Talk:USS Bellerophon (NCC-62048)

I wanted to comment on the recent page split yesterday, but then had other things to attend to. Anyway, I think these "aggregate articles" are really only useful if we can't be sure that the topic isn't the same in both cases. Here, we definitely seem to have two different vessels, one Nebula class, one Intrepid class, so keeping them on the same page instead of creating a disambiguation doesn't make sense. However, one little problem I still see is using the registry number as article qualifier: the article doesn't state this, but if this number is from the Encyclopedia, like so many others, we probably shouldn't use it in such a prominent location. Can someone confirm the exact source of this reference? -- Cid Highwind 09:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the doubtful sources for the registry numbers were one of the reasons to keep the ships in one place. There are several reasons the ships should stay on one article (save for the "series" ships) -- Kobi 10:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, in this specific case, we had two clearly separated "sub-articles" on one page, both were more than stubs, and most links went to one of the sub-articles directly, anyway (while making use of some counter-intuitive link code). I don't think that every such aggregate article needs to be split up, but I don't see good reasons for keeping two or more topics combined on one page if they are definitely distinct entities. Perhaps we can move the discussion about such aggregate articles in general to a different place, if it needs to be discussed further - regarding the registry number, DITL shows a "Encyclopedia" source for this one, and if I don't hear anything different, I will work on this article later today to clear that up. -- Cid Highwind 11:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

---

First three comments copied to Forum:Aggregate articles. Continue discussing registry number issue here, article split there. Thanks. -- Cid Highwind 14:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Even though we don't have a discreet source telling us this, the Encyclopedia is passing on second hand knowledge. Since it describes the decals labeled onto the model, we know that this vessel's model was labeled as such.

To wit: The ST: Encyclopedia is not the source of the registry -- the USS Beller(e)phon model is the source. The Encyclopedia is how we know this. -- Captain M.K.B. 13:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Does the Encyclopedia somehow differentiate between information "reproduced" (=registry number was on the ship model) and information "invented" (which did happen in some cases, for example the Constitution class registries)? -- Cid Highwind 14:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Dropping in my 2 cents. Mike, you seem to be saying that if the Encyclopedia says the registry number is on the model, then we can use it beyond background information. I disagree. The Encyclopedia is full of errors and such, and some information that is flat false. I would say that we would still need to confirm the Encyclopedia with another source, or else just use it in background. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 14:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: accuracy of the Encyclopedia registry.. since there are numerous comments regarding the ship's misspelled label, these would seem to indicate the ship was indeed labeled with a name and registry. While the Encyclopedia is known to "invent" information for ships that were not shown, it hasn't gone so far as to flat out lie about whether a ship had a registry labeled on it. While there is the possibility that the Encyclopedia contains typographical errors (re: USS Chekov) in the registry, i think the fact that they pass it on to us in the reference confirms that it was in fact there. In reference to whether this registry contains typos, OC, I'm stumped. Since we have found typos before, does this mean the Encyclopedia is automatically disbelieved? -- Captain M.K.B. 15:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)