Talk: Galaxy class model

FA status

Nomination (22 Dec 2011 - 29 Jan 2012, Failed)

Incredibly detailed article; Sennim has created another article that just demands to be featured. - Archduk 3 00:24, December 22, 2011 (UTC)

Just some comments for the moment (although I might choose to elevate them to proper opposition): I feel the article is very hard to read due to its use of inline-italics for quotes. Quotes formatted like this make up big parts of the article, and huge italicized paragraphs are just too hard to follow. There's also a different quote formatting in use, which is indented/block in normal font. I think the article needs to be copyedited so that all "bigger" quotes are formatted according to that second style, and only short sentence fragments remain as inline quotes. I'd like to read through the article after this has been changed and then decide on the actual content. However, two things that are immediately apparent are 1) no image at the article top (one should be moved there), and 2) the overall article length. I wonder if this isn't actually too long already, and should be split in two or more articles about subtopics. -- Cid Highwind 11:04, December 22, 2011 (UTC)

It is a bit long, IMO. --Defiant 12:30, December 22, 2011 (UTC)

I could see splitting this up into a few articles; one about the general history of the design, and articles about the construction of the various types of models. The general history article could then contain links to the latter articles. I think that if that was done, they could all be FA's.--31dot 12:40, December 22, 2011 (UTC)

I've done a pass at the quotes, and moved one of the images to the top (waiting on feedback before updating the blurb), but I once again feel that it needs to be pointed out that there is no size requirement or limitation for FAs. That said, I just don't see a way to break this article up without introducing more problems than the perceived one about the length, and it's not like we're going to start breaking up other long articles like James T. Kirk or Worf any time soon. - Archduk 3 16:59, December 22, 2011 (UTC)

But every time you point out that there is no "size requirement/limitation", I point out that there still is a difference between being comprehensive and being so detailed that no one ever will read through the article in one run - or at least it feels as if I'm repeating myself here, too. I have, right now, just read up to the end of section 3 (of 10!) and it already feels as if I read at least two complete articles. -- Cid Highwind 17:34, December 22, 2011 (UTC)

Some more stuff (just sections 1-3):

This image is misplaced in the article, the text explaining it being at a lower position than the image itself. Perhaps needs a rearrangement of text if the new location clashed with other images.
According to the text, this image is supposed to show the "real colors" of the model - but there are three images, each one displaying different colors. Something like "(upper left)" (at least I guess that's the correct one) needs to be added.
In the six-foot model subsection "Use", there's a big block of text formatted as background note. What's the reason for this, and shouldn't the text just be formatted like the rest? It's a real-world article, after all.
Just preceding that bgnote, there's a quote in which someone states that a ball of tape was "this big", apparently showing something with his hands - there should be a note about the actual size shown.

-- Cid Highwind 17:52, December 22, 2011 (UTC)

Section 4 (Two-foot model):

This image is described as showing "test-lighting" of the two-foot model - but it seems as if it actually is a comparison between two different models. Needs explanation.
This image is described as showing just the matte painting of the starbase interior - but it actually is a composite shot with the six-foot model already. Needs either a different image or a rewrite of the description - and in any case, should not be located in a section about the two-foot model if it shows the six-footer. -- Cid Highwind 18:12, December 22, 2011 (UTC)

In section 5 ("Filming the six and two-foot models", subsection "stock footage"), there's a reference to Robert Legato making Image G "shoot a rock" - out of nowhere and unexplained. Not sure if "the rock" is supposed to be the stellar core fragment that destroyed the Tsiolkovsky or something else - there should either be an explanation, or that bit be trimmed off. Thinking about the whole section, I believe that would be a good candidate for removal from this article (either to the articles of the different effect companies, or to a completely new one like Galaxy class effect shots). I'll stop at that point for the time being, and oppose based on the problems listed so far. More later (or during the holidays :)). -- Cid Highwind 18:42, December 22, 2011 (UTC)

Some preliminary comments. First, I don't really like the lead-in to this article. I'd prefer a sentence that gives a better overview of the article as a whole. (More like Constitution class model)

Second - I'm a bit confused by the bit about "Cause and Effect". The text and the quote regarding what the effects people did don't seem to match up. Did they use firecrackers or timed charges to blow up the model? If it was both, this needs to be clarified.–Cleanse ^{( talk | contribs )} 00:04, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

@Cleanse: Preliminary pass at rewording the intro, feel free to make further changes.

@Cid: I wouldn't consider this article to be so large as to make it unreadable, as I've read it in one go just a few days ago. As I've said already, I see splitting the article to be a solution that's worse than the "problem" since most of information at the suggested split points overlaps greatly. That said, we should get this up to snuff, I've asked Sennim for help with some of the issues involving info I don't have, and then see if the article needs splitting, with temp pages and all that jazz. Anyway, here's some responses to the section 1-3 stuff:

1) I've moved the image down, but it's placement was correct before I introduced the blockquote format, there may be a few other images that need to simply be moved around the quotes as they are now.

2) You're guess is as good as mine on that, since my screen sucks. I've added the suggested text for now though.

3) As for the use of the bginfo template, I've read that to mean the info inside is a bit of a tangent to the rest of the section, though it could be formatted differently I guess. I'd rather give a change for Sennim to respond to that first though.

4) I'll get to checking the DVD shortly unless someone beats me to it. - Archduk 3 03:21, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

More stuff:

There's a custom gallery in subsection #Build that should be turned into a proper one.
There are many "collage" type images, such as this one. Not all of them seem to be collages in their respective sources, and we have a guideline to not merge individual images where possible. So, all of these should be checked whether they can sensibly be split again.
Way down in the CGI-section, there's this statement: "As Digital Muse had only the four-foot model at their disposal as reference, their model was endowed with the original color scheme of the Galaxy class, light blue-gray with duck-egg blue highlights, instead of the color-scheme applied to the six-foot model at ILM." - yet in the section about the 6-footer, it states that "One [color] is a duck egg blue, and the other is kind of a sky blue" and in the section about the 4-footer, it states that "the base hull color was shifted to a lighter blue-, almost white-gray tone". So, there may be a mix up in the description of what color scheme exactly the CGI model has (and if it is indeed the 4-footer's color scheme, it can't be the "original one" because the 4-footer came later).

In regard to the split issue, I'm going to reply on User_talk:Sennim#Galaxy_class_model_FA_nomination, too - for the moment, I still think that a split should at least be attempted on a temp page - but if this isn't done, the very least that must happen is a better structuring of the page, so that all individual info can be found without reading everything from top to bottom - "accessibility" is an important factor for our articles, after all. -- Cid Highwind 11:07, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

First pass on fixing some of the objections raised:

Cleanse's objections:

Expanded on Archduk's lead-in and moved some of the text to serve as an introductory note for the "design"-section.
"firecracker"-note, replace with more neutral "explosives" as firecrackers was not used in direct quote.

Cid's objections:

"real colors"-note; adjusted caption
"bgnote"; This actually was something I've put a lot of thought into. It might have been added to for example the filming-section in proper "format", but it would have been somewhat "orphaned" IMO. I've chosen to put it were it is for the reasons of providing a counterpoint to all the efforts that went into the refurbishment of the 6-footer for the film plus I felt it was better at his place there as it was specifically pertaining to that film. I've chosen the format though, as it was, as Archduk so succinctly put it a bit off-tangent, a bit of a side-step of the flow of the section if you will...I still very much feel it is at its right place...On a sidenote, I see Cid's point in using a BG-template in a BG section within an in-universe POV article, but I can not see anything wrong using the template in a production POV article...
"this big"-note; added explanatory note
"Starbase 74 composite of stock footage and matte-painting"-note; Adjusted caption. I believe the text should remain where it is as it is describing the resolution of the whole disputed Enterprise-Starbase scene that started with the use of the 2-footer.

Will return later when time allows--Sennim 14:35, January 3, 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing my comments Sennim. However, I agree that the bginfo template shouldn't be used in this article. There's no difference really between a real-world article and a "Background Information" section – they fall under the same "real-world" point of view.

If the information is truly off-tangent, then it should be placed elsewhere. If the information belongs there, then it should be formatted like normal text. You can always rephrase it to make it fit in better with the surrounding text.–Cleanse ^{( talk | contribs )} 02:23, January 5, 2012 (UTC)

Second pass on fixing some of the objections raised:

The bg-template issue as raised by both Cid and Cleanse; Concede, integrated text in main body as per suggestion of Cleanse.
Image G "shoot a rock"-note; Reworded the sentence as to be less of an "out of the blue" experience. Stand by my decision to have it stand where it is as Image G is referenced throughout the article, and a proper introduction is warranted, much as ILM is properly introduced. I even believe it is necessary as there are, as I've discovered during my research, many people out there, who still are under the impression that all E-D footage were filmed by ILM. I also oppose a split-off as this section is a specific "use" of the two models (in the article the mention of the 2-footer was specifically tied in conjuncture with the "rock"-quote).
CGI-section statement-note; correct assessment, adjusted wording...
"test-lighting" of the two-foot model; This is a nasty one, it is NOT a comparison between different models but bonafide representations of the 2-footer at different angles. Yet the representations in the article of Starlog (magazine) were spread over two pages, too large for my scanner to get in one pass, so I had to resort to some serious "cut-and-paste" (hence the crease down the middle) as well as to some photoshopping as the article texts run up to the outlines of the model in the photos. That being said, and by now being aware that this is apparently being frowned upon, I feel fully justified to have taken this course of action, and come up with representable imagery, as these are the ONLY close-up behind-the-scenes imagery of the 2-footer published anywhere...
Re-shuffled and re-worded some of the main sections to assuage Cid's concerns about "accessibility" of the article.

Sennim 19:20, January 6, 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to continue to nitpick ;-) but another thing I'm confused about is this use of "rem:" in quotes. I know plenty of things rem could mean, but I've never seen it used in quotes like that, nor can I find anything online.–Cleanse ^{( talk | contribs )} 03:20, January 8, 2012 (UTC)

No worries :), replaced abbreviations with fuilly written term "remark"..--Sennim 10:32, January 9, 2012 (UTC)

At this point I would ask that any remaining issues already mentioned be restated, excepting the page split for now, as I'm not sure if some things were missed or not. - Archduk 3 20:17, January 9, 2012 (UTC)

In the order in which I've initially brought them up:

The misplaced image is still misplaced - additionally, we should make sure that there are no left-floating thumbnails combined with indented text (like quotes). Those don't mix well.
The one bgnote I brought up directly was removed - but there are still similar cases, which should probably be handled alike.
There's still no explanation for the weird look of the two-footer "test-lighting" images I think. Has been explained here, but probably needs to be explained in the context of the article.
Still not sure about placement of a six-footer image (matte painting/starbase interior image) in the two-footer section.
There's now a reference about "the rock" actually being the stellar core fragment - can this really be confirmed, or has this just been added to the article based on my speculation? Asking because this doesn't really look like a rock. If it can be confirmed, maybe add a direct quote instead of just explaining it?
The one collage I brought up was removed, but there are still several others - I think I counted 11 collage images on the page.
The CGI color reference issue hasn't been cleared up, I think.

-- Cid Highwind 21:55, January 9, 2012 (UTC)

Regarding number 1, that image is not misplaced, it is at the top of the paragraph where the information is presented. The difference in formatting for the quotes doesn't change that, though if you still feel it needs to be moved further down, you're welcome to figure out a way to make it look good. The same gos for left images with quotes. I think the styling is fine as is, since it doesn't reduce readability and make the article look more interesting; not to mention that stringing more than two or more images together on one side just looks "lazy". - Archduk 3 22:35, January 9, 2012 (UTC)

Removed the last bgnote formatting (#2), updated blurb. - Archduk 3 22:46, January 9, 2012 (UTC)

Calm down - you specifically asked for those points to be repeated, so I don't see the need for that "why don't you do it yourself?" spiel being thrown back at me. Of course, I can work on some of the layout-only issues myself as long as that doesn't get me another round of "but it was supposed to be like it was before" in return - but please don't claim that an image placement that destroys deliberate indentation of a text block is "fine styling". -- Cid Highwind 22:52, January 9, 2012 (UTC)

That wasn't suppose to read as angry, I'm just not sure how else I'm suppose to say make the change you want since the change I already made apparently wasn't enough. I can't make the change since I'm not you, because I don't see a reason to misplace or move the next image down over this, and the image is where I think it should be. I'm also not a big fan of block quotes to begin with, since I find them to be overly distracting, so yes, my opinion is that the styling there was fine because the quote was still clearly indented. - Archduk 3 23:14, January 9, 2012 (UTC)

OK, then. I moved all of the images clashing with indented text for me, and tried to make sure that they are not misplaced. All of them should appear as close to their in-text explanation as possible, and if a slight deviation is necessary, then after their in-text explanation, to make sure that a top-to-bottom reader will already know the context of all images he encounters. If the text really was properly indented even with a left-aligned image, then that must be a specialty of your browser - because it doesn't look like that for me in both Opera and IE. -- Cid Highwind 23:27, January 9, 2012 (UTC)

I'm using Firefox with a couple of extensions, for what it's worth. That said, I can't actually seem to find the collage guideline right now. I thought it was at MA:IMAGE, but it doesn't seem to be. So based on what I think it was about, being able to use the images elsewhere, how many of the collage images do we seriously think will be used elsewhere? The closeup shots of the modification parts for "All Good Things..." seem pretty much "this page only" (most of the comparison shots do as well), and I think it would be more of a problem than a solution to have each of those as a separate image. - Archduk 3 23:40, January 9, 2012 (UTC)

Can't find the guideline, either - but in any case, avoiding unnecessary collages is not just an issue of reusability. It's also an issue of accessibility. Take this collage as an example. The two images to the right are nothing special - random guys painting random parts of the well-known 1701-D. Perhaps there is something special about it, but how should we know? There's no explanation, and no specific context in the article, so we're left with "I guess these people are building the model". Actually, the article wouldn't be worse if those two images were removed completely - but we can't do that, because they are part of a collage at the moment. At the same time, the two images to the left are interesting - but somehow lost in the collage: "Hey, are those curved thingamajigs neon lights, or just structural parts of the model? And why is the saucer painted like a blue/white chessboard?" - there are whole sections about lighting the model, or making sure it doesn't just fall apart, or about what exactly an "Aztec pattern" is - yet these images aren't used there, because they are part of a "here are some images of a specific model"-collage. Also, there's not even an explanation for the individual images - and, to be honest, there's not enough space in the image description box to fully explain what's going on in four different pictures. Last but not least, if we're having image collages, we should at least make sure that the individual images are aligned properly. In the above collage, the "cross" that is spearating the images has at least three different line widths, which doesn't look too good. -- Cid Highwind 10:33, January 10, 2012 (UTC)

Some of them should be broken up, just not all of them, because some collages do make sense from a usage and layout perspective. We might want to list and discuss images that should be split. - Archduk 3 11:09, January 10, 2012 (UTC)

@ #5: this indeed does not look like a rock, but this one does...furthermore I think the first pic is misnamed, that one looks like a "stellar core" instead of a "stellar core fragment"

@ #7: I think it has, Muse's CGI model has a color scheme based on that of the 4-footer and so it now reads--Sennim 14:27, January 10, 2012 (UTC)

Or we might want to do the opposite and give reason for each collage that is supposed to be kept - or at least work towards each other in some other way that doesn't look like it's making the opposing voice the only one that has to jump through more and more hoops just to be "allowed" to keep up the opposition. -- Cid Highwind 14:48, January 10, 2012 (UTC)

@Sennim: Is there a reason I shouldn't just break up a collage image as opposed to you uploading the "uncollaged" originals? Mainly, are any of these images reduced in size so they would fit in a collage?

@Cid: Since the phantom "no collages" guideline is just that, a phantom, the burden of objecting to each collage you don't think we should have is on you. That said:

I think this image should be broken up, since each of those images is interesting enough to be shown separately, and stacking them on the page wouldn't be all that different than how it is right now. Some of these also seem to be same photo shoot as an image that was used for a laserdisc collection, so if there is any info about when and where those were taken, it could be added to that page also.
The top and bottom images in this one could be removed for much of the same reasons, though the center images should still be a collage for the reasons I mentioned before.
This image could be broken up, but I don't think we would actually get anything out of that, since the point is to show the effect. I also can't think of a reason to use just one of them elsewhere, and I don't think a horizontal arrangement would be a good idea.

I believe it's now your turn to "jump" Cid. - Archduk 3 23:27, January 10, 2012 (UTC)

@Duke: No there is not, they are all pretty much as is...

Pic 1: All from the same Japanese publication, as far as I can discern nowhere else published. My Japanese is not up to specs, so I wasn't able to translate the captions. But the pics must have been taken in 1994, before the model was reverted back.

Pic 2: Also originating from the same publication.

Pic 3: In agreement with Duke, see nothing wrong in using a collage to show a sequence--Sennim 14:39, January 11, 2012 (UTC)

I've now, albeit against my grain so to speak, undone some of the "collages", which so much offended certain parties. That being said, I do not see after doing so, how this has furthered the overall quality of MA. To further specify, why am I a proponent of collages in certain circumstances, to wit:

There is nothing wrong in using a collage to depict a on-screen sequence, in order to elaborate a point (MA apparently even has a template in place for these {{image collage|creator=xxx}})
There is nothing wrong in using a collage to depict a production asset from multiple angles
There is nothing wrong in using a collage for bonafide comparisons of multiple production assets when those have been refurbished for bonafide reasons.

Too strict adherence to, in this case apparently non-existing guide lines, might prove too stifling. As is with most cases, we might be better off to adhering to the spirit of certain laws, instead off to the letter of those...My two cents--Sennim 00:01, January 14, 2012 (UTC)

File:Galaxy class 4-foot model build-up.jpg was the main example for breaking up collages, because the two images on the left can stand alone, and are rather interesting in their own right. I think the other two are fine together though, and the article can squeeze in the extra two images breaking this up would create. While I don't agree that this needs to be done for this article to be one of the best, I know it must be done to appease those that think otherwise. - Archduk 3 00:12, January 14, 2012 (UTC)

Hey Duke, I've my ideas about this one, sure apparently they "need" to be broken up, according to some. In a way that is relatively easy, since all four images came from the same source, yet I did chose this format for a reason, for layout purposes...Cid stated he couldn't give a %%&&88 for the right-sided ones in the collage, which I would counteract in stating that those pics give at least a sense of scale to the readers. There are legions of readers of MA who are not versed in the Anglo-Saxon scalings. Having pics available of the build of the six-footer and four-footer at least give them a sense of scale. His too easily dismissal of the rest of the world, concerns me...But I digress, I'm too well aware that I've to come up with a solution for this one, to satisfy MA purists..--Sennim 00:38, January 14, 2012 (UTC)

I've broken up the image, again, against my better judgment, however it should satisfy the ones who had problems with it...I still stand by my decision to have all parts of the original included..--Sennim 02:01, January 14, 2012 (UTC)

To stop Archduk from bringing this up again and again in every conversation we have, here's another response:

First of all, I have to say that I left this discussion dangling because of this "He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named" card being played. This is not Harry Potter pt.8, so please lose that attitude. Attack the points being made if you wish, but don't try to discredit the person who brought them up by calling him an "MA purist", "the one who had problems", the one who "couldn't give a shit", the one who "dismisses the non-Anglo-Saxon rest of the world" (which is especially laughable because I actually are a part of that group) - or by asserting that my points are somehow invalid just because there's not a five-page policy about it, because that simply isn't the case.

Now, back to collages. I see the template has now been tweaked to work for this case, but still, its intended usage was for something completely different. Just look at how the template has been used during the first years of its existance. However, if a specific collage exists, it should not be for the sole reason of the images not being used elsewhere, anyway - it should be because merging separate images somehow is really sensible. For example, this might be the case for the Future Enterprise add-ons. There could be an image of the complete model in the middle, with images of individual parts arranged around the border of the image, each one pointing to the place where it is located in the final model. That might have some additional value to readers. In other cases, there simply is no (or, before being called a purist again, not much) additional value of the collage, for example if four tiny images of a model are shown aside. There could be an image gallery on the image description page of each just as easily, so that we could have one decent-sized image in the article instead.

That said, another sentence about "me failing this FA" - this is not the case. There are unresolved issues, from the collages we've been talking about now, over other small things (including perhaps, if non-Anglo-Saxons are important now, the new issue of metric scalings all across the article), to big issues like the overall article length which, even if we accept it in specific cases, I still believe we shouldn't advertise as "this is how a great encyclopedic article should be" - and between all this, I don't see a single explicit support vote in this discussion even five weeks after it has been started on December 22. I know it's nice to have a scapegoat - but I'm not going to be the one in this case. -- Cid Highwind 10:45, January 27, 2012 (UTC)

I still find you to be the perfect scapegoat Cid, since you deliberately refused to respond to edits made to address your complaints, and they are complaints since there isn't a policy covering collages or length. The decent thing to do would have been to acknowledge those efforts, or, an even more radical idea, drop the attitude and make some edits yourself instead of pulling crap like claiming that expecting you to actually contribute to the discussion beyond complaining is making you "jump though some hoops". The fact that your arm had to be twisted to even get to return to the table on this one, even though I was mentioning both discussions, is proof enough that you were deliberately allowing these to fail out of the system, and I'm not going to by for a second this trite your peddling that you were so offended that we weren't using a proper noun for you, or some other garbage, that you couldn't bring yourself to return. You're a big boy Cid, and making personal attacks is something you're not above doing, so don't try and play the "victim card" here. If your not willing to contribute to resolve the outstanding issues you have with this article, then just don't contribute to the discussion in the first place. Try owning up to your actions, or, more often than not, your lack of actions. - Archduk 3 19:46, January 27, 2012 (UTC)

Rumors of CGI have been greatly exaggerated

Regarding this:

For some years a persistent rumour had been circulating among fan circles that the Enterprise-D facing off a Sheliak colony ship in TNG: "The Ensigns of Command" was an early trial CGI version.[1] Yet, to date no behind-the-scenes confirmation has ever been forthcoming and, as per Stipes' remarks CGI was still very expensive and time consuming at that time, it is more than likely that the scene was still a traditional post-production composite shot with use of footage of the 2-foot physical studio model. As a result the claim has been hotly challenged.

I don't think it's within MA's scope to point out random fan rumors. At least one that is only referenced to in message board posts and youtube comments (which were all I could find for this claim). If, say, this was stated in a reference work, or a production staff member took the effort to explicitly deny it, it might be worthy of note. Otherwise we're just perpetuating the rumor. One of the message board threads I read referenced us, since we had it without citation on the "Ensigns of Command" page for awhile. No doubt some message board denizens will point to the note on this page to say it's still "hotly challenged".–Cleanse ^{( talk | contribs )} 00:36, May 28, 2011 (UTC)

USS Trinculo

PNA/Merge

I'm debating on making this a "merge with", because as the Background section states: "It's possible the nomenclature was solely devised as a redecoration of the model for the display, but some fans theorize it might have been filmed as the Trinculo, possibly as one of the Galaxy-class starships that participated in the Dominion War.". While the particular history of the model bearing this name is of interest, the ship itself was never known to exist in the star trek universe, only speculation, leading my to think that perhaps it belongs in the background section of Template:ShipClass. --Alan del Beccio 17:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with a merge as suggested by Alan. Apart from the fact that the ship is non-canon, No Trinculo pics are available on the net at the time although there are rumors abound. The year the author mentioned, 1995 of the model being displayed at a Planet Hollywood restaurant coincides with the last use of the Four-foot model in "Way of the Warrior" when it was labeled as the USS Venture. I have pictures of the model on display around that time, still wearing these labels, coming from McCullars "IDIC"-page, taken by him personally in October of that year. If indeed it was labeled Trinculo, it must have been at a later date. Furthermore the author states that it is "one of the four-foot models". I have yet to read somewhere that there were indeed more than one made. The model is now back in the possession of Paramount and has been on tour recently. Pictures of the now weathered model on tour show clearly that the decals have been replaced by the Enterprise-D again, but is impossible to tell which previous decals they replaced--Sennim 15:03, November 27, 2009 (UTC)

Right, I've now done an official suggestion of a merge with the Apocryphaa section of the Galaxy class, based on my observations of the above--Sennim 23:19, November 27, 2009 (UTC)

I object, on the basis that it seems somewhat unlikely they'd give the model a random name for a restaurant display -- whether or not the model was seen onscreen with this designation is immaterial -- this article is presented as a 'real world article' about the model itself on the basis that no known onscreen use exists that could make this an 'in-universe' article. it is not disputed that the model was labeled this, thus it is acceptable and normal to have an article about the model that bore this name. -- Captain MKB 23:35, November 27, 2009 (UTC)

Support merge. Without proof there was more than one model made, this information should be merged with the article about the model(in this case, the article Alan suggested).--31dot 23:57, November 27, 2009 (UTC)

Granted, the model may well have been represented as the Trinculo in on or another display (and I'm still waiting for confirmation of this), still it is non-canon (as it in this guise has never appeared, nor mentioned on screen) and thus should be relegated to let's say to an Apocryphal-section...And by the by they DID give random names to studio models for exhibition purposes only before, i.e the Constellation class USS Valkyrie, which Rick Sternbach himself had to explain in a article Star Trek: The Magazine Volume 3, Issue 9 after the fact. I'm still going for the merge--Sennim 00:09, November 28, 2009 (UTC)

Though I support a merge, no one has claimed that it is canon, as the article is a real-world one, and it is currently categorized as "unreferenced material".--31dot 00:35, November 28, 2009 (UTC)

Again, a valid point, however even as prove would eventually surface, the point remains that the Trinculo is non-canon, no matter which way you turn it...Quite frankly it is becoming an Urban Legend, since nobobody seems to be able to provide prove of the Trinculo...As far as I'm concerned the MERGE still stands. Show me where I go wrong in the so-called 'in-universe' article or "unreferenced material" and I'll stand down.--Sennim 01:02, November 28, 2009 (UTC)

I would go with the merge, as this information is about the model. Whether or not it's accurate is a topic for a different time. The information on the model is on the Galaxy-class page, and this is information on the model. - Archduk3:talk 13:36, December 13, 2009 (UTC)

Okay, as for now I've pieced this together: The very last time the four-footer was used was in "The Way of the Warrior" as USS Venture. The model went on loan almost immediately afterwards to a "Planet Hollywood" restaurant in Beverly Hills as was reported by William McCullars on his now defunct IDIC-website. He posted two pictures of the model still wearing the Venture-markings, taken by him in Oktober 1995. (I saved those, thus that much is confirmed). Apparently, the studio, get this..., lost track of the model as was revealed by Penny L. Juday (who couldn't find the model in her cataloguing efforts) in her interview on the TNG Season 2 DVD, Inside the Star Trek Archives-section (disc 7). The model was surreptitiously returned to the studio by a conscientious former employee of "Planet Hollywood", when that restaurant went belly-up in 2000. The model however, as was shown in the special was in dire straits, covered in dust and grease and its starboard nacelle broken off, giving credence to some reports on blogs that the model had been sighted suspended in a kitchen [2] At the time of return the model was still endowed with a registry other than NCC-1701-D, most likely still wearing Venture's registry [3] as discerned by people with far more better eyesight than I have. What is certain, is that the model, more or less repaired, was retained by the studio and has been on tour on the more recently Star Trek exhibitions where it sports re-applied decals reading NCC-1701-D. Still, around that same time a four-footer, whether or not sporting the Trinculo-markings has been allegedly spotted in other "Planet Hollywood"-restaurants and on tour (Star Trek: The Exhibition}[4], giving credence to an unsubstantiated claim that more casts were made from the original molds of the 4-footer before being destroyed.[5]...So my preliminary findings on this one are:

After "Way of the Warrior", the studio sent out the four-footer for public relation purposes still wearing the Venture-markings.
However, they lost track of the model and commissioned another one, possibly wearing the Trinculo-markings, appearing in the UK-version of Star Trek: The Exhibition and previous or posterior appearances in Planet Hollywood restaurants around 1996.
It is possible that this model was irretrievably damaged during customs control (which would coincide with the damage done to the K't'inga studio model as reported by Dan Curry).
It is extremely unlikely that the original 4-footer was ever labeled "Trinculo" or that she ever appeared in an episode, since David Stipes has confirmed that the next appearance of a Galaxy class-ship after Warrior ("Call to Arms") was already as CGI.

But frankly, I think the only one who is able to give a definitive answer about this one is Gregory Jein, unfortunately, he doesn't blog.--Sennim 19:07, May 15, 2010 (UTC)

Merge target change

So according to Sennim, there's enough information on the models of the Galaxy-class to form another article like the Constitution-class one, so I suggest this be merged with that when it's created, since it is about a model. A redirect should be kept so it's still as easy to find. - Archduk 3 04:23, May 18, 2011 (UTC)

Haynes Manual info

In the Haynes Enterprise Owners' Workshop Manual (2010) there's a list of Galaxy-class ships which does include the USS Trinculo NCC-71867. It would seem that the book was reviewed by the Okudas, so they possibly agree with this or even provided the information themselves. I don't think this affects the article (it doesn't prove that the ship was ever seen on-screen, or that the Trinculo markings were applied to the original 4-foot model) but it's interesting to see that this ship is viewed as somewhat official. Maybe it's just a nod of the authors to previous fan inquiries. By the way, what would be the status of the Haynes Manual in the canon/non-canon hierarchy? --ANdRu 11:17, January 21, 2011 (UTC)

Haynes manual is non-canon. It's not on screen, it's a reference book. -- sulfur 11:41, January 21, 2011 (UTC)

I know, but I was referring to the canon policy on reference materials. Some are accepted for background information, others not. I was wondering if the Haynes Manual had been discussed in that regard. --ANdRu 12:08, January 21, 2011 (UTC)

At best, section 4 on that list. Non-staff writers. -- sulfur 12:33, January 21, 2011 (UTC)