In the last few weeks, I have noted that the changes that I have made to some entries have been fixed in what I feel is violation of the canon policy. I do apologize if I didn't explain the reasons for my changes.
According to the canon rules, the order of precedence is this: dialogue, visual, accepted apocrypha. I accept this precedence and attempt to follow it.
The first instance is the Oberth-class starship docking at Deep Space Nine. In order of precedence, I noted the ship is not named by dialog. Therefore, I asked myself, what are the markings on this ship? The markings, which can be seen briefly are those of the USS Yosemite. Lastly, the Encyclopedia, an accepted source of apocrypha, identifies this ship as USS Cochrane. So, if by following the order of precedence, the visual evidence should trump the encyclopedia, yet the encyclopedia trumps the visual evidence. Huh?
Secondly, I changed the entries for the Sakharov. The Sakharov is listed as the shuttle in "Samaritan Snare". Again, I followed the order of precedence. In this case, the dialogue states the shuttle is 2. So this should trump the visual evidence. Yet, Shran writes, that if the reason is an effect error, it wouldn't matter anyway. I think this is on very slippery ground.
By following his reasoning, do we argue that if the dialogue doesn't follow the visual evidence, than we should believe the visual evidence and ignore the dialogue? Again, the order of precedence appears topsy-turvy. (The number of instances where dialogue doesn't match the visual evidence is quite large in Star Trek canon. I don't attempt to explain the inconsistencies other than to say they are the errors which invariably creep into any tv show which is working in a defined time frame on a limited budget. For me, the idea that there is an effects error is rather very important in considering the evidence.)
- I'm extremely tired right now so I'm not completely comprehending everything being brought up here. I will say, however, that the general rule of thumb is that dialogue takes precedence over visuals and graphics. If I reverted something that contradicts this, I apologize.
- As for the Yosemite/Cochrane, I'm too tired to fully comprehend any of that but it sounds like a question for Alan, so you'll hafta wait until he replies here. --From Andoria with Love 11:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Oberth Class starship docking at DS9Edit
When I changed this to the USS Yosemite from the USS Cochrane, you changed (or revert) it back to USS Cochrane. (Was that clear?) Anyway, why did you do this? The ship was not named by dialogue and, when we do see the ship, it is clearly not marked NCC-59318, but NCC-19002. I know this ship was labeled USS Cochrane in the encyclopedia. So, shouldn't the physical evidence be considered more authoritative than a non-canonical source?--Airtram3 03:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Are we really sure it was clearly marked NCC-19002? Not for certain. If the ship was not named, and the encyclopedia was the only source then it shouldn't be listed at either location, but rather Unnamed Oberth class starships, which is where the majority of the USS Cochrane article has now been placed. --Alan del Beccio 07:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes. There is a production photo of three staffers for DS9 holding the model and it is labeled NCC-19002. The model hadn't changed its markings since its last appearance in "Realm of Fear".--Airtram3 10:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
And Alan, the ship in "The Drumhead" has a visible registry which identified it as the USS Cochrane. This is confirmed by the Star Trek: The Next Generation Companion. So, this image can be used for the Cochrane.--Airtram3 10:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed. --Alan 19:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- So, if the model used in the DS9 episode was labeled the Yosemite, why do we use the Encyclopedia information it was the Cochrane? If we aren't sure about that, the bginfo needs to be rephrased. Kennelly (talk) 12:58, October 11, 2016 (UTC)