i don't think this is a "distinct" enough fact about non-canon topics to have its own MA article, typically non-canon names and terms redirect to either their book of origin, or a canon variation of what the name refers to.

In this case, the choice is either redirecting this to Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise or to USS Enterprise-A. Either way, we should merge the content to the Enterprise-A article, in my opinion. -- Captain M.K.B. 15:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Mr. Scott's Guide and let's not speak of it again. :) --From Andoria with Love 20:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I kinda like the idea of maybe merging it with both. It's an interesting bit of behind the scenes trivia about the Enterprise-A, but it definitely belongs in the Mr. Scott's article too. The redirect should aim at the Enterprise-A though I think. -- Sulfur 02:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
"Merge with Mr. Scott's Guide and let's not speak of it again. :)" Agreed! I hate the concept of!--Babaganoosh 02:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the name has nothing to do with it, it's the fact that it's an individual article about something from a non-canon (and out-of-date) reference work and the fact that it's a background topic that is best served as a background note, not as an individual article. In other words, it's against MA policy. This is why we have redirects to non-canon sources. If we included every little tid-bit from every Trek book, it would just get ridiculous... and we would no longer be the source all canon Trek. So... yeah. Background information should be relegated to background information. Topics like this just don't receive their own articles. Sorry, mate, but that's just how the game is played. :/ --From Andoria with Love 03:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)