Talk:Andor

From Memory Alpha, the free Star Trek reference

Contents 1 Background 2 Removed Star Wars reference 3 Again with the Background 4 Creating unnecessary complexity 5 Game Mention

[edit] Background

Huh. Wonder if the Reeves-Stevens might have been influenced to make the homeworld a habitable moon so that it'd be the actual planet that is named Andor by the planet Endor, which has a similar situation over in the Star Wars mythos. :-/

It does makes some sense that the moon of a gas giant idea has now been paired canonically with the glaciated Andoria concept. Gas giants tend to be pretty far from their primaries, way off in the cold zone. (Though some gas giants can also radiate a lot of heat themselves.) --TheEntities 17:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

You should include that info. It's interesting, and I don't think it's too far afield of the topic or anything. I was hesitant to write something about SW, but I've seen comparisons between Trek and other shows/movies in background sections before. --Icesyckel 23:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed Star Wars reference

WHOOPS!  :) I genuinely didn't realize it was protocol to put the snipped section of a page onto the talk page, so people could comment, or reword it for its return to the main page. Since this genuinely does make sense, I have no problem abiding by it.

I removed this reference, because I really don't think random Star Wars comments are appropriate for Memory Alpha.

There is an interesting parallel here between Star Trek and Star Wars: "Return of the Jedi." ROTJ told of both a planet and a moon named "Endor," but many casual viewers fail to realize that all the scenes in the movie depict the moon Endor, as the planet Endor was yet another gas giant as Andor is alleged to be [1].

I do welcome discussion on the matter however. – Hossrex 05:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I support the removal. We can't cite what "many casual viewers" believe.– Cleanse 05:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I admit that I wrote the comment, and so my opinion is biased, but I saw the producers' gas giant explanation for the Andor/Andoria problem to be highly similar to the SW Universe Endor moon/Endor gas giant. All that changed was Andor:gas giant/Andoria moon. Could it be a coincidence? Possibly. Could the producers on the ENT DVD commentary have been thinking of SW when they were dreaming up a reason why Andoria is sometimes called Andor? It seems likely to me. If that's the case, then it has Background info merit in my humble opinion. That you may not care for Star Wars doesn't mean that the producers/writers didn't look there for inspiration in answering this issue. And, I feel that if something in SW has a significant effect upon the Trek universe, then it is worthy of mention. Notice, I didn't put it in the text of the article but in the bground, so people looking for interesting info being the article's subject can ponder the similarities. I think it's a bad idea to remove it, but again, I am biased. Someone else can make the call. As to "many viewers" - I wrote this before I read some of the policies and I believe that ctext could be removed/rephrased. --Icesyckel 05:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Considering that Andorians have been around since the late sixties... and the word Andor has been around long before the gas-giant/moon debate... I would find it doubtful that Garfield, and Judith Reeves-Stevens were influenced by a fairly insignificant, entirely obscure reference to Star Wars. I'm sick right now... the passage I just wrote doesn't encapsulate what I want to say... so if it doesn't make sense, I apologize. I can't think.– Hossrex 06:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

No worries - I hope you feel better soon. Being sick is a royal pain in the butt. As to Andor being around since the 60s, sure. Andor is older than SW, but the explanation of Garfield and Judith Reeves-Stevens appearing on the ENT DVD commentary is not so old. In fact, the explanation is younger than Return of the Jedi by many years. I could even see how this may have gone dow: in their heads:

Q: "Why do we have 'Andor' sometimes and 'Andoria' others?"

A: "Well, 'Andor' sure sounds a lot like 'Endor.'"

Q: "True, and 'Endor' was both a moon and a gas giant right?"

A" "Sure - lets do something like that. 'Andoria' is the moon and 'Andor' can be the gas giant.'"

Q: "Does that really fix our obvious screw-up in calling the Andorian homeworld by 2 different names?"

A/Q: "I don't know. Lets get some beer, and maybe then it will all make more sense?"

A: "Yes, beer is good. Alcohol has been the inspiration for many Trek writers. Remember 'Code of Honor'? What a great TNG episode."

Wow - I digressed. Anyway, I think we have a retcon that came long after the mistake was made, and they either consciously or subconsciously had ROTJ on the brain at the time they came up with the idea. It's almost the exact same explanation in both the Trek and SW universes - and I just don't believe in coincidences. --Icesyckel 16:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Again with the Background

LOL That is an hilarious dramatization! Pretty much what I was thinking. It was just talk, though. I didn't really think it should be in the article, because I only speculated. Maybe I should have taken it to forums, sorry. It merely seemed like such an interesting thought.

Now, I suggest also removing from Background the passage at the end; everything from the second "However, ..." It seems to me entirely redundant to the point made in Apocrypa.--TheEntities 01:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Creating unnecessary complexity

Why are we pretending that there is a possibility that Andor doesn't refer to the Andorian homeworld? There has obviously been historical confusion with writers over the exact term (Andor vs Andoria) for the planet/system, and it's fine to note that. Pretending though that the writers weren't thinking of the politically-substantial Andorian homeworld as the location mentioned in "In the Cards" or "In the Pale Moonlight" is just creating unnecessary speculation and complexity. 76.217.93.30 02:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree. I don't understand why someone have created this page. It's obvious that the planet mentioned as "Andor" in the ST series is intented to be Andoria. Why the producers have to use a similar name only to indicate some other world? For example, when Kai Winn mentioned "Andor" as a threatened Federation world, she listed also Vulcan. The writers were clearly referring to the Andorian homeworld. It is only a mistake, and we can assume without doubts that "Andor" is just another way to refer to Andoria. The producers also tried to explain this during the fourth season of Enterprise, and, even if they didn't to that in the end, it shows clearly that, in the past, they always inteded Andor as an equivalent for Andoria. Why Memory Alpha has to be so pedantic on this matter?--Sid-Vicious 11:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

By stating that it's Andoria you're speculating, until we have confirmation the writer intended it to be Andoria then we have no proof and that's what's required for this site. — Morder 14:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

But we have the confirmation, it is in the Background section of this page: "According to writers Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stevens, in a special features segment in ENT Season 4 DVD, the establishment of the Andorian homeworld as a moon orbiting a gas giant was devised to help explain the contradiction of why it was sometimes called Andor and sometimes it was called Andoria."--Sid-Vicious 11:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

That actually seems to be confirmation for the fact that the writers acknowledged the different names, and tried to bring some reason to that (by allowing the possibility of one being the gas giant and the other being its inhabited moon). -- Cid Highwind 11:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Game Mention

Star Trek: Conquest describes Andor as the homeworld of the Andorian Empire. Don't know if it's conclusive or not, but I think it should be included. Xavius, Envoy of Fluidic Space 18:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)