Wikia

Memory Alpha

Changes: Talk:USS Melbourne (Nebula class)/archive

edit this page

Back to page

Line 463: Line 463:
 
::[[Special:Contributions/70.48.69.142|70.48.69.142]] 17:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 
::[[Special:Contributions/70.48.69.142|70.48.69.142]] 17:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 
::: "Everybody was happy with this solution" my ass. The only thing that can be agreed upon by "we, the Memory Alpha community" is that "background sources" mucked this whole situation up by providing information that conflicts with what can be seen on screen. To simply ignore the blatant ''obvious'' references in favor of long winded ignorance is plan silly. "We, the Memory Alpha community" are hardly the ones to be enforcing canon, much less with something that the average viewer cannot even begin to see, as I stated above. --[[User:Gvsualan|Alan]] 18:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 
::: "Everybody was happy with this solution" my ass. The only thing that can be agreed upon by "we, the Memory Alpha community" is that "background sources" mucked this whole situation up by providing information that conflicts with what can be seen on screen. To simply ignore the blatant ''obvious'' references in favor of long winded ignorance is plan silly. "We, the Memory Alpha community" are hardly the ones to be enforcing canon, much less with something that the average viewer cannot even begin to see, as I stated above. --[[User:Gvsualan|Alan]] 18:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  +
  +
:::: I like how you are starting to complain about this now, "Alan", when before when we came about this mutual solution (mutual solution in that all ''present'' seemed okay with it), you kept silent. And only after I edit an unremarkable and fairly unimportant article do you start voicing your objections. And instead of introducing any new evidence, you are simply repeating yourself. Look how far we came with that approach. You really want to open this can of worms again? [[User:Ensign q|Ambassador/Ensign_Q]] 19:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:14, August 8, 2008

Previous discussions here.


Info removed from article

and Admiral J.P. Hanson's flag ship at the Battle of Wolf 359 against the Borg in 2367. It was destroyed, along with 38 other starships. Prior to its destruction at Wolf 359, the Melbourne transported Admiral J.P. Hanson and Ltd. cmdr. Shelby to Jouret IV to asisst the USS Enterprise-D at examining the destruction of the New Providence colony.

The script for BOBW states that Hanson is aboard a Galaxy-class starship (the battle bridge, from the viewscreen message), and it is not stated that the Melbourne is the Excelsior class seen at the start of Part I. -- Michael Warren 23:19, 20 May 2004 (CEST)

I gotta say, this NCC-42031 registry is complete bunk . The Excelsior seen in Emissary had the NCC-64203 reg plainly visible (while the Nebula had no name or registry visible, indicating it was probably another vessel. --Captain Mike K. Bartel 08:16, 18 Jun 2004 (CEST)

The whole Melbourne doppelganger story has already been scientifically scrutinized by Ex Astris Scientia.com . The Nebula model in BOBW was labeled "Melbourne" (this ship is one of sisko's models in his office, too). However, as far as the registry is concerned, in don't know nothing... --BlueMars 12:35, Jun 18, 2004 (CEST)

The Excelsior in "Emissary" had no visible registry. That's just a fandom urban legend. I dunno where that second registry number came from. However, the Encyclopedia also makes the baseless assumption of discounting the Nebula-class example. We need to make sure that both versions are still mentioned. -- Dan Carlson 20:58, 18 Jun 2004 (CEST)

Im going to furnish a screencap, Dan. I read the registry off the hull of the Melbourne from a freezeframe of a VHS tape when i was 13 years old, before the Encyclopedia even came out. Unless we are picking and choosing which canon this site chooses to recognize, which would really make me wonder why we are wasting so much bandwidth and storage space even writing a canon policy and discussing it. The Nebula-class Melbourne is listed where it belongs, as a non-canon footnote in a background section, because it was neither seen onscreen clearly, nor does it jive with the more obvious and visible Excelsior. And I doubt we are allowed to simply 'make up' registry numbers like the previously unheard of NCC-42031 previously in this article--Captain Mike K. Bartel

I am going to mention the Nebula-class ship, because the model clearly said Melbourne, and it was later scene as a model in "Future Imperfect". 64.230.101.115 23:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The Nebula model may have been marked "Melbourne", but that name was never visible onscreen, and it was visible on the Excelsior-class seen in "Emissary". Now, Starfleet has been known to do some non-standard things with names and registries, but having two ships with the same name at the same time is a bit of a stretch without some "hard" canon sourcing. The usual course of action in these cases is for the onscreen canon to trump the derivative source. It's OK to mention the Nebula model here as Apocrypha, but not to say there were two Melbournes at Wolf 359. There was a Nebula prototype present at Wolf 359 (and its wreckage seen in BOBW and Emissary), but it's name wouldn't have been the Melbourne. --Emperorkalan 01:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

How about the simpler and much more correct answer? The F/X people screwed up, as they frequently do. Instead of trying to write and argue over an elaborate explanation of how "they must be right" and "it's CANON!!!", why not just admit that screw-ups happen in Hollywood, and this is one of them? Roundeyesamurai 01:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Where's the fun in that? Jaf 02:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)Jaf

If you look at the picture of the Nebula class model form Future Imperfect, you can see it says USS Melbourne. Also, we can dismiss the registry on the Nebula Melbourne as "unknown". 207.61.101.2 15:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The Future Imperfect model is from a holodeck simulation. it might be one of the things that clued Riker in that he was in unreality, if a Nebula model was labeled with the Excelsior's registry. Since the NCC-62043 Melbourne was seen clearly, in a real situation, as an Excelsior; the NCC-62043 Melbourne seen in a simulation is outweighed. While we know the model at Wolf 359 was labeled the same way, it wasn't visible at all, so the Emissary reference outweighs it. An interesting point is that, since the "USS" prefix and "NCC-62043" registry belong to the Excelsior ship, it might be speculated that the Nebula was the "SS" Melbourne and had an "NAR" registry, explaining how one fleet could have two ships of the same name -- it was operated under different authority. but in terms of canon, that is neither here nor there. -- Captain M.K.B. 15:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    • But there was no Excelsior-class wreakage in "The Best of Both Worlds: Part II". The only ship that Shelby could have been refering to was the Nebula-class ship. And it is possible there was two of them at the same battle: the excelsior one was a retiring ship, temoparily recommsioned for the battle, and the nebula class one was it's replacement. user: Ensign q
I'm a little dubious about that. A ship in mothballs would undoubtedly be stripped of major components, including the weapons systems. Bringing the ship out of mothballs, reinstalling weapons and other stripped components, fuelling her, embarking even the barest of supplies needed, and bringing her up to even the barest of operational readiness, and then actually making the trip to Wolf 359, would take ALOT longer than the period of time in which the operational vessels were converged at Wolf 359.
Also, Starfleet wouldn't have a ship "retiring" when another of the same name was already in service. It'd already be long retired before the next vessel of the same name was christened. Otherwise, command-control-communications and logistics would get to be pretty confusing, for both of the vessels and for Starfleet Command. Roundeyesamurai 02:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
But it explains why there were two USS Melbournes, and also why they both had the same regitry. Perhaps the Nebula's registry was NCC-62043-A.

Also, its possible that the Excelsior-class ship was coincidently just retired just prior to the borg attack. Remeber, the Nebula melbourne was a prototype, so it probably took longer to make than usual. 64.230.37.96 01:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC) (aka Ensign Q)

Still doesn't jive- having a "USS Melbourne" under construction and another in service would cause most of the same logistical and C3 problems as having two in service- and it would also be the same breach of naval tradition. If there were extenuating circumstances to explain the presence of two "Melbourne"s, that might be different.

I'm still chalking it up to one of the thousands of behind-the-scenes screwups. Just because it appears "on-screen" doesn't necessarily mean that is how it was intended. When the tight schedule for production and post-production, severe bugetary constraints, and all other realities of television producing are taken into account, a multitude of screwups like that are bound to occur. Roundeyesamurai 06:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Can't we just except that there were two Melbournes at the battle. The Nebula model labeled "Melbourne" was also seen in "Emissary" (the second pic). 64.230.103.13 14:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC) (aka Ensign q)

No, we can't. That would be conjecture. Unless someone has screenshots of both vessels AT Wolf 359- with their registries visible and legible, and with enough of the hull present in both shots to establish that there were two vessels by that name- or can provide dialogue, or production notes that establish that that was the intention of the production staff, then the presence of two Melbournes is conjecture- and it is conjecture which is only supported by a discrepancy in post-production. Roundeyesamurai 16:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Nebula Melbourne at Depot Z15

I think we need to talk about this. What evidence do we have that the Melbourne was moved here? Yes, they reused the model of the wreckage, but they reuse models all of the time to represent different ships of the same class, even different classes. I am not sure that using the same model is enough evidence to say that they moved the Melbourne from Wolf 359 to this depot. --OuroborosCobra 23:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, the model did have "USS Melbourne" on it, and it wasn't mentioned to be any other ship. Besides, the in the footage of the Venture at DS9 (http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Image:Uss_venture_docked%2C_ds9.jpg) which was reused for three episodes, the Template:ShipClass ship was always the Venture. Plusm the Melbourne was a one of a kind one off Nebula-class, so in all likelihood it was the same ship.

Ensign q 15:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

How do we know the Melbourne was the only Nebula class ship of that configuration? True, we have never seen any others, but that does not mean it is the only one. I do not know of any dialogue that says the Melbourne subtype was a one off design, so we cannot assume either way. As has been said by others on the talk pages for the other ships that have been placed in Z15, we need more evidence then just using the same model. A model can be reused (even without altering identification markings) to represent a different ship of the same class. Unless there is dialogue putting them there, or you can see identifying markings ON SCREEN, we need to put this into speculation. With the Venture, there was more evidence than just being a galaxy class ship using the same model. In many cases it was eitheir identified in dialogue, or the registry number can be seen. --OuroborosCobra 08:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Riker Command?

Wasn't this the ship that he was offered command of before Best of Both Worlds? If so, that certainly deserves mention. - 66.93.144.171 06:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

No, that was the USS Melbourne (Nebula class). --OuroborosCobra talk 06:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Merging?

I think the idea that there were two different Melbournes is pure speculation. I'm in favour of merging the two articles. It's a rather clumsy approach just so we can keep a barely seen piece of background detail in.--211.26.178.83 04:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

This is also being discussed on "Talk:USS Melbourne (Nebula class)". Please continue the discussion there. -- Cid Highwind 11:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Merge Suggestion (2008)

As I've said before, can we get a concensus on this? I hope this isn't going to be the standard way of dealing with such an issue, discussing it for a bit and then ignoring it and hoping it goes away.--Tiberius 02:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I've glanced through stuff above and give a very short recap to see what the problems are:
There are 3 appearances of this thing, in chronological order.
  • There is a prototype Nebula with no clearly visible labelling in BoBW (the model reads USS Melbourne).
  • There is an Excelsior-class USS Melbourne in DS9.
  • There is a desktop model of the prototype Melbourne later in DS9.
The problem is that these ships are the same. Evidently, it's beyond the scope of Memory Alpha to form a concensus on this, since it's simply impossible. So why not just make one USS Melbournce (NCC-62043) page and explain the controversy there, in a central place. The ships are already called exactly the same, so no need to split them up, I'd say ;) Memory Alpha does not need take sides, or present some sort of consensus version of canon. Simply take the core points of this discussion to the article background section, and leave it up to the interested reader to figure out. Although I admit the exact layout of that page will introduce some more headaches. -- Harry talk 23:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Given that the only time we saw a ship on screen that was identifiable as the Melbourne was the excelsior class in the DS9 pilot, I think we should go with that, and then explain the controversy in the background notes. This is the best solution in my opinion. it avoids speculation, and it avoids using behind the scenes information to dictate canon when there is contradicting information visible on screen.--Tiberius 23:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I support the idea of a merge(as I said earlier) based on the clearest information available, which seems to be the Excelsior class reference, while also giving all details about this issue. It is not our job to come up with any sort of canon explanation for a simple production decision about a minor issue, especially when there is no general agreement. Provide the information in one article and let readers decide for themselves.--31dot 23:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

We're not doing the "Ignore it and it doesn't matter" thing are we? Can we either merge the articles or have an explanation of why speculation and background information have a place in the articles as though they are canon?--Tiberius 07:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, what you are suggesting isn't really a compromise. What we have right now is a compromise. We have three choices:
  • The Nebula-Melbourne is the only one;
  • The Excelsior-Melbourne is the only one; or
  • Both exist (compromise).
Saying one exists over the other isn't really giving the reader a choice. It pretty much says to the reader "only one exists". 70.51.231.79 15:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I am suggesting that we have one page saying that the Melbourne is an Excelsior class vessel, because the Excelsior class version is the only one that we saw to be labelled "Melbourne" on the screen in a finished episode (The Nebula class version is only supported by background information, and is thus ranked lower in the source hierarchy). And we include in a note the background information, saying something like, "While the Melbourne was seen onscreen to be an Excelsior class vessel in the DS9 Pilot, study models of the Nebula class ship were used to represent the ship in BoBW etc." This will keep the onscreen evidence canon (as it should be) and keeps the background information as background information (again, as it should be).--Tiberius 10:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with what has been said by Harry Doddema, 31dot, and Tiberius. Merge the pages and then explain the discrepancy in background notes. Easiest for the reader, and places canon info above what a model was labeled. Sure, when we have nothing else go with the model's label, but here we have canon info to the contrary.– Cleanse 11:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
If we take it as accepted that the Melbourne was destroyed at Wolf359, and that there was later an Excelsior Class Melbourne at DS9 (during Emissary), then either this second Melbourne was brought out of retirement, or they're still making new Excelsior class ships. That we saw Excelsior class ships during the Dominion War means absolutely nothing regarding the expected regular life of the class. Its possible the Excelsior Melbourne was brought out of mothballs, its possible the Excelsiors in the war were brought out of mothballs. So Memory Alpha simply must do what Memory Alpha does. Establish that there was a USS Melbourne (of possibly indeterminate classification) at Wolf359, and that there was a different USS Melbourne at DS9 when the Cardassians handed over the station. Saying anything else, without canonical evidence would be improper. There is no reason to say more then we know, or assume anything more then was shown. Our mission isn't to pad every article until it becomes a complete history of the ship (or whatever). Our mission is to record all canonical information presented during the run of the six different series, and ten movies. Its as simple as that, and any attempt to over-reach that goal *WILL* be to the detriment of the mission. Hossrex 11:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
What happened was that a model labeled as the Melbourne was in the graveyard shots of BoBW. But when new shots of the battle were filmed for DS9's flashbacks, an excelsior model labeled as the Melbourne (with the same registry) was used instead. So the merge suggestion here is that the clearer-established excelsior model (whose registry could be seen) trumps the nebula model (whose registry couldn't be seen on screen).– Cleanse 23:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Than I genuinely apologize, as I misunderstood the nature of the discussion. In this new light, I agree 100% with Cleanse. I would agree that seeing a registry on screen is a greater source of canonical information than a production model (even if the production model could be canon, if there is a contradiction, it should be clear which trumps). My bad. Hossrex 00:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Why would it matter that the reason for adding an Excelsior Melbourne in one scene of one episode with the same name and registry as another ship would need to be interpreted as an inconsistancy. Regardless of the intent "to replace the other one" by the production. They can clearly co-exist given the history of starships with the same name serving at the same time and others with at least the same registry serving at the same time. I strongly disagree with merging the articles as some odd background reason is not enough in my opinion. --Pseudohuman 01:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

When has there been two ships with the same name and the same registry serving at exactly the same time?--Tiberius 03:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, the names of the two Antares-type starships weren't shown in "More Tribbles, More Troubles" but they had the same registry. You can always argue that because they were used as "cargo drones" on that particular mission, they don't count as "real starships", but I think the fact that the Woden had a name and a registry of "a real starship" and was used as a cargo drone on it's final mission as well points to the fact that starfleet considers these ships as commishioned starships none the less. It is NOT that big of a leap that two ships have the same name and registry too in my opinion. Considering that they even used the Nebula-Melbourne in the "Emissary" battle scenes. It might have been intended as a replacement, but ended up just as an addition. --Pseudohuman 10:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Ouch. I guess this is why TAS was non-canon for so long. Its my understanding that Memory Alpha allows for different levels of canon. What I mean is, that something could be considered canon (i.e. background information from a script, production models, etc), but at the same time considered less canon than other sources (directly stated/seen on screen). If the only time we ever saw that name and registry number of the Melbourne was on the Excelsior class ship, then in my opinion thats what we go with. While I think its important that we catalog TAS as canon (which it is), that perhaps it'd be best to not necessarily use TAS to determine a pattern of logic. Hossrex 18:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I rather think this one falls down to the policy of Memory Alpha concerning conficts in valid sources. I quote: "The presumption should be that a conflict does not exist unless no other explanation is reasonable under the circumstances." and the reasonable explanation here is that the assumption that "two starfleet ships cannot exist at the same time with the same name and registry" is wrong as it is just that - an assumption. When you erase this assumption there is no conflict and no level of canon needs to be ignored. --Pseudohuman 19:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
But the very next paragraph after the one you've quoted says the following
  • In writing articles archivists should be guided by the principle that a valid resource with a higher precedence can (but does not have to) be given slightly greater evidentiary weight for purposes of writing the article from a Trek universe standpoint than the valid resource with a lower precedence. The conflict still needs to be noted in the article, though.
Seeing it on screen holds greater evidentiary weight then a production model, or script note. It was the very next paragraph. I have no problem noting the inconsistency, as per Memory Alpha policy, but clearly it need not be two articles. Unless you purpose to change the policy, but this wouldn't be the correct avenue for that action. Besides... if they were two different ships, with the same name, and the same registry number... for your assumption to be valid, wouldn't that mean both of those Melbournes were at Wolf359? Wouldn't that be confusing in battle? Policy genuinely demands the pages be merged, and the inconsistency noted. Hossrex 21:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
That bit of policy only aplies when there is an inconsistency. In the case of the two Melbournes there is not one. A "fan theory" is not enough to make an inconsistency real. Fan theories belong in the lowest of categories on what to build articles on. Both Melbournes were at Wolf 359 as seen in "Emissary" and I'm sure the starfleet people found a way to tell them apart lol. --Pseudohuman 23:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Alright, I'm going to bring a bit of a spin on things using my own imagination. What I am about to write is purely speculation, but seems much more logical than anything else.
First, re-cap: In BoBW2, we see a Nebula-class variant apparently named the Melbourne, but in Emissary we see an EXCELSIOR-class Melbourne with a much more legible name and registry. The only evidence of the Nebula being named Melbourne is from off-screen evidence and a model displayed in DS9.
Now, everyone is arguing whether or not there were 2 Melbourne's, but I have a new idea:
What of the Nebula-class variant seen in BoBW is, in reality, not Melbourne, but a differently named ship, and the model seen in DS9 is actually a NEW Melbourne that was being/was built to replace the Excelsior-Melbourne after it was destroyed? Keep in mind that DS9 began at least one month after Wolf 359, so it is certainly plausible that a new Melbourne of the same variant as the 4-nacelle Nebula destroyed at Wolf 359 was at least being built, and that models of it had already been built by entrepreneurs and sold to people. How do we know that no other Nebula's were of "Melbourne" configuration or "Phoenix" configuration? How do we know that all Nebula's had the new configuration?
Again, all of this is purely speculation, but it seems quite logical and very plausible to me. TimberWolf 23:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Pseudohuman said: "That bit of policy only aplies when there is an inconsistency. In the case of the two Melbournes there is not one. A "fan theory" is not enough to make an inconsistency real."
But thats what you're doing. Presenting a "fan theory" that there were two Melbournes at the same time. The production model (an allowed, but not preferred source) showed the Melbourne as a Nebula class ship, while the visible on screen evidence (a preferred, iron clad source) showed the Melbourne as an Excelsior. Memory Alphas policy in this situation, based on the quotation I provided above, is to use the evidence with "slightly greater evidentiary weight". Thats Memory Alpha policy. The only logic you have to show that its possible for two ships to have the same registry number, and commissioned name is the Animated Series, and I find that a dubious logic train to follow. You have to know full well that the producers of Star Trek didn't intend there to be two Melbournes at the same time, and you have to know full that the only reason there were two ships with the same registry number on the Animated Series was the constraints on the animators/budget. So since it was clearly not the intention of the people responsible for producing the show to have two Melbournes, it was in fact an "inconsistency". I've quoted the Memory Alpha policy regarding inconsistencies above, and the matter seems rather cut, and dry, unless you're suggesting that it was the intention of Rick Berman, or Michael Piller (or whomever) to have two different ships with the same name, and Registry. Your position, even from a STRICT canonical interpretation perspective, is tenuous at best. Hossrex 00:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Read my idea again. Yes, it is a "fan theory", but I am suggesting that the model appearing in DS9 is a new, read that: NEW, Melbourne built/being built AFTER the first one was destroyed. Nor did I EVER cite ANYTHING from TAS, since MANY fans (including myself) believe it, or at least certain parts of it, to be un-canon. TimberWolf 00:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Re: Timberwolf:
A. Hossrex wasn't talking to you. He was talking to Pseudohuman. Note how he said "P said..." and then continued on from there.
B. You're misunderstanding the situation. As I said to Hossrex above, the situation here is that we had a nebula Melbourne in the wreckage of BoBW, then an excelsior Melbourne in FLASHBACKS of the Battle of Wolf 359 presented in Emissary. So at the SAME TIME, there were 2 different versions of the Melbourne. There was NOT a Melbourne at DS9 during the (non-flashback) events of Emissary. – Cleanse 04:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I've purposely avoided this conversation for the last 8 months because it is just the same old song, over and over. Now, to cut this short, I don't know how many times we've played the "producers intent" card when it best suits us, this certainly the first time I can recall use ever turning a blind eye to it in favor of a year and a half old, 69 kilobyte long, 18 person orgy of death. .
So let's look at the facts, again, there were three distinct Melbourne references: (1) "11001001", (2) "The Best of Both Worlds"/"The Best of Both Worlds, Part II" and (3) "Emissary". The first is an unknown ship-type, the second a Nebula (with a model thrown in for good measure), and the third an Excelsior – the last two were supposedly in the same place at the same time, which is entirely possible, because nothing really contradicts it except our refusal to believe two ships could possibly share the same registry, and without scoffing at the source of that link.
So in terms of justifying the Wolf 359 case, we could get all complicated and state that there were two Melbourne's present – both with (all together now) 'the same registry!' – and then continue to fight over how it goes against some fan-made registry system that doesn't exist and/or deciding which Melbourne was mentioned in "11001001" and/or which one was part of Riker's stock option.
Or we could do the 'quick and dirty' and simply follow suit with the Star Trek Encyclopedia, and say that there was only one Melbourne (which would quickly solve where the "11001001" reference goes, by the way), followed with a regurgitation what essentially came off of Mike Okuda's keyboard:
  • "There were actually two Starships Melbourne used in these episodes. The first was a Template:ShipClass model, barely glimpsed as a wrecked hulk in the spaceship graveyard from "The Best of Both Worlds, Part II" (TNG). When the scene was redone three years later for "Emissary" (DS9), a decision was made to instead use the more detailed USS Excelsior model originally built for Star Trek III. Both models were given the same Starfleet registry number, but since the Excelsior version was seen fairly clearly on screen, and the Nebula version was not seen well, we now assume that the Melbourne "really" was an Template:ShipClass ship."
So with that said, that leaves us with one simple question, do we do the 'quick and dirty', or do we shoot for 100Kb and another year and half discussion? Remember, background notes our are friends, and they've helped us in the past. :) --Alan 06:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Alan breaks it down very well, but allow me to add one thing to what he said (I think he's on the same page as I am). We have three Melbourne references to deal with. One entirely unseen, unexplained reference (11001001)... one reference where we don't have any on screen evidence (BoBW)... and one reference where we see everything on screen, and can make a decision on that basis (Emissary). The only reason to think we should mention the Melbourne as anything besides an Excelsior (keep in mind all I'm asking for is a merge, and a background note) is that a model was at one time constructed. Should every constructed model have a Memory Alpha page? Should ever proposed model have a memory Alpha page? Where do we draw the line if we're not drawing it at what was seen on screen? What was seen on screen. Thats what Memory Alpha is about. Thats what Memory Alpha has to be about, or else we'll start seeing the return of "Spock was the first Vulcan in Star Fleet", or "Kirk and Spock were gay for each other" stuff. That isn't a joke. Thats one of the things we can expect if we start allowing suppositions on Memory Alpha. Hossrex 07:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
There have been so many of these types of decisions by the producers to just replace something seen previously with something new "because it looks cooler". A huge number of props have been replaced, sets, uniforms, phaser rifles, effects, outlooks of shuttles, outlook of ships, the klingon forehead for christ sake, the makeup for the trill, ktarians, the borg, bajoran nose ridges, the romulans, name your pick. Of course the official reason has just been at the time "we replaced it, because it looks better" and mr. Okuda can go on assuming anything he wants, but if there is room for both versions seen on-screen to coexist (as I believe I have pointed out in this one case there to be), I don't think the right course of action should be to replace one with the other. I don't think that is what Memory Alpha is about. And the Nebula-Melbourne has been seen on-screen (just not that well, but there are presidents for that as well). --Pseudohuman 14:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
You're recent update, Pseudohuman, doesn't mesh nor can it be justified without making an assumption. As I pointed out, we don't know which Melbourne was referenced in "11001001", and to make matters worse (a reference I didnt consider before) the "Infinite Regress" reference. 'Lieutenant Gregory Bergan was among the Melbourne's crew at Wolf 359' – which Melbourne? Remember, there were two there. This all goes back to the quandry of three references (now four), two ships – who decides where the the unknown variables go? You can't just arbitrarily throw references around when we have no proof to support which reference goes with which ship, when there were two ships in the same place. Additionally, Okuda wasn't just some random guy writing a fan book, his inside information should be treated as such, seeing as he worked with the people who made the decisions, and as well, those people who made the decisions took part in contributing to it as well...just look at the list of production staff in the acknowledgements who contributed to the Encyclopedia. --Alan 19:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Apologies for not explaining the reasons. All references to "the Melbourne" after "Emissary" propably do refer to the Excelsior-Melbourne due to the rationalizations of Okuda. As he was not just a random guy as you say. The "Riker command"-issue at least refers to the Nebula-Melbourne on the basis of the model added to his desktop. As for the 11001001-issue, it was at the time of BOBW propably the source for the Nebula-Melbournes name, but as it was not seen, it belongs to the Excelsior-Nebula article as the evidentiary value Hossrex has quoted comes into play here. But this is a matter open for discussion of course. (that's why I opened the separate thread on it) --Pseudohuman 20:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Pseudohuman said: if there is room for both versions seen on-screen to coexist (as I believe I have pointed out in this one case there to be), I don't think the right course of action should be to replace one with the other. But only one version of the Melbourne was seen on screen. The ship in BoBW didn't have a registry that could be seen on screen. We saw both versions of the Klingons. We saw both versions of the Trill. We only saw one ship with the name Melbourne, and all the "maybes", "probablys", and "inferences" in the world doesn't make it more canon than that. Pseudohuman also said: The "Riker command"-issue at least refers to the Nebula-Melbourne on the basis of the model added to his desktop. Thats another inference. How could you be so constrictively demanding for evidence about Ancient Origins, without even entertaining the proposition for inference, and implication (and in that episode there is even dialog to back up the claim), and yet here you take Riker having a model on his desk as canonical proof that the Melbourne was a Nebula. I propose that Riker had the Melbourne on his desk because he enjoyed doing models, and thought the design "looked cool". You're constantly deflecting the issue that we didn't see a registry on screen for the BoBW Nebula class ship. You're suggesting we retroactively go back and purposely use a source with less evidentiary weight than a source we already have. One name/registry was seen on screen. One was not. I really think to focus on anything else is to deflect, divert, or entirely miss the point. Hossrex 21:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Memory alpha policy is that if there is a name for a ship available from a valid background source, then it should be used instead of an "unnamed ship" article. Only exception is when that background information contradicts with the canonical information. My whole point has been that here in this case it doesn't. The Nebula-Melbourne should not be added to the "Unnamed Nebula class starships"-page or a merged page when it can have a name and a registry and a page of it's own. Which ship Riker was offered command of is open for debate of course. If we can close this whole merge debate, we can move on to that one. --Pseudohuman 22:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Can we please have one discussion on this page at once. Clearly, solving this issue will make solving the ones listed below much easier, rather than beating 4 dead horses at once.
Anyway, bringing back the 'quick and dirty', here are some simple questions, that cannot be answered without some degree of speculation: Which Melbourne was at Starbase 74? We don't know. Which Melbourne was Riker offered? The one destroyed at Wolf 359. Which Melbourne did Gregory Bergan serve on? The one destroyed at Wolf 359. Is the one Riker was offered and the one Bergan served on the same ship? By name yes, but class, we don't know. Okay, so which one was destroyed at Wolf 359? Both of them.
So now that we can't make any sort of conclusion from that, why again is it an issue to follow the creative liberties that the production staff took when they changed the ship from a Nebula to an Excelsior and slap it on one page per my original "follow suit with the Encyclopedia" suggestion (and a majority of the suggestions by those commenting above)? All the redundancies have pretty much turned the two pages into one anyway, they both have almost identical content or references, which all the more supports a necessity to merge.
Otherwise, this certainly isn't an issue in the dozens of other cases where the production staff changed the designs and classes of numerous other ships in a little something called "TOS-Remastered", where we simply accept the updated, and note the differences from the original. While this isn't word-for-word the same situation, the intentions of replacing poor quality with high(er) quality still applies. --Alan 23:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I vote current edit is the best possible compromise for this matter. It has the behind-the-scenes reasons in the background, it has Memory Alpha policy written all around it. Every bit (dead horse) is where policy demans it to be. It comes at the issue from the position that no inconsistancy exists, and it leaves the reader free to figure out if he wants to dismiss or not dismiss what he sees written there. --Pseudohuman 23:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Well it's obvious you didn't read what I wrote above or you wouldn't have ignored the obvious, per my statements, but as Hossrex has so kindly pointed out already, the "readers" technically would not be aware of there being two Melbournes just from sitting in front of their TV because they can't read the model, and not knowing any of the background information (which we are essentially providing), the only Melbourne they know of, for certain, is the Excelsior. The only reason they would have to decide is because we are making them decide.--Alan 23:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
But they can see that oddly shaped wreckage in all those scenes, and that little study model on all those desks too and I bet someone wonders in their mind: what ship might that be. And they come here to get the full story on it. --Pseudohuman 23:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm surprised this debate has gone on for so long, I'm beyond tired of it. One side says one thing, stressing what they feel is important, and ignoring the rest... then the other side says another thing, stressing what they feel is important, and ignoring the rest... then repeat ad naseum. Isn't there a mechanism where we can like vote on whether to merge or not, similar to voting for deletion? It seems like if there were a vote it'd be pretty one sided. At the very least it'd allow a venue for each position to give one last succinct summation to their position. In my opinion the problem is that I can genuinely understand the position of both sides. I simply fall on the side I have because its my opinion that only one ship can have the same registry/name, and the *ONLY* bit of evidence I've seen to show this isn't true is from the 70's cartoon (which I admit is canon), which was only even true in that instance because of time/budgetary constrictions on the animators. In my final opinion, seeing one thing once shouldn't *BY NATURE* eliminate it from being the norm... but nor should it be automatically taken as regular. If I was into that sort of thing (or thought it had any place on Memory Alpha), I could think of a dozen reasons why those two stupid grain transport ships had the same registry... all of them just as much a retcon/rationalization/non-canon as most of what Pseudomuman has said. Lets just take the next step to ending this. No consensus will be reached, so lets vote. Hossrex 02:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Alright, obviously nobody took the time to actually READ THROUGH my entire speculatory idea...
Again, my idea: Since a dedication model was shown in Sisko's office on DS9, in Maxwell's office in TNG: The Wounded and shown in TNG: Future Imperfect, all of which happened well after TBoBW, it is VERY possible that it WAS NOT THE A MODEL OF THE SAME SHIP DESTROYED IN THE BATTLE OF WOLF 359. A Nebula-class VARIANT appeared in BoBW,P2, and was only cited as being called "Melbourne" by production staff. Yet, in the actual episode, the name and registry do not appear. The registry is partially gone and the name is completely gone. Now, in "Emissary", we see the more detailed Excelsior-class appears with a legible name and registry, and is apparently the Melbourne. So, tell me, which of these is more likely:
1. There were 2 Melbourne's of different class, yet with the same registry.
2. The Excelsior is the actual Melbourne, and the Nebula variant seen is NOT a Melbourne, but a different ship, and the model seen AFTERWARDS is in actuality a model of a ship being constructed/been built to replace the lost Excelsior-Melbourne, which just happens to be of the same class and variant as the Nebula-"Melbourne" lost at 359.
3. Neither are Melbourne's and you're all a bunch of faggots for thinking they are.*
4. Shelby has an low IQ, despite being in a command position, and thus made an English mistake, and there were 2 or 3 or OVER NINE THOUSAAAAAAAAAAAAAAND Melbourne's there.
Seriously consider those options, and then answer. TimberWolf 02:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
PS: *don't take this seriously, please. It's meant as a joke. TimberWolf 02:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think a vote is necessary when one side reaches a position that supports all canon, all of Memory Alpha policy, merges all apparent inconsistencies into text that allows them all to co-exist, and instead of making assumptions without canon basis, actually dissolves those types of assumptions. I understand your side of the argument as well, the underlying need to have everything neat and straightforward, making generalizations from what is presented in most of the material at hand, and wanting to hold on to those generalizations like paradigmas. Dismissing everything that doesn't fit. I find it too rigid of an approach, it creates too much unnecessary inconsistancy where such inconsistancy doesn't need to exist. --Pseudohuman 03:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
To Timberwolf: we all read what you wrote, you just aren't saying anything of any relevance. Also, please don't use insultingly offensive words (if it was a joke, it was quite an ignorant one, and inappropriate for this, or any discussion on Memory Alpha). To PseudoHuman: Of course you don't think a vote is necessary, because you would likely lose. We've all made our points, and we disagree about what is canon. The fact that this discussion has continues unabated for almost two years fairly well proves there will be no pure consensus. This isn't a matter where one side has failed to properly communicate its position. Both sides are well informed, and make persuasive arguments. The problem is that we don't agree what constitutes canon in this situation. You've decided that this doesn't constitute an inconsistency, simply because if it were, a specific Memory Alpha policy would kick in, and yield a result you find unfavorable. This is an inconsistency. If this isn't an inconsistency, literally nothing is. Simply because you weave a complicated tapestry of fan rationalizations, doesn't mean this wasn't an inconsistency. I saw we vote on this, and be done. The debate will never end. Hossrex 06:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I think a lot of things are inconsistent even if this one isn't, a lot of things should be ignored for the sake of consistency. I think we even agree on what is canon here. But your argument here in favor of naming one ship as an unnamed and cluttering another article with any more information on it than is absolutely necessary, simply because at one time for one instant it had the same name and registry of another ship is beyond me. Current edit doesn't claim the Nebula-Melbourne to be the Melbourne discussed in any of the episodes from "11001001" to "Infinite Regress", it simply gives it a name and a number and tells the tale of where it has been seen and as a bgnote how it has come to be. It doesn't make the claim that the general rule of names and registries doesn't apply anywhere ever, in fact it notes the matter as a "highly unusual" occurance. What would a so called "merge" really change here for the better. We would still end up with having two separate pages, one about the wreck and it's model (only now moved to the Unnamed Nebula Class Starships-page), and another article of the Excelsior-Melbourne ship. Does the Excelsior-Melbourne article really absolutely need to be cluttered with information and images of another ship that was used portray it before "Emissary" other than a simple note in the background section to that effect, the way it currently is? --Pseudohuman 09:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Pseudohuman said: a lot of things should be ignored for the sake of consistency. I'll bite. Name one thing you consider an ignorable inconsistency, if not this. Pseudohuman said: I think we even agree on what is canon here. Than why don't we agree? Pseudohuman said: -why you want to merge the articles- simply because at one time for one instant it had the same name and registry of another ship is beyond me. Because there was no on screen evidence for one being the Melbourne, and there was on screen evidence for the other. Memory Alpha has a very strict interpretation of what it is to be canon, and that is what is seen on screen. There is a limited allowance for notes made in script, or on production models, but these sources are not allowed to trump on screen references. Pseudohuman said: What would a so called "merge" really change here for the better. It would follow prescribed Memory Alpha policies by presenting on screen canon information, with limited background notes. Sometimes I think memory Alphas policies suck, but it isn't for you or I to make that decision. If you have a problem with policy, arguing the matter here is pointless. Get the policy changed, then come back and start the debate again. Pseudohuman said: We would still end up with having two separate pages, one about the wreck and it's model (only now moved to the Unnamed Nebula Class Starships-page), and another article of the Excelsior-Melbourne ship. Exactly. We would still end up having two separate pages, the only difference is that they would be organized in a manner in which the community as a whole has agreed upon. Pseudohuman said: Does the Excelsior-Melbourne article really absolutely need to be cluttered with information and images of another ship that was used portray it before "Emissary" other than a simple note in the background section to that effect. That was a quote from you from April 29th 2008 at 9:51am. Pseudohuman said: I understand your side of the argument as well, the underlying need to have everything neat and straightforward, making generalizations from what is presented in most of the material at hand, and wanting to hold on to those generalizations like paradigmas. Dismissing everything that doesn't fit. I find it too rigid of an approach, it creates too much unnecessary inconsistancy. That quote was from the same day, 3:38am. When it suits your point you say "why do you want to clutter everything up? The pages should be neat, and clean". Then another time you say "your problem is that you're too concerned with things being neat, and clean. Sometimes you can't be afraid to clutter everything up." Specifically that You "find it too rigid of an approach". Is it more important that articles be tidy, or that they be complete? Because you've made an argument for each of those two mutually exclusive ideas in the last 7 hours. Why can't we just have a vote on the subject? Isn't that how wiki's work? Hossrex 10:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Summary

Just commenting on the suggestion to have a vote on this topic (because I just can't bring myself to read all of the above - might do later, though):

No, wikis don't generally run on "votes" - they run on consensus (or whatever the plural of that happens to be ;)). Furthermore, having a vote on this specific topic would not only be "not a consensus", it would also undermine the existance of content policies and guidelines. We're having those to achieve at least some consistency throughout our article database, so this article should either adhere to these guidelines, or (if the guidelines currently aren't precise enough for this problem) the guidelines need to be adjusted. So, to see if our current guidelines can help here... could someone sum up the above discussion in some short and precise paragraphs? -- Cid Highwind 11:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

From IRC this morning:
  • [08:16] <gvsualan> I think the jist is that Pseudohuman wants it the way both pages currently are, as he pretty much changed them to suit his desires during the discussion, and Hossrex it the polar opposite. I've tried to meet in the middle, (probably more in favor of Hossrex, but the Nebula should still be acknowledged) by stating that the Excelsior is the real version, and trying to follow suit with how we treat remastered TOS, that the revision trumps and the former goes to the background, which was the case here.
    • [08:19] <CidHighwind> The way the articles are laid out know is really strange.
  • [08:24] <gvsualan> Well, basically, there are four overall references (five if you reference the desk study model), two were "seen", two were "unseen"...with the two that were unseen you can only assume which class it goes with (or as it is now, speculate that it is one or the other)..for as redundant as both articles are, you might as well make it one.
    • [08:26] <CidHighwind> are any of these references made _after_ BOBW?
  • [08:28] <gvsualan> well, Emissary, where the revised Excelsior version appeared...there was one from VOY:Survial Instinct, where there was a reference to some guy having been aboard the Melbourne at Wolf 359...well there were supposedly two Melbournes there, so which was he on?
    • [08:31] <CidHighwind> ok... but there are no references to a Melbourne existing AFTER Wolf 359? that's something, at least ;)
  • [08:31] <gvsualan> well both melbournes were destroyed at Wolf 359
    • [08:32] <CidHighwind> then i agree... make it one page about the (visible) excelsior-melbourne, and add a note about the (invisible) Nebula counterpart
  • [08:34] <gvsualan> Pseudohuman argues in favor of the current versions "I vote current edit is the best possible compromise for this matter. It has the behind-the-scenes reasons in the background, it has Memory Alpha policy written all around it. Every bit (dead horse) is where policy demans it to be. It comes at the issue from the position that no inconsistancy exists, and it leaves the reader free to figure out if he wants to..."
  • [08:35] <gvsualan> ...Except that it is redundant, and speculative, because the "10011001" and "Survival Instinct" references didnt specify which class.
    • [08:36] <CidHighwind> that's true... IF we have two pages, we'd need to make note about those references on both and state that "this might have been the ship that..."
    • [08:36] <CidHighwind> i think one very basic common sense guideline should be: "DON'T CONFUSE READERS", which the current articles achieve pretty nicely ;)
      • [08:39] <DH|Zzzz> I had been preparing a possible compromise version last night, before I got fed up with the whole thing...basically not mentioning class in the main 'in-universe' section at all
    • [08:40] <CidHighwind> in any case, the merge still seems to be the best solution
  • [08:42] <gvsualan> well the thing with not mentioning class is the painfully and blatantly obvious Excelsior version of it we see in Emissary, registry and all. If we had no access to the Encyclopedia or any production information, it would be irrefutable.
  • [08:57] <gvsualan> The Survival Instinct ref could be expanded some, but it still think the same "revisionism" that drives TOS-R was the motivation behind all this..and we didn't have a tenth of the issues with TOS-R that we have with this
  • [08:59] <gvsualan> Remastered "The Enterprise Incident" two or three weeks ago changed the class of a Romulan ship from a D7 to a Bird-of-Prey and we updated accordingly and no one even blinked.
  • [09:04] <gvsualan> well, one is a ship, the other a planet...not quite apples to apples, but DH, yeah, you kind of have a point...
Just thought I would add that from this morning, because we really don't need 50 summaries to the 50 comments. --Alan
I'll take a stab at this.... As I see the dispute,(which is hard to do, given the volume of info), it boils down to: one faction believes there to be two Starships Melbourne at Wolf 359 (a Nebula class and an Excelsior class) and thinks that two articles are the best way to deal with it, regardless of whether you accept that or not. Another faction essentially agrees with the ST Encyclopedia which says that the Melbourne "really" was an Excelsior class ship and the Nebula class ship initially identified as the Melbourne is another starship entirely.
The latter(which, to be fair, I will say I agree with) says that the fact that the Excelsior Melbourne was clearly marked as such and the Nebula one was not should result in one article about the Excelsior class, with a major Background note stating the change in model, why it happened, and other interpretations. They don't think there should be two seperate articles because the evidence supporting their argument is more clear and does not require the use of background information.
The former (as I understand it) says that their argument has no more and no less weight than the other side, and as such should not be reduced to background information. If it was at all possible that there were two Starships Melbourne at Wolf 359, then there should be two articles, each stating the dispute and its interpretations.
I think the key issues here are what canon evidence outweighs what, and how to deal with it. Please do not take my briefness as ignorance of other points of view, but I think this is the essential dispute.--31dot 22:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Is it allowed to remove the offensive language written above?--31dot 22:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I sure don't have a problem with someone removing the word Timberwolf used. Regarding what Cid said: No, wikis don't generally run on "votes" - they run on consensus... (~snip~)... having a vote on this specific topic would not only be "not a consensus", it would also undermine the existance of content policies and guidelines. I apologize for using the wrong word. It would seem you understood perfectly what I *meant*, and were simply dwelling on the language, instead of the intent, which is strange... but I do apologize. Notice however that the "pages for deletion" section of Memory Alpha uses the word "vote". Does that page also undermine Memory Alpha? How about this. I vote we do whatever it is we do when all but one person agree to do something, and no consensus has been reached in over a year. I've laid out all the Memory Alpha policy reasons for merging, and noting... and Pseudohuman can do is say he doesn't want it that way, meaning he has a problem with the policy more than anything else. Hossrex 22:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Cid Highwind: As I understand it, Hossrex thinks it warrants a conflict that can have no reasonable explanation from the in-universe point-of-view, that two ships existed simultaneously with the same name and same registry. Therefore he wants the ship that was seen legible on-screen to be the only ship with the name and registry and the other to be referred to as an "unnamed". I think there is a reasonable in-universe explanation possible for them to have the same name and registry, and therefore think the preferred approach should be followed here and both resources remain valid, as there is available legible visual material of the other ship from a verifiable production source.
The "no reasonable explanation" argument relies on the fact that the general guideline has been that starships have different names and different registries. If one ship has the same name as another, it generally means the previous ship was either retired from service or destroyed. The on-screen legible ship was specifically introduced by production to represent the ship previously portrayed by the other model and therefore got the same name and registry. It is also not conclusively established on-screen that the other model ever represented the same ship, therefore it should remain as an "unknown" and have no article of it's own.
The "reasonable explanation" argument relies on the fact that the general guideline has not been established to be totally absolute. Ships have been seen with same registries before on-screen simultaneously, even though these occurances can also be attributed to production mistakes. This case does not have to be interpreted as an inconsistancy when it can be interpreted as a rare occurance. The legible ship should be accepted to be "the real ship" referenced in dialogue of several episodes as it was specifically introduced by production to represent this ship. The other one should be treated as only having its own appearances, but still having the same name and registry as the other one and an article of it's own. --Pseudohuman 22:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Pseudohuman said: As I understand it, Hossrex thinks it warrants a conflict that can have no reasonable explanation from the in-universe point-of-view, that two ships existed simultaneously with the same name and same registry. Thats not my position even in the slightest. It isn't *ABOUT* what you, or I can explain. Its about what was seen on screen, and how much evidentiary weight our source for canon carries. Statements made in script notes, and production models do not carry the same evidentiary weight as on screen sources. That statement is taken directly from Memory Alpha policy. I'm not even the slightest bit concerned with "explanations". Not reasonable, or otherwise. I'm concerned with canon, and Memory Alpha policy. If something is supported by canon, but is the stupidest thing in the world, I'll stand behind it. If something isn't supported by canon, but its the most awesome thing in the world, it has no place on Memory Alpha. Hossrex 22:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
To Hossrex: Evidentiary weight of valid sources only matters when there is a conflict. As you say "If something is supported by canon, but is the stupidest thing in the world, I'll stand behind it." So will I. Perhaps you are not familiar with the fact that a legible image of a model seen on-screen from a production source is considered a valid source aka canon, by Memory Alpha policy. I by the way do not support the recent changes made by 70.51.233.196 --Pseudohuman 23:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Pseudoman said: Perhaps you are not familiar with the fact that a legible image of a model seen on-screen from a production source is considered a valid source aka canon, by Memory Alpha policy. Perhaps you are not familiar with the fact that production sources are considered canon, but not considered as canon as information seen on screen. That you would even phrase that barb the way you just did was insulting. I've said ten times at least in this discussion that script notes, and production models are considered canon... but they are *NOT* considered canon equal to that of what is seen on screen. You knew that I knew that, you're simply trying to make it look like I don't know what I'm talking about, which is utterly pointless because I guarantee you that any changes being made have nothing to do with me. I didn't convince Cid, or anyone else of anything. My position just happens to be the position supported by Memory Alpha policy. Hossrex 23:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
To Hossrex: My appologies. I really meant no insult, also I should have placed the statement on a different paragraph concerning 70.51.233.196, I did not mean to imply it was connected to you. So, to summarize, both our positions are supported by Memory Alpha policy, mine if there is no conflict, yours if there is one. I don't know how to accurately phrase your position in relation to mine with the words you would use. But perhapes it is clear now for everyone what our positions are. --Pseudohuman 00:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
For what its worth, I do understand how Memory Alpha policy could be interpreted to support both positions. Hossrex 00:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
In case anyone cares, there IS evidence of a Melbourne existing after Wolf 359, or are we now ignoring the dedication models seen in TNG, in two episodes after BoBW,P2, and DS9? TimberWolf 02:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
We're talking about starships here, not models. --Alan 02:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Unless I'm mistaken, aren't dedication models, in-universe, made to resemble actual starships? And aren't they made when a starship has been built and distributed to anyone that wants one?
You can't just ignore one thing and embrace another. There is evidence that a different Melbourne was made after the Excelsior one was destroyed, and that it just happened to have been of the same class variant as a Nebula destroyed at Wolf 359. TimberWolf 14:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
PS: The only exception to the first paragraph is that Constellation model Picard has. But, even then, it could've been a ship that was built and registered but not named.
TimberWolf: you are right, it is also completely possible to dismiss the Excelsior-Melbourne as a ship that was retired before The Battle of Wolf 359 and due to the crisis pulled out of retirement to serve along with it's successor. This too is a rationalization, even though it proves there doesn't need to be a conflict, and all canon sources can remain valid. We can create similar theories perfectly in line with established canon to justify every inconsistancy in Star Trek. And we as fans propably do, but Memory Alpha needs to keep it simple to a point.
This discussion is about where that point is. When should a starship have a page of its own and when should it exist only as a background note. Where that line is. As it has become apparent we desperately need a written policy that CANNOT be interpreted to support both positions in any similar cases as CidHighwind has suggested.
As of now starships in similar circumstances that have retained a page of their own and not been merged include Bonaventure (C1-21) - Phoenix, The USS Enterprise (XCV 330) - Enterprise NX-01. Then there are the cases like Klothos (D5-class) - Klothos (D7-class) and USS Ahwahnee (NCC-73620) - USS Ahwahnee (NCC-71620) where there has been a merge.
Literary interpretation of the current policy on conflicts reads to the effect: It should always be the presumption that a conflict does not exist when it is possible to interpret it doesn't and preserve both sources without dismissing either. That on it's own would not support merges at all when it's possible to interpret there were two Klothoses and two Ahwahnees as that would preserve the integrity of both sources. It supports the extension of interpretation to rationalization in every conflict and does not draw the line when such a conflict is conflict enough to be taken as an actual conflict and when it is not.
What then is the difference between the cases of Bonaventure and XCV 330 compared to Klothos and Ahwahnee. I can see two.
1. The fact that Bonaventure was seen as a display-model and as a computer screen, XCV 330 was seen as several paintings and a display graphic (= multiple references in conflict with multiple references) D5-Klothos was spoken of once, D7-Klothos seen once and Ahwahnee was seen once, then named once (= single references in conflict)
2. The names in essence are the same for Klothoses and Ahwahnees. Any difference can be attributed to a typo or a mistake "5 is 7" or "3 is 1". NX-01 can't be a typo of XCV 330, Phoenix cant be a typo of Bonaventure.
According to the 1st difference Nebula-Melbourne deserves a page of it's own, according to the 2nd it doesn't. So, a line should be clearly drawn in the policy page somehow to justify the times when a conflict should be presumed to exist (regardles of the rationalization that points out it doesn't) and when we should presume a conflict doesn't exist. Then we can write consistantly articles that follow that policy as a princible. --Pseudohuman 17:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Its impossible to put too much weight on models seen on desks, or shelves, as all that indicates is that likely that class of ship exists, or existed. It puts no inherently implied name to the ship, without a person making an assumption. As far as I can see, regarding Pseudohumans newest findings, is that it isn't quite as analogous as it appears. We know what happened here. We know why it happened. Its illogical to say "we must accept what the production designers have said regarding which ship was supposed to be the Melbourne in BoBW, but we must ignore what the production designers have said regarding which ship was supposed to be *THE* Melbourne in Emissary." Either we accept what the producers say, or we don't. If we accept what they say, the Excelsior Melbourne was the only Melbourne, because they changed their mind. If we don't accept what they say, the Excelsior Melbourne was the only Melbourne, because it was the only Melbourne identifiable on screen. There is 100% as much logic for having an in universe article for the Millennium Falcon, as there is for the Nebula Melbourne. Hossrex 21:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
As you know, Hossrex, information from production staff, even if it's Okuda, is considered reference material only. It is on the same level as all background information. We know of the producers intent in this case only from the background material. We know of the name on the starship and the dedication model from a source considered canon. Producers intent doesn't carry as much weight as that canon and under current policy should be ignored when that canon contradicts it.
As for the Millennium Falcon. If the Falcon-model would of had any kind of text on it, even an in-joke name, when it was used in First Contact, I'm sure it would have a page of its own in Memory Alpha instead of being listed as the Cylindrical Ship at the Battle of Sector 001 in the Unnamed Federation starships-page as has been demonstrated by the likes of USS Alka-Selsior. --Pseudohuman 23:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Why does it matter if the Falcon has a name printed on the ship? We have ships listed on Memory Alpha where we never saw the name on a production model, and the name was never said on screen, but only mentioned as background notes by the production staff (several alien ship fits this qualification). We know what the name of the ship is from the production artist who created it.
As for all the rest of the stuff you said where you were talking about some things being canon, but different things being more canon than others, and contradictions should weigh the level of canon to determine we go with almost entirely debases your previous comments. You literally go as far as to say "Producers intent doesn't carry as much weight as that canon". You're right. That the producers originally wanted an unidentifiable ship to be the Melbourne is meaningless, since we have canonical evidence that the Melbourne was an Excelsior. You can't have that train of logic run a direction that favors you, but not in the direction that you find unfavorable. Hossrex 02:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

the Melbourne in the Voyager episode

Some mentioned earlier about this earlier, but just to make it clear, the Melbourne in "Unity was the Excelsior-Melbourne, since the "Emissary" footage of the ship was reused. So there is no confusion which Melbourne it was.

Just to make that clear.

64.230.123.15 20:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that's pretty self explanatory, it was seen, what's not self explanatory is the reference in VOY: "Infinite Regress", which was a verbal.. --Alan 20:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Precedence

From what I can tell, the registry and name for the Nebula version isn't seen onscreen. So why don't we follow the example from Unnamed Constitution class starships and Unnamed Oberth class starships and move this info to Unnamed Nebula class starships? Otherwise we would need "USS Valiant (Oberth class)" and "USS Enterprise (Wolf 359 ship)" pages.--Tim Thomason 04:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

If we do, then I suggest a clear policy that No ship, person or item should be named in Memory Alpha that isn't clearly named on-screen or clearly referred to in dialogue. An unnamed entry should be preferred if a name is derrived from a more legible image, background source or a script, that name should be noted only as a background note in an entry. That way we would avoid this type of situation in other cases too. --Pseudohuman 05:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for the sarcastic remark there. I feel we only get sidetracked over and over from the main problem. That is = policy doesn't clearly enough specify where the line should be drawn. We can go on forever with you saying why not draw it before this ship, and I will say why not behind it. And then throw around examples of ships that have an article of their own and those that haven't. But we end up going in circles. As there is no clear statement in the policy about when a conflict should be presumed to be a conflict and when it should be presumed not to be. What the specific criteria is. And we really really really need that policy change to break the tie in this case and all cases like it. Otherwise we continue the fruitless debate ad infinitum. And since apparently there is a line in use that just isn't specified in writing in the policy - can we add it there so we can put these kinds of debates to rest once and for all? We have plenty of examples to follow, but as this article is right there in the middle, it requires a clear general rule that can be applied to all similar cases. --Pseudohuman 05:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
We're just going around in circles. If the way Memory Alpha find consensus is through attrition, waiting for all but one person to lose interest, then consider it over. Pseudohuman wins. I officially tired of saying the same things over, and over again, just slightly re-worded. Hossrex 05:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
"The line must be drawn here! This far, and no further!"
Star Trek: First Contact quotes don't belong here.
=P TimberWolf 17:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

If policy truly needs to be changed, then it should be suggested on the policy's talk page (and/or if clearly acceptable, anyone can change the page itself). I've always felt that too much policy is a bad thing and common sense and "precedence" should for the most part dictate actions here.

The Melbourne situation appears to be an oddity, but kinda has been done before. As I've mentioned, the USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) was also at Wolf 359, but we don't cover that, because other sources seem to show it as an impossibility. Using my sarcasm above, I suggested we either move this to Unnamed Nebula class or make a USS Enterprise (Wolf 359) page.

Although this may appear to be a "one person versus the storm" situation, the Faux-person is not alone. This page has been around since Ensign q separated the info from a background note on the old USS Melbourne page (before it was disambiguated). People like Pseudohuman and Ensign q have argued for the inclusion or exclusion before, so this isn't an argument of attrition fighting against a lone soldier.

Producers have changed their minds, and Memory Alpha has come to accept this, through precedent, by "updating" the necessary articles after the special edition, director's cut, or remastered episode. Conflicting info is moved to background, while non-conflicting info should, ideally, have a note that it's from the non-remastered/special/director.

Of course, what I'm saying implies that having two Melbournes (NCC-62043) is a mistake, but that's not really the case. Background sources, the same kind that prove the Melbourne was a Nebula, also point out that the producers decided to re-make it as an Excelsior. Nothing I've seen, suggests anyone intended to make *another* Melbourne, other than incidentally re-using/re-shooting some footage.--Tim Thomason 02:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Tim Thomason said: this isn't an argument of attrition fighting against a lone soldier. But in practice what will happen here if there isn't some sort of vote, or moderator coming in and making a decision, is that the page will just stay the same as it currently is (with separate articles) until everyone gets tired of repeating themselves, and forget about this problem. Either that, or someone decides to change the page, and another person reverts it (because no consensus has been reached), and we have an edit war. Its still just a matter of attrition. If there isn't an official way to deal with problems where no consensus can be reached, the last person who still gives a crap after everyone else is bored and gone, gets his way. Especially since its already (for some reason) structured in the manner in which the clear minority prefer it. All he has to do is continue to maintain a lack of consensus, and he wins. Thats garbage. Hossrex 04:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree that too much policy is a bad thing and "precedence" should preferably dictate actions here. But which precedence. Common sense is a great term you can throw around too, but it's just a way of trying to appeal people to accept one valid logic over another valid logic, or one valid interpretation over another in these types of cases.
Nothing I've seen suggests anyone intended to make the USS Horizon and Horizon (starship) as two different ships, or Horizon-type and Daedalus-class as two different ship classes. But they are. Nothing suggests anyone intended the Bonaventure (C1-21) to be anything more than an early design of the Phoenix, or USS Enterprise (XCV 330) as anything but an early design of the Enterprise (NX-01), in both cases abandoned at the point where the ship was needed for a more prominent appearance. Sure the XCV 330 was there as a painting but it wasn't mentioned to be an Enterprise after the NX-01 was introduced. Wouldn't Archer have had a drawing of it on his ready room wall if it was? Or maybe we just rationalize that there wasn't room for one anywhere on the ship. Sure Decker said "all these ships were called the Enterprise" but so did Shelby say "the Melbourne" at a screen that had no Excelsior wrecks in it and a Nebula-wreck with the name Melbourne on it. Similarily as in the precedences above Nebula-Melbourne is analogous to an "early design" for Excelsior-Melbourne. So why not therefore give it a page of it's own too.
USS Enterprise (Wolf 359 ship) was on the other hand a clear case of a reuse of a prop that was not relabeled. It was not specifically created for that scene with that name on it. It follows the precedence of reused footage and props. But the Nebula-Melbourne is not a reused prop in it's first appearance as a ship or it's first appearance as a dedication model. And it has multiple appearances/sources like did the XCV 330 and C1-21 so it's not that clear which precedence to go with. As I said before, this one is right there in the middle of it all. Both sides can present equally impressive precedences to support their sides in this case. Hossex said its not as analogous as those cases, but no case is totally analogous with another. --Pseudohuman 10:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I just really think what was seen on screen should be what we focus on. If someone wants to post something that wasn't on screen, but it comes from a Memory Alpha "accepted" source, and doesn't contradict anything seen on screen, then why not. If any source not seen on screen confuses any subject which is fairly well documented on screen, then it really is harmful to Memory Alpha. Having multiple pages for the same ship (it *WAS* the same ship, and you *KNOW* it was the same ship) confuses people who come to Memory Alpha for information. The only possible purpose to have this information presented the way it currently is presented is simply to satiate the five people who *ALREADY KNOW THE INFORMATION*. There isn't a single person who would *EVER* come to Memory Alpha who would look up the Melbourne, and find our information lacking if everything was succinctly posted into one article with background notes explaining the interesting production discrepancies. On the other hand, the way the articles are organized now, they're very friendly towards the hardcore fanbase who already know all the information presented within them. They're perfectly suited to a website who's goal is to cater to people who already know everything. Need information on the Melbourne? Which Melbourne? If you know why there are two Melbournes, you probably aren't bothering to look up the Melbourne. If you don't know why there are two Melbournes, you're going to be very confused about which Melbourne article you need to click on. So you click on both. Now you see half the information repeated on both pages, and find yourself confused even worse.
Being in favor of two different Melbourne pages very clearly means you don't really care about people who aren't as knowledgeable as you are. I didn't know any of this information until I came here for this debate. If I'd watched an episode, and decided to see which ship was the Melbourne, I'd either be confused about what was posted here twice, or give up in frustration as I try to figure out which ship was mentioned in the episode I watched.
Its confusing. You know its confusing. You just think the people who already know all this stuff are more important than the people who don't (which frankly should be the audience an encyclopedia should cater to). Its only not confusing if you already know which ship has done what, which ship is which class, and which article covers which ship. Which means, its only not confusing to people who wouldn't bother ever searching. WHICH MEANS... it *IS* confusing to anyone who might ever actually search for our information.
Why would we structure our articles to be confusing to the people who need the information held within? Hossrex 10:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
That is not my purpose at all, if you think it is, you are totally mistaken. I think the whole point of article divides like Horizon-type - Daedalus-class, Horizon (starship) - USS Horizon, XCV 330 - NX-01, C1-21 - Phoenix is to acknowledge and illustrate that everything the Encyclopedias are telling us isn't necessarely canonically true. That Memory Alpha is the source of information that looks at Trek from a more objective point-of-view, free of those assumptions. You may personally find it confusing and frustrating but I'm sure others will find it enlightening. As for the way the main text contents are divided currently between articles, that is another discussion yet to be had. --Pseudohuman 11:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Nobody thinks your purpose is to be confusing. YOU are "totally mistaken" for taking it that way. Jeezum. MA has a purpose, though, and it's not to cater to the most pedantic contributors, it's to be useable to the people who are trying to use MA as a reference source to find facts. OK, that's not name-calling, that's an illustration of the issue. TribbleFurSuit 19:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Tribble. I'm simply suggesting that we look at what would be better in practice, instead of what would be better in theory. In practice, it would be difficult for people who didn't already have knowledge about the Melbourne to find all the information available about the Melbourne (or even if they could find it all, it would be difficult to understand why we've organized the pages the way they currently are). The only people who would be comfortable with the system (as is currently in place) would be people who don't need the information, because they already know everything about it. Thats a mistake. Theres every bit as much reason to have two pages for Saavik, and say that since she was obviously a different actress, that she must obviously be a different character. That there were actually two Saavik's in the battle against Khan, and we just didn't see one of them. There is no specific canonical law saying that one ship can't have two Lieutenants named Saavik (one half vulcan, the other full vulcan). Its the exact same argument, but being on the outside of the debate, doesn't it sound absurd to even suggest? What would your opinion of that debate be, if someone else had brought it up, and used every argument you're (Pseudohuman) using to defend the Melbourne schism? It would overly complicate things for no tangible gain. Hossrex 21:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
The tolerance in valid resources policy specifically denies a Saavik schism, so its not remotely comparable here. I do understand that the current discussion foreshadows the next problem in line you wish to avoid all together. "Which Melbourne does all the dialogue refer to?" If we merge a page, we can say "this one" and be done with it. If not, we pick and choose using policy and leave the little note behind: "all references might refer to the other Melbourne" and be done with it. If there weren't these dialogue references I suspect we would have gone the way of the XCV 330 - NX-01 a long time ago. I know your core issue is with those three instances of ambiguity. And my core issue is with the idea that a little ambiguity can cause a perfectly canonical starship featured in several episodes to be dismissed away as some obscure inconsistency when it doesn't need to be one. When other ships before it in similar circumstaces have been treated with objectivity. You may call it pedantic, I don't. --Pseudohuman 22:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Pseudohuman said: my core issue is with the idea that a little ambiguity can cause a perfectly canonical starship featured in several episodes to be dismissed away as some obscure inconsistency when it doesn't need to be one. Yet an obscure inconsistency is precisely what it was. That there is a policy against a Saavik Schism is a *GOOD* thing. That doesn't change the fact that these two situations are identical, and a similar policy either should be in place, or in my opinion already is in place. There is a very large difference between pedantic, and pointlessly confusing. Hossrex 23:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


Name: USS Melbourne
Registry: NCC-62043
Affiliation: Federation/Starfleet
Status: Destroyed
Datestatus: 2367
Template:ShipClass
Class: Template:ShipClass
Template:ShipClass
Class: Template:ShipClass
Hossrex: That is actually the best damn suggestion yet - Really treat the ships like actors. Instead of bickering over which ship should be "the real Melbourne", and which do we ignore, we avoid the inconsistency alltogether. We say both were. All scenes of the wreck, the dedication model and the reused Excelsior-model are of the same ship. Sure the model was changed from one scene to the next in "Emissary", so what. Instead of arguing which class of ship it was, we say it was both. We take into play the "suspension of disbelief"-factor like with actors playing the same part. Instead of beginning with a sidebar of "actor: something" and "actor: something" we just put "class: Nebula" "class: Excelsior". In order of appearance, as demonstrated there. We avoid the issue of claiming the ship has a "real class" at all. The entire time my point has been that all canon needs to be respected in this case. I had the problem with the current system of placing ships into categories by class and therefore forcing us and our readers to basicly ignore canon by naming the nebula-Melbourne as an "unnamed Nebula-class ship", which I have a real problem with. This solution would ignore no canon. It wouldn't blindly go the Encyclopedia path of claiming "Melbourne was ever an Excelsior-class ship". Neither ship would only be mentioned in the background. It wouldn't claim either way. We then add the ship into both classes categories in all pages. Like we would add a character played by two actors to both actors pages. This could actually be a great precedence on how Memory Alpha deals with inconsistency. When it happens we don't weigh which instance has more evidentiary weight, we just stay neutral. If Klothos was a D7 in one episode and a D5 in another, we say it was both, for example. List it as a D5 and a D7 ship. We remove the mention of class from the main text and state them in the background. What do you think? Thats the only way to make an objective article even though it goes against policy when it substains from weighing evidentiary values. It really leaves it up to the reader to decide as freely and objectively as is possible what to make of it. --Pseudohuman 02:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I have *ABSOLUTELY* no idea how badly that might contradict Memory Alpha policy, but frankly... its at least a fair compromise. I'm curious why you're opposed to background notes explaining the discrepancy though. My position has been solidly on the side of there being only one page for "both" ships, but how that one page is executed I'm very open to debate, and compromise. Can we get a Memory Alpha expert in here to act like a lawyer (errr... I actually mean that in a good, respectful way), and give us the ramifications of this idea, in regards to how it effects policy, and if possible, how it could be modified to fit into that context? Good job Pseudohuman. We're actually getting somewhere. Hossrex 02:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Point of order: I move to call the question and proceed immediately to voting on the Merge proposal, without any further discussion. TribbleFurSuit 03:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Hossrex: There can be a bgnote to explain the discrepancy in a few sentences. I'm not opposed to that. For example "The Melbourne was portrayed by the more detailed Excelsior-model built for ST III in a scene of the "Emissary". Therefore it is not clear which class of ship she was." or something to that effect, and the appearences appendix can show which appearences were by what model so that people know what they can expect to see in what episode. --Pseudohuman 04:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I am 100% on board with this. Hell... I'm so on board with it, that I'd be willing to give more in the compromise. I'm still curious for someone to come in and tell us whether this violates some policy or not. Hossrex 08:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
As am I. I also realized this is the perfect way to start dealing with all the remastered issues. For example the Starbase 6 and Woden retcons of "The Ultimate Computer". We could list Woden as being both a DY-100 ship and an Antares-type. At the same time. SB6 to be a K7-type station (or I suppose the correct designation would be "deep space-type" after Sisko's line: "one of the old deep space stations" from "Trials and Tribble-ations") and a SB6-type station. Even though evidentiary weight would be in favor of treating the remastered versions as "the real ones". I'm sure a lot of people have become accustomed after some 40 years to the idea of thinking there are more DY-100-ships out there and more of the "K7-type" stations and consider remastered and original versions as just as valid canon. If we start this we could add it into the "Tolerance in valid resources"-policy as "Different models portraying the same ship (e.g. Melbourne, Woden)" right under the actor bit as one of the things that will not affect the validity of a resource so we can avoid these controversies in the future. (as I'm afraid they replaced the old NCC-1701 in that new film with something thats just a little bit too different from what the ship was in "The Cage") :) --Pseudohuman 09:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I was always silently uncomfortable with the remastered episodes being treated as "new" canon anyway. I wasn't a part of the discussion for policy, so I sorta just assumed *someone* had to have argued my beliefs, and there were good reasons to do it the way Memory Alpha has decided to do it. In the end though, I think what we're hitting on here is the better way to go... just my opinion... for whatever thats worth. I can't help but think that if one of us had decided to just make the changes to pages (instead of requesting policy clarification), someone would have been here in a heartbeat to make sure we were following policy. I guess its not as fun to quote policy if someone asks for help, instead of just going around acting like a big man. Hossrex 12:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Pseudo stated: That is actually the best damn suggestion yet - Really treat the ships like actors. Instead of bickering over which ship should be "the real Melbourne", and which do we ignore, we avoid the inconsistency altogether.
So... in other words... the suggestion that came up ~60k ago and then again from a different source near the top of this page weren't good enough? Oh wait... that's what they both suggested.
This discussion has gone on far too long, gone in far too many circles, resulted in far too many stupid edits to the page. And it really hasn't solved anything when it's now veered off course into discussions about TOS-R.
As such, it's time to resolve this issue. Since everyone involved seems to agree on the fact that both ships are really the same, I'm taking care of that right now. Any further policy-related discussions on TOS-R should not be held here. -- Sulfur 13:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
1: Isn't what TOS-R is doing relevant to this discussion? We can't make a decision on what to do about the Melbourne without taking into account how the Remaster decision fits into this one. They're interrelated.
2: We continued to discuss the subject because there was no consensus. Yes we eventually reached a conclusion that was proposed much earlier, but there was no consensus at that point. This wasn't a case where someone didn't agree with the policy, it was a case where we couldn't agree on what was policy. What should have been done before consensus was reached? Isn't a protracted discussion better than an edit war?
3: I don't understand your angry tone suggesting we shouldn't have discussed this. Would you prefer a decision be made before consensus? Would you prefer a non-optimal resolution?Hossrex 22:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Finally

Congrats to User:Pseudohuman for finally finding a compromise that is acceptable to everyone, including myself. Also congrats to User:Sulfur for implementing the compromise.

I am glad that in the end, I pretty much accomplished what I wanted: to end the theory that the Melbourne was only a Template:ShipClass.

The question now though, is how we modify the other articles in Memory Alpha to match this one, especially Template:ShipClass, the Excelsior-class, "Emissary", and the "Best of Both Worlds" articles.

It looks like we a lot more work to do, but since when do we not? :)

Ambassador/Ensign_Q 19:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. And thanks to everyone who I have had the privilege to argue with here, especially User:Hossrex. I feel this was an important discussion regarding the inherent danger of retcons and the way MA deals with them by disregarding objectivity. I hope all ships and stations that suffer from retcons to the extent of being of two classes or types at the same time will one day find their way to the lists and categories of both, for the people who browse throught those categories to find all the relevant articles. It would be better than being treated as an undetermined, or one or the other. But still. It's mission accomplished on this one. Mostly. :) --Pseudohuman 04:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I mostly chalk this one up as a success because we were allowed an open forum of discussion. A couple times everyone concerned said things that perhaps we regret (I know I did, and I know I do), but we were allowed to work through it, which doesn't always happen. Both sides fought for what they considered important, and compromised on what wasn't, and damn it, thats exactly how it should be. When passionate people get together, at times it can seem like a junior high school slumber party hissyfit, but its amazing how often that hissyfit can work itself into something great for everyone concerned. Because we were allowed to disagree, we agreed on a solution that everyone seems happy with. Thank you Pseudohuman. Out of our discord, I hope you'll agree we've forged a friendship. Ironically, if a moderator/administrator had stepped in before things worked themselves out, this probably wouldn't have been true. I applaud Pseudohuman, the mods/admins of Memory Alpha, and everyone else concerned with this discussion (especially whomever originally came up with the compromise we eventually agreed upon. So everyone involved, it may have took longer than would have been preferable, but a seemingly impossible consensus was reached. Damn it, but thats worth celebrating. I hereby raise a metaphorical glass of Tranya (or Romulan Ale, whichever you prefer), and propose a toast to the community. Even when it seems like the community has failed, sometimes we can surprise you. Congratulations to everyone who reads this. Hossrex 07:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Hossrex, is that really you? I can't believe you're the same person who wrote this, but... OK. Make some friends, lose some friends, I guess TribbleFurSuit 02:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Why are you going around trolling Memory Alpha? Are you trying to make me look bad, or are you trying to start a fight? I can't figure out any other answer for your actions here. Please stop. Hossrex 04:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Melbourne-related articles status

As I stated before, there are still articles in Memory Alpha relating to the Melbourne that still must be edited to reflect the new changes. To make this easier, I have made the following list. Entries will be crossed off once they had been edited, unless I am convince otherwise.

== Melbourne-related Articles Needing Attention ==

If you have any to add, feel free to do so.

Ambassador/Ensign_Q 21:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what exactly you are trying to do here. If you are trying to remove any reference to the class of the Melbourne, then by all means. However, that is not what you did with cutting beam. There, you removed the fact that the Melbourne was there. It was seen in "Emissary". ---- Willie LLAP 19:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Since we don't know what class the Melbourne is, we can't say that it was "seen" in Emissary. All we can say is that we witnessed an Excelsior-class that has been destroyed by a cutting beam. That doesn't mean the Melbourne was hit by a cutting beam necessarily. Which is why I changed to the way it was. My purpose is to remove any specific mention of any class choice of the Melbourne. Verbal references are fine, but visual references must be presented with a grain of salt. Ambassador/Ensign_Q 17:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
But it was "seen" in "Emissary" and it was an Excelsior. Stating otherwise would simply be a lie. I'd hardly call something that can be read at VCR quality as something to be taken with a grain of salt.. you can't even tell the Nebula bares this name at HD quality. --Alan 17:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Obviously, we are having another issue here, so I will clarify:
We, as the Memory Alpha community, could not conclude whether or not the Melbourne was either an Excelsior-class or a Nebula-class or both, so we therefore compromised and said that the class of the Melbourne is unknown, and that it could be either or both. Everybody was happy with this solution.
Just because we modified this article, however, doesn't mean we can leave the rest of MA the way it is. This is why the Melbourne is listed as "uncertain" in both the Nebula-class and Excelsior-class articles. The rest of the related Melbourne articles must be modified to follow suit with this collective view.
This is why we can't have an article cutting beam saying the Melbourne's saucer was destroyed by a cutting beam, because it is refering to the Excelsior-Melbourne and only to the Excelsior-Melbourne. We don't know if the Nebula-Melbourne was damaged by cutting beams, so the statement is therefore not neutral. Thus, we are forced to call it "an Excelsior-class starship", with a footnote, so we can maintain neutrality, and allow the reader to come up with his own conclusions.
Obviously, people are not understanding this.
70.48.69.142 17:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
"Everybody was happy with this solution" my ass. The only thing that can be agreed upon by "we, the Memory Alpha community" is that "background sources" mucked this whole situation up by providing information that conflicts with what can be seen on screen. To simply ignore the blatant obvious references in favor of long winded ignorance is plan silly. "We, the Memory Alpha community" are hardly the ones to be enforcing canon, much less with something that the average viewer cannot even begin to see, as I stated above. --Alan 18:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I like how you are starting to complain about this now, "Alan", when before when we came about this mutual solution (mutual solution in that all present seemed okay with it), you kept silent. And only after I edit an unremarkable and fairly unimportant article do you start voicing your objections. And instead of introducing any new evidence, you are simply repeating yourself. Look how far we came with that approach. You really want to open this can of worms again? Ambassador/Ensign_Q 19:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki