Merge discussionsEdit

The Horizon Edit

"The Horizon" 
Basically copied info from USS Horizon, this was created due to a theory that the Horizon which discovered Sigma Iotia II may not have been the Horizon whose model was seen in Benjamin Sisko's office and that it may have even been the cargo ship ECS Horizon. Since it was the purpose of the model-makers that the ship seen in Sisko's office was the same ship referenced in "A Piece of the Action" and since that ship is not likely to be the cargo ship (as discussed in the Horizon's talk page), I don't believe this additional article is needed. --From Andoria with Love 00:42, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)

:Delete. Pointless article. Logan 5 04:42, 19 Nov 2005 (UTC)

The fact that it really was the USS Horizon that visited the planet is itself just a theory. This leads us to the following: 1) An article about the ECS Horizon (from ENT). 2) An article about the USS Horizon (stating that it was shown as a model on Sisko's desk). 3) Information about the ship that visited Sigma Iotia.
Unless that ship was called USS Horizon on-screen, we shouldn't put that information on the "USS" article. Of course, we shouldn't put it on ECS Horizon, either, which only leaves us with the option to create a third article. Normally, I would suggest to simply move this article to "Horizon", but there's already the episode of the same name. So my suggestion is the following:
Make "Horizon" into a disambiguation page for USS Horizon, ECS Horizon and "Horizon" (moved content). Move this page to Horizon (starship) (in fact, it might be best to move USS Horizon there and then separate the information again to keep track of authorship) and also add it to the disambiguation page. Add a short message to both the USS and ECS article, stating that "this might be the starship Horizon that visited Sigma Iotia II". -- Cid Highwind 11:21, 19 Nov 2005 (UTC)
"Unless that ship was called USS Horizon on-screen, we shouldn't put that information on the "USS" article." If indeed this is true, the following needs to be updated accordingly. The USS Ariel, which was only referred to as "science ship Ariel" and USS Huron, which was referred to twice as the "SS Huron". --Alan del Beccio
I'm no TAS expert, but if that is what was said on-screen then yes, move those pages (and rephrase the "USS" speculation on the article)... -- Cid Highwind 13:23, 19 Nov 2005 (UTC)

In all fairness, what Cid stated above is exactly the reason why Mike Nobody (I think it was him) created this in the first place and moved information from one article to another, but I was under the impression that the idea was shot down. He then went and changed things anyway, so I reverted everything and added this page here. It was never specifically stated on-screen that the Defiant seen on Sisko's desk was the same one that made contact at Sigma Iotia II, so you do both have a point. I was assuming, however, that production info, such as the designers wanting the model in Sisko's office to be that ship, was basically "as good as" canon, since production info/deleted items/backstage notes have been used canonically in the past. If I am wrong in this matter, however, then I withdraw my vote for delete and move to keep (and move as necessary). Note that this is not yet a vote, but it will be if it you agree I am in the wrong. --From Andoria with Love 09:53, 20 Nov 2005 (UTC)

I vote Delete: The way I see it is there are three references to the Horizon:
  • 1. The Horizon that littered planets in 2168. (TOS)
  • B. The USS Horizon model/toy that Sisko played with. (DS9)
  • 3rd. The ECS Horizon that Mayweather went through puberty on. (ENT)
What Shran states is that it was the producers intention that Sisko's toy was the original Horizon. It was believed to be a Daedalus class starship meaning that it would be around before 2196. Note that there is nothing to prove that the Olympic class wannabe is the Daedalus class, except for background sources. Anyways, there is a limited window on when Sisko's Horizon could have traveled. On the Constitution-class and Daedalus class pages, it uses the registries taken from the Star Trek Encyclopedia because of the whole "background sources" thing. Since in those very same "background sources" Kirk's Horizon was given the registry number NCC-176, and later Sisko's Horizon was given on-screen the registry number NCC-176, it is pretty obvious that they are one and the same. It is worth noting that the producers of Enterprise implied that the ECS Horizon was Kirk's Horizon by showing the Chicago Mobs of the Twenties novel. Even though, I think, like Shran did, that this page should be deleted (or merged) with the USS Horizon page because of producers' original intent, with an alright italicized note of course.--Tim Thomason 10:23, 20 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Again, we're not talking about "canon" here, but about valid resources - and last time I checked, "producers intent" was not generally a valid resource. That page, by the way, states that Encyclopedia and Chronology are primary sources (because they basically repeat what was shown on-screen), but that they contain some speculation which is probably considered invalid. The registry of the Horizon is such speculation. On top of that, if it was intent to have the TOS and DS9 Horizons be the same ship, and it was later intent to have the TOS and ENT Horizons be the same ship, what should we do? We mustn't be the ones deciding which one is the "correct" reference and which one is not. If the TOS Horizon (any Encyclopedia-speculation regarding the registries notwithstanding) could be any of the other two, that information should at least appear on both pages. Since it is more than just a short sentence, and since the TOS Horizon could even be a third ship, it should probably be outsourced to its own article. Shran: Where exactly was the idea discussed originally ("shot down"). If you could provide a link, it might be helpful in this discussion. -- Cid Highwind 11:45, 20 Nov 2005 (UTC)

The idea was discussed, primarily between Alan and Mike Nobody, at Talk:USS Horizon. --From Andoria with Love 13:28, 20 Nov 2005 (UTC)

However this falls out, I don't see the need for a third Horizon article that has virtually the same content as USS Horizon. So I still say Delete and make note of this information on the USS Horizon page. And I could be wrong but I was fairly certain that A Piece of the Action does call it the USS not just "horizon", but even if we want to be strict (and I do think we're overthinking it) then at most we are talking about disambiguation page with links to the ECS and USS and at most a paragraph on the possible third ship (which we can't even confirm exists). Logan 5 22:38, 21 Nov 2005 (UTC)
I think that's the wrong way of looking at it. This isn't a question of having another article with the same content as USS Horizon. It is a question of moving the content from USS Horizon to some other article, because the events described may have nothing to do with that ship. The episode does not refer to a "USS" Horizon specifically and in fact mentions some circumstances that might be construed as evidence for a NON-Federation Horizon (speculation, of course, but no more speculation than simply adding that information to one possible Horizon but not to the other. It's as simple as that: We do not know that this Horizon is the same as the one that was shown as a model on Sisko's desk. No need to talk about producers intent or anything - the reference is vague, so the information should either be placed at every possible location (meaning both USS and ECS) or, better yet, at a separate article because it might have been a third ship. -- Cid Highwind 22:48, 21 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Despite what you say above about "producers intent", I still think that it isreasonable to believe that the USS Horizon model was built by the production staff to support the claim, made by Okuda in the Encyclopedia, which states that the Sigma Iotia-Horizon was a Daedalus class? Should we not be looking at this from the perspective of the apparent intervetion that was made after the fact by the later series' production staff-- that powers that be, if you will. seems to support the fact that the Sigma Iotia-Horizon was a "USS" here, here, and here (which supports Kirks comments that I noted on the aformentioned talk page) and makes no hint that the Horizon visiting the planet at Sigma Iotia was NON-Federation (I see no evidence of that whatsoever). Either way, I really dont think anyone has really read this thoroughly. --Alan del Beccio 23:20, 21 Nov 2005 (UTC) is not a valid resource. "Producers intent" alone is not a valid resource, even less if we have contradicting intents. Just like with any run-of-the-mill continuity error, we shouldn't make the error of deciding which version might be the correct one. If we want to include "producers intent", we have to acknowledge that a connection to the Sigma Iotia incident was made from both the ECS Horizon (via the book, even if not the same title) and the USS Horizon (via a less-than-visible decal on a model of a ship based on Okuda-conjecture). If we don't want to include "producers intent", we have to admit that we don't know more than "some ship called Horizon visited that planet about 100 years before Kirk". To make that absolutely clear, I'm not trying to argue that it was the ECS Horizon that visited Sigma Iotia. I'm trying to argue that anything connecting "the Horizon" to any of the two ships is based on conjecture, speculation and guesswork - something we more or less managed to avoid on MA for the last two years. I don't think we should stop avoiding now... :) -- Cid Highwind 23:43, 21 Nov 2005 (UTC)
I just rewatched the ep and you're right, there's no reference to USS Horizon, just Horizon. But if anything that means moving the content from USS to The and then getting rid of USS. Keeping a third article still seems too much. Basically that's an article for ECS, The, and then USS just in case the model on Sisko's desk is canon? Do we have any other articles for a prop that might be a reference? I say put it all on The Horizon, including the picture, but move the picture to a Background section. ECS should have a note referring to the article on The Horizon, and at most a disambiguation page for the two ships and the episode. Logan 5 03:33, 22 Nov 2005 (UTC)
It might be a little confusing to also discuss the possible deletion of another article (USS Horizon) here, so let's be explicit about what to do. I suggest, as already mentioned above:
  • Keep ECS Horizon (not a part of this discussion anyway, just to be sure)
  • Merge The Horizon to USS Horizon (as "USS" originally had that content)
  • Move USS Horizon to Horizon (starship) (or whatever qualifier fits best)
  • Edit the resulting page, either moving any information about "USS" to a background section or back to USS Horizon (this part perhaps needs a separate discussion)
  • Link the "Horizon" page from both "USS" and "ECS", each time mentioning that it might be this ship that visited Sigma Iotia
  • Edit the disambiguation page "Horizon" to reflect these changes
That way, every information would be presented with the least amount of speculation. -- Cid Highwind 08:54, 22 Nov 2005 (UTC)

All of that, with the exception of moving USS Horizon to Horizon (starship) had already been done by Mike Nobody, and I reverted it, believing producers' intent to be enough for a source. (Personally, I think it should be, but apparently the majority does not.) I think what Mike Nobody began to do and what Cid suggests we do above is the best course of action. (That's a vote to merge this article to USS Horizon, while moving the content of "USS Horizon" to "Horizon (starship)" and editing as necessary. THEN, we can delete this article, becuase it would then become unnecessary, anyway.) --From Andoria with Love 11:18, 22 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Agree, merge this article and USS Horizon, move to Horizon (starship) and edit that article with background info noting USS and the picture of the ship from Sisko's office. Logan 5 14:48, 22 Nov 2005 (UTC)

New merge proposalEdit

Seems to me as we have used the Encyclopedia as a basis for connecting ships that are named but not seen in one episode and ships that are seen but not named or given a different name in another, and merging them together. And in this case it is quite clear that the USS Horizon model was created to represent this particular ship. And the ECS Horizon was a different ship, even the "Chicago Gangs"-book had a different name, to indicate they just wanted to make it a tongue in cheek homage for the fans. so I would suggest merging this page with USS Horizon. Precedences are many on this. --Pseudohuman 23:34, June 18, 2012 (UTC)

Merge. We have a USS Horizon operating in the 22nd century, and a starship Horizon that visited Sigma Iotia II in the 22nd century. Connect the dots. - Mitchz95 00:09, June 19, 2012 (UTC)
We don't know for sure that the ECS was suppose to be a nod-and-wink reference here instead of the ship itself, and the novels have taken the road that the ECS Horizon is this ship, because the USS part isn't supported on screen at all. While the novels are lower on the resources list, the Encyclopedia is simply out of date on this issue, as ENT did muddy the water. I don't think it's a good idea to merge these, for much of the same reasons we haven't done anything about the Melbourne issue again, even though for much the same reasons given here we should. - Archduk3 01:12, June 20, 2012 (UTC)
True, but I think it's unlikely that a freighter would make first contact with a pre-warp alien culture unless they had no other choice, and it didn't sound like that was the case. Also, would a 22nd-century freighter be capable of reaching "the outer reaches of the galaxy"? - Mitchz95 01:21, June 20, 2012 (UTC)
If you go "up" or "down" on the galactic plane, the outer reaches aren't all that far, and if I remember correctly, they didn't have much choice but to go there. The circumstances of the novels aren't all that important anyway, the point is that there is sufficient contradiction between sources, and the dates of those sources, that neither should be used without further input. We have the page Sulu (Captain) for much the same reason, and this is all similar to the Shelby mess, which was split to avoid stepping on toes and the related POV problems. - Archduk3 01:59, June 20, 2012 (UTC)
I agree these should remain separate articles, as it would seem to avoid unnecessary speculation. --Defiant 10:30, June 20, 2012 (UTC)

Even better merge proposalEdit

I suppose you are right, it is just ambiguous enough to not be a 100% clear which ship it is. My biggest problem with this three-way-divide is that it suggests there were three ships with the name Horizon, when that is something no apocryphal or non-canonical reference source suggests. My second better merge proposal would be to merge the information of this page into the Sigma Iotia II article since all of this is about the first contact situation there and would fit that page well as an expansion. --Pseudohuman 12:21, June 20, 2012 (UTC)

If this page redirects to whatever section, or background section depending on how this is done, I could support it. - Archduk3 01:36, March 31, 2013 (UTC)

So there are no objections to this move? I'll move it soon if not. --Pseudohuman (talk) 19:24, August 3, 2013 (UTC)

The articles will have to be merged properly to do so. I would suggest merging the information into the Sigma Iotia II article, and when done, leave a note here indicating the section that this should redirect to. An admin will do the proper article history merge then. -- sulfur (talk) 02:18, August 4, 2013 (UTC)

Done, Sigma Iotia II#History deals with the first contact. --Pseudohuman (talk) 04:57, August 4, 2013 (UTC)