surak. -- Kobi - (Talk) 20:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Vedek Dukat: I was unaware that Memory Alpha discouraged people questioning articles beyond a certain age. I thought the goal was accuracy through scientific inquiry rather than the quasi-religious view of "so it was in the past, so it shall be in the future". I also thought that Memory Alpha didn't create Trek's universe and include new names and terms when it was inconvenient to admit none exist; instead I believed it was to report on what was presented to people as the show, supplemented a bit by what the production staff used itself. To "let sleeping dogs lie", as you suggest, is completely counter to the wiki philosophy. It also is an intellectual cheat and a fraud upon anyone wanting to trust the accuracy of Memory Alpha. With all due respect, I do not intend to let this drop merely because some people find it an embarrassment that there is a total absence of any non-gaming basis for the name of this article. I'll leave it awhile to let anyone come forward with additional data, but after a reasonable time with no valid resource forthcoming I see little choice but to actually be honest with readers and redirect it as above. If there is a valid reason not to correct articles in this way, please direct me to the policy or practice statement that says otherwise.

Kobi: I do understand we are picking and choosing only the name of the species from the gaming data, but that doesn't make it right, doesn't make it fit policy, and just plain doesn't make it honest. I mean, why not choose the new gaming name? It has as much validity as the old. And why stop with just the name? These are all reasons why Memory Alpha has - for as long as I can dredge up old policies - forbidden gaming information that is not also a proven, permitted resource. Memory Alpha has a goal of reliability; let's work toward that rather than embrace dogma - even if it is just a name. Aholland 22:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Why dont we ask Mel Efros. Here is his contact information

Mel Efros

106 S Mansfield Ave

Los Angeles, CA 90036-3019

(323) 936-3767

Hope this helps. Jaz ^{talk | novels}File:United Federation of Planets logo.png 22:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm on the phone with him. Aholland 22:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

What a nice guy! He was very gracious about discussing this 20 year old thing. He said that as far as he knew there was no makeup set that was called Efrosian on STIV (he only worked STIV and V and didn't watch after that). He said his kids told him that Kirk Thatcher (the punk on the bus) created a language called Efrosian for a TV production called Dinosaurs. That arose from Efros making fun of words on set (like calling prop people "propisoids" and such). Other than that he knows NOTHING about makeup or appliances for an alien species called Efrosians. And that was after I prompted him on the white haired guy with the mustache. I thanked him for his time, and he seemed to not really mind the call too much. Aholland 22:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

That settles it. Jaz ^{talk | novels}File:United Federation of Planets logo.png 23:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

New name

Now that we have proof that Efrosian isn't the correct name, I think we should all put this behind us, and work to come up with a suitable name. How about Unnamed 23rd century Federation President's species? Jaz ^{talk | novels}File:United Federation of Planets logo.png 23:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Use Efrosian anyway. Just put a note about this historic trek argument at the bottom. Everyone else calls him Efrosian. If enough people belive it, it's true, whether it was in the begining or not. Memory Alpha could deem it official, and it would be. We have the power. --Bp 23:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)