I removed the following:
- Because differentials for the Excelsior and Springfield exist, it is safe to assume that the other vessels are Constitution class until further notice.
As I said when I reverted it, it's not safe to "assume" anything, especially since the differentials hardly prove anything. --From Andoria with Love 17:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say that it hardly proves anything. The difference for two other classes is noteworthy, but if we must insist on not declaring the other ships as Constitution-class, we shouldn't overcompensate by playing down that possibility either. Wangry 17:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
- The graphics do little to back up the table provided in this article. If these are being offered as the basis for the ship names and class, it offers very little evidence. One can tell there are at least two different types of starship graphics on the page 2 picture, a small one for Eagle and a large one for Excelsior. I can't even read the name of the middle ship, although it's silhouette is closer to Excelsior's. Unless better screen captures are available, this table starts to look conjectural at best. --Sorehl 23:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- Just the "chart silhouettes" column. --Alan 23:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- Following up on my earlier comment, I pulled up Star Trek VI on DVD and these graphics are basically unreadable even with an upconverter and a 52" screen. On chart 1, you can see that Starbase 24 is the origin and Rura Penthe is the destination. On chart 2, Excelsior and Eagle are blurry but readable. The middle one looks like Potempkin, but I wouldn't swear to it. Chart 3 isn't helpful. If someone is relying on a better graphic from something published, let's see it or this entry should drop the whole starship list. There's no way you can be pulling names and registry numbers from these graphics, much less have a debate about what class the ships are. Without a readable graphic, the table entries for anything but the three ships on chart 2 are conjectural. I'll wait to do any actual table editing to see if someone can map the other ships against their positions on the graphics.--Sorehl 23:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- So, with real uncertainty, I wonder how this should be ruled w.r.t. canon? The Concordance isn't a canon-approved source, although it's certainly permissible as a reference. Is it permissible to post a copy of the chart from the Concordance? If it isn't, is it appropriate to include information not obtainable from the movie without referencing the source or labelling it as Apocrypha (or something similar)? In the Constitution-class article, for example, ships without an "onscreen" pedigree are listed as Uncertain. I recommend either the Concordance be cited as the source of the table information or the portion not derived from the movie be broken out somehow - this would let readers judge how canonical the references are. Or am I wrong? --Sorehl 00:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- First of all, what exactly are you arguing the removal of? What I stated above "the "chart silhouettes" column" is really the most dubious of all that info. The Concordance (and likely the Encyclopedia) provide information from the Chart, but regardless, the Chart will always be the source provided it is visible (even if not necessarily legible), then that is also usable here. --Alan 00:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Fair question. The information on Operation Retrieve does not appear in the Encyclopedia. I'm not doubting the truthfulness of those who have access to this Concordance resource, but to be honest, until your comment it's a reference I was unfamiliar with. Does the book contain authentic (rather than fan-created or extrapolated) artwork? I guess I'd like to see it for myself to confirm the ship names and registry numbers are valid. I'll report back if I find anything lacking. In the meantime, shouldn't the table reference the Concordance, just as people cite the Encyclopedia or other source? --Sorehl 00:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Not artwork, but information, names & registries pulled from the Chart. --Alan 01:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
You had me till there. If there isn't a cleaner version of the artwork in the Concordance, then this is just a list someone says is based on a graphic that no one else can see. That's unverifiable, which makes it a claim without evidence in a non-canon source. And from a non-canon source itself, that doesn't seem to rise to canon. --Sorehl 02:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
"Klingon home system"Edit
The article says that OR "involved a direct incursion into the Klingon home system". If this is so, then West's map would be a canonical representation of Qo'noS' neighborhood. Is there a closer view available? What can be derived from the map? It seems that Rura Penthe is in the same star system as Qo'noS. -- StAkAr Karnak 21:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
- There's no reference at all to the Klingon Homeworld system on the map, all three pages indicate the destination of the Operation as Rura Penthe, with nothing else indicating otherwise. C'est la vie. --Foravalon 07:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I removed the terrorist part from the line:
- devised by Starfleet in light of increasing terrorist activities and tensions between the United Federation of Planets and the [[Klingon Empire]
because it was weird and baseless.--Foravalon 07:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Curiously, the location of Operation Retrieve was the world of Rura Penthe, despite the fact that Kirk and McCoy had not yet been sentenced there. Because of this it is likely to assume that the outcome of the trial was prearranged and that Starfleet Intelligence had some foreknowledge of its result. However it is unknown why the Romulan Ambassador Nanclus was privy to the details of the operation as presented to the president.
D. Tathwell named after ... Edit
K. Glover not in the movie Edit
...equals not canon. This should either be merged with the ships' article, or an article for all the unreferenced material from the unused pages of Operation Retrieve. - Archduk3 22:01, August 16, 2011 (UTC)
- I think there could be one page for the personnel from the unseen pages, since all such articles would say the same thing ("X was on the missing page") and no one would know to look for the names on the unseen page if the page was unseen.--31dot 10:32, August 25, 2011 (UTC)
Been a bit, but a bg section on Operation Retrieve might be the best bet for merging all these "one sentence" people and sectors that were on the fourth sheet. All the pages could all be retained as redirects to that section, but it isn't really necessary to have all of these as separate pages if we don't have them in categories other than unreferenced material. I'll be tagging the other pages soon if there aren't any objections. - Archduk3 22:17, February 17, 2012 (UTC)
- I support that course of action. --31dot 22:21, February 17, 2012 (UTC)
- My preference would be keeping things as they are, just don't see the problem. We've plenty of canon articles of this caliber, often also poorly linked, which I hope we can all agree should never be merged. And you can focus on the non-canon status all you want, but the fact of the matter is that this info is here, and there's no real reason that different approaches would be more suitable for articles that are otherwise so alike.
- But, I could live with the proposal. I think a new page would be better then putting it in the bg section of Operation Retrieve though. The amount of info would take over the article, hence why Operation Retrieve star chart locations was already spun off. Also such a page could be more neatly categorized in the Unreferenced material category. -- Capricorn 13:52, February 24, 2012 (UTC)
My reasoning (now) for merging these isn't just that they are small (which isn't a reason to merge in and of itself), or that they aren't linked to very well (since leaving redirects would be kinda pointless then), but that we don't gain anything from keeping them separate, since they aren't in any other category because they are non-canon. I did consider having a separate page that merged all the info instead of just placing it at Operation Retrieve, but I couldn't think of a title that was both good and natural, as in one that would be easy to search for or that someone would even think to search for. "Operation Retrieve locations and material" (or material and locations) was the best I could think of, and that was if these pages were merged with the star chart locations. - Archduk3 14:33, February 24, 2012 (UTC)
- You're arguing that putting everything on one page would work just as well, and I agree. But then theres the unstated second part of your argument, the assumption that one page would be better then many. I don't really see a real reason for that, I see no downside to having many articles (at least none not present in similar canon articles)
- So, In my mind the two approaches are equally good, and I'm not opposed to your idea, it's just that I don't see the benefit. You say we don't gain anything from keeping it separate, but at least we spare the work of replacing part of a good well-functioning system of managing this information with another equally good well-functioning system. But again, if that's what the preference, so be it. No problem to me.
- I do still strongly prefer a new page though. These articles make up a decent percentage of the "unreferenced material" category", and splintering of part of that info outside of that way of navigating it would make things harder to find, not easyer.
- In fact, if the change was made I think it would be much more elegant to do away with the unreferenced material category entirely, and just replace it with an Unreferenced material article, in which all the info could be copied in a list similar to Unnamed Humans (24th century), or Performers considered for Star Trek roles if you'd prefer a real world article example. (needless to say, the operation retrieve references could still be neatly grouped together in a section on such page) -- Capricorn 20:18, February 25, 2012 (UTC)
- For me the downside of leaving these all separate is that it makes the information harder to find. Having all of these on one page actually enhances their visibility and increases the chance they will be read. Canon articles are different, as all individuals get a page for organizational, categorical, and other purposes. As for your proposal, I will weigh in if a formal proposal is made(perhaps a PfD discussion about the category page if you wish)--31dot 21:49, February 25, 2012 (UTC)
- I always browse those pages using the category as a starting point, so from my pov, the navigation would get worse with the proposal. It's all a matter of perspective, I guess :-D - But your position is probably more common, so I appreciate your point.
- And I do have a formal proposal, the problems that keep cropping up with unreferenced material have been a pet peeve of mine for a wile, and after thinking on it some more, I think there's a lot of potential in the list approach. I've worked out an idea that is a bit beyond this talk page, so I've put it on ten forward; it's here. -- Capricorn 23:31, February 25, 2012 (UTC)
There seems to be a misconception about what would happen in a merge. I either intended to keep the redirects in the category as is (like we do when merging "individual's species" pages with that individual), or create a sub category for "deleted and unreferenced material" in the currently purposed "non-canon redirects" category, depending on how that went. I actually though of adding subs in the purposed by topics after making the suggestion when thinking about this, so the remaining redirects would either be in both categories (unreferenced material and NCR), or the non-canon redirect subs would also be in their relevant canon categories, meaning that either way these pages would be searchable from the unreferenced material category. I'll see how this plays out here first before amending the suggestion about the category, since there's no reason to discuss this twice. - Archduk3 02:04, February 26, 2012 (UTC)
Sector 21166 Edit
So an anon added a note saying Sector 21166 made an appearance in "The Mind's Eye" today. I don't have tng dvds so I can't double check, but if true that page should probably be promoted to an article again (previously having been made into a redirect). -- Capricorn (talk) 10:40, October 13, 2012 (UTC)