Canon Edit

Before this goes any further - I doubt that alone is a valid reference for a name. Let's see some comment about that from official sources, or move this article back to the "unnamed" variant. -- Cid Highwind 11:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm looking now. DaveSubspace Message 11:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
It's only called a Bird of Prey in the script. The only source I can find for the name Okrona is the novelization. Then again, Anthony ('s editor) is known to receive information from official production sources, so maybe he knows something we don't. --From Andoria with Love 23:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
If it isn't even in the script, we shouldn't be using it. --OuroborosCobra talk 23:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
If it's not in the script but comes from production notes or some other production resource, then it would be fine to use for naming purposes. Unless you want to move Livingston to Unnamed lionfish in Picard's quarters. Livingston was never named in a script, either; his name comes from other production sources. :) --From Andoria with Love 00:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
No, that is not a good example. It isn't from some random note scribbled on a napkin that is claimed to be from a writer, it is from the Star Trek Encyclopedia. Is this ship from the Encyclopedia? --OuroborosCobra talk 00:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Ah, so now you're saying if it's not in the script or the Encyclopedia, we shouldn't use it. :-P (I'm teasing you, now, don't get upset.) Anyway, to answer your question, no, it's not in the Encyclopedia (that I know of), which is why we're asking for a valid source. For the record, Livingston was just "some random note scribbled on a napkin that is claimed to be from a writer" before it was included in the Encyclopedia. A production resource is a production resource. I'm not saying we would add all the info to the main text of the article, but there's nothing wrong with using a production note when it comes to naming articles, and indeed, the canon policy allows for it. So long as it's confirmed to be something that was used behind-the-scenes by the production staff, there is nothing wrong with using it. IIMHO, of course. --From Andoria with Love 00:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
First off, John Tenuto wrote the article (although Anthony edited it), so a secret production source is even more suspect. Mr. Tenuto might've been citing the novelization when he noted the Okrona name (and the novelization writer might have invented the name as an homage rather than receiving an early draft of the script or production notes). Livingston had more production notes (I believe) than the Okrona seems to have. Second, I don't think we need a page (just yet, anyway). Third, what does "IIMHO" mean? I think there's an extra "I" or my brain isn't working right.--Tim Thomason 01:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
In-In My Humble Opinion. Shran has a stutter... :) To me a lot of these background notes are fairly suspect and this is one as well. Production sources need to be a little more public than a post on a website...especially a blog/forum/comment. Unless it comes from the horses mouth we should disregard these notes. — Morder 01:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, we do need more than a comment on a blog page. What's this talk about creating a page for, though? Where did this come from? Also, IIMHO means "infinitely in my humble opinion." --From Andoria with Love 02:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Wait, wait. "IIMHO opinion?" You're refuting your previous stutter with a new stutter! is/was linked on the page for some reason, so I was just bringing that up in case anyone thought it'd be okay to start a page on it.--Tim Thomason 02:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Nooooo idea what you're talking about. :) I know about the previous article, I was just wondering why you brought it up. :) --From Andoria with Love 02:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)