Removal of "NCC-75633" registry Edit

For what it's worth, it was me who reverted that removal earlier - logged out for reasons that probably only Wikia could explain... ;)

In any case: that revert was re-reverted, but I still stand to it. First of all, it strikes me as very strange if the registry that is used as an article qualifier is then not listed on the page at all. Either the registry needs to be listed, or the article title changed! Second, what the article is about is some specific starship - and, apparently, that starship was registered as "NCC-75633" at some point of its lifetime. Even if that registry later changed, it should still be mentioned in the article. Of course, if that earlier registry is considered aprocryphal according to our policies, it wouldn't need to be listed - but again, in that case the article title needs to change.

What it boils down to: the current state of the article, with a registry in its title that is then not mentioned in the article text, makes no sense whatsoever. -- Cid Highwind 14:54, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

I removed 75633 from the box because it was listed incorrectly alongside the name Defiant, not Sao Paulo, as in the incorrect article title (which I can't rename, since I choose to be anonymous). Canonically we've only seen Sao Paulo 75633 and Defiant 74205, so I suggest either merging this article with the one on the original Defiant or changing the name in the article title to USS Sao Paulo (NCC-75633), while the text itself would explain that the ship was later renamed the Defiant. Since the ship wasn't involved in anything canonically interesting while it was named Sao Paulo, I'd prefer merging this page with the one on the Defiant.
I see it was pointed out in the history of this article that 75633 is only used to formally differentiate the ship from the original Defiant, but it could mislead casual readers into thinking that the Defiant's registry really wasn't changed, which would be a serious inconsistency with the canon. Best to keep it simple and always use the correct name-registry pairs. – 15:04, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

The thing is that we're talking about one object that has had two different, but equally valid, names - so whatever we choose as the "primary" title of the article, the other name should as well point to it. Not sure if you're aware of how redirects work, but there is one in place, from "USS Sao Paulo" to this article. So, if anything, we just need to change which name is the primary title and which the redirect, but not lose one of the names completely.

Also, merging can't be the solution either, because in that case, we'd have an "aggegrate article", one article talking about two different objects - something we're trying to avoid wherever possible.

Last but not least, as far as I'm aware the question of which registry the second Defiant "really" used in the fictional universe we're talking about is still unanswered at best. The producers themselves said that cost of repainting was the reason for not prominently showing a Defiant with a new registry - and although we've chosen to run with what is on-screen, however, tiny and illegible, we shouldn't completely deprive our readers of those other possible interpretations. -- Cid Highwind 15:48, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

The problem here is USS Defiant and NCC-75633 in the same title, which has no basis in the canon. I don't really care which name is in the main title and which is in the redirect, as long as the registries next to those names match the canon. By using the current title as the primary link, MA is telling the casual reader that the ship was renamed but not reregistered, which is a very dodgy theory even if we're liberal with the canon. In a place as prominent as the title of an article, MA should strive to report solid facts as observed in the canon.
If we don't want to merge the article, then at least it should be named "USS Sao Paulo (NCC-75633)", since there is no doubt whatsoever about that particular name matching that particular registry. Or more verbosely, "The Second USS Defiant (NX-74205)", which is also 100% consistent with the canon regardless of producer intentions at one time or another. However, I consider it unacceptable for the article title to mislead the casual reader into thinking that MA officially believes the second Defiant was renamed but not reregistered. MA is an important resource and this could adversely affect official sources whose authors need a name and a registry NOW and are not really paying attention to details in the text. – 16:15, July 11, 2010 (UTC)
It shouldn't be called Sao Paulo, because that is not the ship's last known name. Instead of differentiating with the registry number(since it's not entirely clear, although both should be in the article somehow) we should use something else- be it "Second", "New", or something else.--31dot 17:34, July 11, 2010 (UTC)
Fine with me. How about "USS Defiant (Sao Paulo)"? It respects both names yet gives "Defiant" the required prominence, while also avoiding the registry debate altogether. It may not be the usual naming scheme, but then again it's hardly a regular situation. – 17:43, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

Still, the ship that has now, perhaps, the registry "NX-74205" and the name Defiant is the same object that went by the name Sao Paulo and the registry "NCC-75633" before. Removing a perfectly valid registry from the starship sidebar is still inexplicable to me - I'm going to readd it, with the additional explanation that this was the registry the ship had while being named Sao Paulo. -- Cid Highwind 22:01, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

Ok, but the article still needs to be renamed. – 04:23, July 12, 2010 (UTC)
I vote for maintaining the article name as is - if only for simplicity reasons. It would be inappropriate to merge this article with the "USS Defiant (NX-74205)" article on the basis of the two having the same name and registry because they are two completely different ships. We can't name this article "USS Defiant NX/NCC-74205-A" because despite the fact that it was the intention of Ronald D. Moore to change the registry as such, it didn't happen. Since we can't have two separate articles named "USS Defiant NX-74205" keeping this article with the Sao Paulo registry seems like the best option. However, Memory Beta lists this ship as "USS Defiant NX-74205 (II)" so maybe that could be an alternative? --Nero210 05:05, July 12, 2010 (UTC)
You haven't answered my argument. There is no simplicity in the casual reader thinking that the new Defiant is registered NCC-75633, or that (II) is part of its canonical designation. It's unacceptable for such a prominent place. MA must _never_ create canon, only document it. There are so many neutral, unbiased options for a title and I just named one above: USS Defiant (Sao Paulo). – 17:33, July 12, 2010 (UTC)
The "II" being in parentheses doesn't imply that its in the registry, it just makes it clear that this is a second ship with the same name and registry number. As for not making sense to the casual reader, well although Memory Alpha does make an effort to be accessible to the casual reader as much as possible, its primarily intended for long time fans. When you read this article it becomes clear that this Defiant was named after the original and the background information details the registry issues, so a casual reader can figure out the situation easily enough - regardless of the article title. --Nero210 18:03, July 12, 2010 (UTC)
(II) is not plain English for "the second starship to bear the name and the registry". It looks more official - remember Constitution II class from Starship Spotter? - and therefore runs the risk of someone misinterpreting it as official Starfleet nomenclature against our will. We should use either canonical Starfleet nomenclature (such as NX/NCC-xxxxx) or purely descriptive qualifiers such as USS Defiant (Sao Paulo). And regardless of how you'd like someone to read the article, there are people who will copy/paste the title because they don't care about the details, thus misrepresenting the position of the MA article. In short, MA can be responsible for errors in someone's presentation of the canon, and we don't want that if it can be avoided easily. – 18:29, July 12, 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't have a problem with the page being at "USS Defiant (Sao Paulo)", since it avoids this whole registry number mess. One point though, in canon, both numbers are correct. We have the same problem with the USS Yamato. - Archduk3 01:11, July 13, 2010 (UTC)
Both numbers are correct but for different names. The number 75633 is seen on the dedication plaque saying "Sao Paulo", while 74205 is seen next to "Defiant" in VFX shots. This is different from the Yamato situation, where we have two numbers which clearly apply to the same name. – 04:41, July 13, 2010 (UTC)

Well... if we're trying to be totally exact (and from the length of this discussion, apparently we are ;)) even that would be speculation. Where's the "canon" statement that the old registry has become invalid once the new registry had been painted on the hull? Perhaps the "special dispensation" mentioned in the article included the authorization to paint an old registry number on the hull although the ship is, officially, still registered as "75633"? -- Cid Highwind 09:30, July 13, 2010 (UTC)

We report what we see, and what we see is NX-74205/Defiant and NCC-75633/Sao Paulo, regardless of fans who believe that registry numbers are assigned according to inviolate laws of physics, as opposed to being a purely Human construct. I think the most appropriate title would be USS Defiant (Sao Paulo), because the ship is the Defiant and was the Sao Paulo, which also serves to distinguish it quite elegantly from the first Defiant-class Defiant. Let's finish the discussion and rename the article, or does anyone else have serious objections to MA not promoting a name/registry pair which has no basis in the canon? – 17:10, July 13, 2010 (UTC)
I renamed it (it's me under a username, so I'm indenting like this). Note that the dedication plaque, Encyclopedia and the script use the anglicized version Sao Paulo as opposed to São Paulo - there is no need to add special characters. – 1312.4 19:29, July 13, 2010 (UTC)
And I've moved it back. The discussion is still ongoing. Let there be some consensus rather than waiting 2 hours from your last comment. -- sulfur 19:40, July 13, 2010 (UTC)
It's not about consensus, but rather who can present a convincing argument and who can't. I took into account reasonable suggestions about keeping the article separate, about avoiding the registry debate, dismissed an argument by one poster who wanted to keep it like this allegedly for simplicity (even though the registry is complexity of the negative, creative kind) and wanted that the readers pay attention to the text and ignore the title (without explaining why we have to make it harder and more ambiguous than it has to be). What else do we need for this misrepresentation in the article title to be corrected? – 1312.4 19:48, July 13, 2010 (UTC)

Furthering a move war is not quite the way to get your point across, here. As an involved party, I'm not going to move this back myself, but urge any other admin to have a look at this and move back until a consensus has been reached. Meanwhile and for what it's worth, as a reply to your comment: of course this is about consensus - consensus is the single one thing that keeps any Wiki in shape, as far as no core policy is broken. Just because you think that your argument is the most convincing one (of course you do, as does everyone else of his argument) doesn't mean that it really is. Now, there might be a point about the current registry being slightly incorrect (although even that hasn't been proven beyond any doubt), but that doesn't mean that we need to hurry moving the article to some other title that might come with its own problems. -- Cid Highwind 20:13, July 13, 2010 (UTC)

You seem to think that the canon is a matter of how people see it through their personal lenses. It's not - it is what is physically presented onscreen or in the dialogue. That's how consensus must be reached, based on what everyone can see and hear. MA must be fully in service of the canon, and whoever presents arguments which are most consistent with the canon, that's the person who wins. I'm not saying my title is the only one possible, but it is objectively better than the last one, because it will not result in anyone putting NCC-75633 next to "Defiant". We can avoid that issue in the title - we really don't need to deal with the registry in such a prominent location, but can merely state the facts in the text and let the reader decide whether he'll respect the canon or follow his personal interpretation. The 75633 title is biased, simple as that, and I'm sorry that some people are incapable of separating fan-fiction from strict analysis of the canon, which doesn't tolerate personal views or unlicensed creativity. – 1312.4 20:22, July 13, 2010 (UTC)
While I would tend to agree that we should use what was onscreen regardless of fan ideas, the insistence that the NX-74205 number belonged to the ship under just the Defiant name isn't supported by canon. The ship always had the old Defiant number on it, you can see it in the reused footage of the ship arriving. So the number wasn't NX-74205 as just the Defiant, it was used for both. We know the real reason why the old number is on the ship, money, and we know from production sources that the number was suppose to be NCC-75633 as the Sao Paulo and NCC-74205-A as the Defiant. So we know that NX-74205 is not what was suppose to be used either way, and we know it's damn unfortunate that the books perpetuated that number. So in this case, I feel safe in saying that it's not our fault if someone who doesn't read the article comes to the wrong conclusion based on the current title. That said, I'm fine with moving this page to "USS Defiant (Sao Paulo)", for the reason I said above, but I'm not OK with the recent additions to the sidebar. - Archduk3 22:10, July 13, 2010 (UTC)
Uh, the reused stock footage said "Defiant". There is no physical law that would prevent someone from repainting the Sao Paulo before its dedication plaque was changed. Likewise, Ron Moore's personal idea isn't canon, because the canon is what ultimately ends up onscreen including changes made for budgetary reasons, so it is fortunate that the books didn't use the -A suffix. And the current situation is the fault of people like Sulfur who couldn't care less about the problem of unlicensed creativity and would be happy with a consensus of fanfic-minded people (assuming Sulfur determines somehow through some vague means that it exists, of course, as opposed to having a simple, canon-based procedure for renaming).
MA is supposed to be serving the final canon, not any one producer's view or fan whim. Maybe you'd like to revise Star Trek characters so they look like the producers' ideal actors before they had to settle for others for whatever real-world budgetary or scheduling reason? Are we going to open up those floodgates, or is it going to be based perhaps on flimsy "common sense" views of what to include and what not to include? I seriously think that if people can't see the problem with perpetuating a name/registry pair which hasn't been seen in the canon, only in their ideal personal fanon or that of producers if they had the money, they should stop contributing on MA write fan-fiction, because what they really want is to influence the Star Trek universe creatively. – 1312.4 04:48, July 14, 2010 (UTC)
Well this is sounding awfully familiar; I have a sneaking suspicion that this has all happened before, and will happen again. With that in mind, I'm just going to do this by the numbers:
  1. Use common sense, it's a policy.
  2. Deck 78 - The very reason that we use common sense.
  3. No personal attacks, it's also a policy, and just a good idea.
Now if you will excuse me, I'm off to write the continuing adventures of the USS ÜberEnterprise! - Archduk3 05:29, July 14, 2010 (UTC)
Hey, let's use common sense! We never see the name/registry pair Defiant/NCC-75633 but we see NX-74205 everywhere with that name, so we'll not use it. Ron Moore says so (well actually, that's not what he says), and he's the final arbiter of canon on ST according to Paramount's policy. Seriously, I haven't seen this kind of blatant canon-bending and disrespect of a finalized show in fifteen years. – 1312.4 05:38, July 14, 2010 (UTC)

OK, let's do that... with my magic powers of "common sense", I sense the following:

  • Both registries were used for the one object this article talks about, even if in combination with different names. This means that the sidebar, which is supposed to contain a few bits of important information at a glance (and registry apparently has been considered to be such important information) should in fact not randomly omit one of those valid registry numbers - but instead present them, with whatever explanatory text really deemed necessary next to them. This, by the way, has been the single point of this discussion before it was hijacked to be about the page title like the umpteen other discussions above.
  • Regarding the page title, common sense tells me that:
    1. Someone searching for "Defiant" or "USS Defiant" will end up on a proper disambiguation page or at least search result page anyway, regardless of the title of this page.
    2. Someone reading an article where this second Defiant is mentioned will be linked to this article in any case, regardless of the title of this page.
    3. Someone searching for "Sao Paulo" or "USS Sao Paulo" will end up on a search result page (because a redirect exists), regardless of the title of this page.
    • All in all, the above shows that the article will always be properly found - the exact page title to be used is not important as far as "findability" is concerned.
  • Regarding the suggested title alternatives, I see that:
    • "USS Defiant (Sao Paulo)" would have the problem of being a totally unique naming scheme - and also, since some of the participants here seem to believe that our readers are too dense to add up 1 and 1, weird arguments could be made about this title being possibly misinterpreted as "the Defiant that has been built in Sao Paulo" or something.
    • "USS Sao Paulo (NCC-75633)" would have the problem of being overly complicated. No other ship with that name exists, so a qualifier is not necessary.
    • "USS Sao Paulo" would be a title with the only problem of not being the last name of this ship. Is this really a huge problem? (Remember that all sorts of "Defiant" titles would still redirect to this page, not changing the ways this article could be found or be linked to.) Another plus of this title would be that it relieves us from inventing some proper qualifier, which doesn't seem to exist.
    • As an aside, common sense also tells me that "USS Defiant (NX-74205)" is not a perfectly proper title for the first Defiant, because the same title would be valid for the second ship... but we aren't being totally anal, are we? :)

Result of this lengthy consideration: if this page gets moved, it should be moved to "USS Sao Paulo", with the first sentence of the article changed to read "The USS Sao Paulo, renamed USS Defiant shortly after its launch, was..." and both registries be kept in the sidebar. -- Cid Highwind 10:52, July 14, 2010 (UTC)

You mean this ship wasn't build in Sao Paulo?! ;)
I was planning to fix my own complaint about the sidebar by using a ref tag to link to the note in the bg section, after some minor rewording to further explain the double number, as I think we can both agree that the sidebar really isn't the place to be explaining that. As for the name, if we move this, your idea seems to be the least painful at this time, so I'm all for it. - Archduk3 11:10, July 14, 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good - leaving both registries, but no explanation, in the sidebar, and adding some in-page link to further information - go for it! :) The sams standard could then perhaps be applied to the other two-registry-starship we have. -- Cid Highwind 11:51, July 14, 2010 (UTC)

Honestly "USS Defiant (NX-74205) (II)" would probably be the best article title, the "II" is separate from the registry implying that it is the second vessel with the same name and registry, and as mentioned the background section is pretty thorough about the registry issues. "Sao Paulo" in the title just isn't appropriate because it was not the final name of the ship. --Nero210 04:35, July 15, 2010 (UTC)

We've already determined that, regardless of the actual title, this article can be accessed via both: "USS Sao Paulo", "USS Defiant (NCC-75633)". This is not going to change after a hypothetical page move. Why is having the article at the "non-final" name a bad thing? Don't just state that, explain. :) -- Cid Highwind 09:37, July 15, 2010 (UTC)

Double disambiguation bad! Sprinkles good! - Archduk3 10:06, July 15, 2010 (UTC)
Well because if Memory Alpha is suppossed to be an in-universe format historic database on the Star Trek universe all the latest information needs to be incorporated properly, in this case it includes using the final name of the vessel. Also, I never said worried about this article being accessible from "USS Sao Paulo" since the redirect is appropriate. I was just proposing the name. --Nero210 17:05, July 15, 2010 (UTC)

So, using a non-final name is improper because... it's not the final name? That's not a very convincing reason. :) -- Cid Highwind 19:28, July 15, 2010 (UTC)

Why don't we just call it "Second Defiant After the First One Went Kablooey?" There, problem solved. You're welcome. -Angry Future Romulan 19:32, July 15, 2010 (UTC)
I have an idea, and I can hear you all cringing through the tubes at the very thought of that. ;) Now bear with me, this may sound crazy: Why don't we give this article the "USS Defiant (NX-74205)" title, and use "USS Defiant" for the first one. It already redirects there anyway, and it is by far the most prominent example of a starship with that name, so why not simply use it as the title? I know it's not really a solution, but as far as I can see, there isn't going to be a solution that everyone likes, and at least this one doesn't have the MB double disambiguation, which they don't really seem to like either. - Archduk3 02:48, July 16, 2010 (UTC)
Cid I've explained my point of view to the best of my ability, so at this point I'll just be repeating myself so I'm not going to debate you. As for naming the first "Defiant" just "USS Defiant" and letting this one have the registry, switch them, let the new one have "USS Defiant" and the old one "USS Defiant (NX-74205)", since it was the first and longest serving I think it deserves it more. As long as "Sao Paulo" is kept out of the article title, I'm fine. --Nero210 03:46, July 16, 2010 (UTC)
I think Archduk's last idea is a good compromise. --31dot 08:47, July 16, 2010 (UTC)

As was to be expected, I don't like that idea. "USS Defiant" is the "natural title" for all Defiant starships and should thus be at least considered as the title of the disambiguation page (or a redirect to that). Now, as we're just discussing elsewhere, if one of the pages to be disambiguated is much more prominent than all others, that page could get the non-disambiguated title - but that is just a general guideline, we also have to consider the specifics of this case. The specifics of this case are that there's not only several "USS Defiant" ships that need to be disambiguated, but also several "USS Defiant (NX-74205)" ships that, somehow, need to be disambiguated as well. Handing out not only one, but both "natural titles" to different and more or less random articles seems all kinds of awkward for me.

As I see it, as long as we're just considering the Constitution-class vs. the Defiant-class USS Defiant, the latter seems indeed to be more prominent and thus deserving of the natural title (I guess this is why "USS Defiant" still redirects there). The moment a third ship enters the game, one that shares it prominence with the second one, we should drop that guideline and go for a proper disambiguation: "USS Defiant" should redirect to "Defiant", that page should list, among others, all "USS Defiant" starships, and may, without further ado, link to a "USS Sao Paulo" article with the additional description of ", the Defiant-class vessel that was renamed USS Defiant shortly after launch". -- Cid Highwind 09:47, July 16, 2010 (UTC)

Greetings, it would seem that the article was once again moved to "USS Defiant (Sao Paulo)" despite it appearing that no consensus has been reached as of yet. As a result, I've returned it to "USS Defiant (NCC-75633)" for the time being. If this move was in error, I apologise, and will be more than happy to undo the edit. -- Commander Scott 08:59, July 22, 2010 (BST)
The disambiguation changes are fine with me but as it is now, while I don't care for this idea either, I would rather leave the page title the way it is than have Sao Paulo in the title. (and if we can't reach an agreement, that's what will happen anyway) That way the number serves to disambiguate and Sao Paulo is not in the title. I would feel more comfortable with the entirety of Cid's idea if there were other examples of articles not having the most recent title. --31dot 10:12, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

Well, how many subjects do we have that changed names at all? I was thinking about marriage, but the main characters typically seem to keep their maiden names (Torres, Yates, ...). I was thinking about political entities, but those rather resolve or are replaced than simply renamed. I stumbled upon Kodos, which I thought was a proper example - but then I found a separate article at Anton Karidian (which should probably be merged one way or the other). So, I pose the opposite question: How many examples of articles using the most recent, but with a well-known previous, title do we have?

Also, please keep in mind that this is not just an article randomly moved to some "outdated name" without reason - but one moved because the "most recent name" would be ambiguous and already in use. -- Cid Highwind 10:39, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

Again, it seems to me that the current title accomplishes that just fine, and without the name(which seems to be the point of contention) However, do not consider me to be standing in the way of implementing your idea, as all it is doing is using the name to disambiguate instead of the number.--31dot 10:54, July 22, 2010 (UTC)
The only name change I can think of is Rodek/Kurn, which have separate pages, with all the actual info at Kurn, the old name. I don't really have a problem with Cid's idea, and my last suggestion was mainly because there seemed to be more resistance to using the name Sao Paulo at all then anything else. Either way, I still don't buy the argument that we should cater to people who don't read the page, especially since no one buys it when I try that. ;) - Archduk3 11:59, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

The current title is being criticized for falsely mixing a name and a registry that don't really go together. If there are valid reasons to consider this argument baseless and arbitrary, then the current title is the best one, yes. However, if we can't just cast the argument aside, then we need another title - and in that case, I'd still rather use a completely valid, though outdated, title ("USS Sao Paulo") than one that has other issues (double disambiguation, non-standard disambiguation, speculative registry, ...). -- Cid Highwind 12:18, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

While you're debating the finer points of double disambiguation and non-standard disambiguation, MA continues to mislead the casual reader by suggesting that even though we see NX-74205 on the former Sao Paulo, the ship was not really registered like that because registry numbers must be as consistent as the gravitational constant.
Furthermore, I don't see a process in place which would allow this discussion to be finalized within a finite period of time. People are reverting my moves, but they also seem to think that consensus should be determined by the gut feeling of an administrator, as opposed to a definite process. Aside from unilateral action, what would be required to change this title within a finite period of time?
"Sao Paulo" would be an OK solution for me (not ideal because there is no Defiant in the title, but OK) - however, the current title is seriously misleading. I would think that objectivity and solid facts are MA's number one goals, not even remotely comparable to the finer points you're discussing here. Am I the only one who has a serious problem with MA nudging the casual reader towards a highly debatable hypothesis? Practically any reasonable title without "NCC-75633" is better than this one. – 1312.4 16:15, July 22, 2010 (UTC)
The discussion is finalized when most people arrive at a mutually agreeable solution. It certainly is not any one person implementing their views, be it an admin or yourself. That might take some time. Is there some sort of rush?--31dot 16:44, July 22, 2010 (UTC)
There is a rush, because the name/registry pair can appear tomorrow in an official source and spread from there. Take a look at this mutation. It would take me a while to figure out whether they used MA as a resource, but at the very least we should firmly contradict their views, not appear to support them. Canonically, the Sao Paulo became the Defiant NX-74205 and everything else is fan speculation, yet here they kept Sao Paulo's registry number for a future ship, and if that isn't bad enough, the number even has a suffix. They should've simply used a boring registry number for future Defiants, e.g. NCC-79332 (not -A, -B, -C etc., which haven't been confirmed as a must for different ships with the same name). – 1312.4 17:30, July 22, 2010 (UTC)
Actually, based on the distorted appearance, I'd say they used the Fact Files. Either way, STO isn't canon, that's a problem for MB. - Archduk3 18:13, July 22, 2010 (UTC)
Don't get me started on the appearance. However, I was referring to the registry number. Did the Fact Files use Sao Paulo's registry number? I don't have the Fact Files, so I can't check.
MA is responsible for making sure it's canon-based, even if other sources choose to go in a different direction. These kinds of shaky titles are unacceptable. – 1312.4 18:30, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

Break for Vote (discussion continues)Edit

Commander Scott said below: Of course, number 4 does present its own problems, since despite what's shown on screen, the reuse of both name and number goes against everything that has been established before. If we were to let a little speculation slip into this voting process (!!!!!!!!!), the fact that the Sao Paulo's first appearance bears the Defiant's name and number due to the use of stock footage, we could postulate the notion that we weren't supposed to notice the use of the old name and number in the new footage (!!!!!!!!!), as it would simply be intended to match the combat footage taken from season 6. Should the second option become the choice of preference, this could help to make the decision more palatable for those who vote against it, since removing the ship's original name and number on the eve of battle would seem like a fairly low priority given that the transponder codes would already be reconfigured to represent the ship's true identity (!!!!!!!!!).

This is the kind of seriously flawed thinking I'm having a problem with here. Speculate and postulate in your own fanfic, but here you must present the canon to the world. – 1312.4 04:43, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

You yourself have been citing what is seen on the screen, and making subsequent changes to the location of the article based upon your personal interpretation of those events, have you not?
However, if we look strictly at the facts, the new ship was never actually labelled USS Sao Paulo NCC-75633, despite being told that that was the ship's name by Admiral Ross, and seeing the ship's registry on the dedication plaque. As a result, all I did was offer a supposition based upon the visual evidence. If this offends you in some way, then I suggest you take some time to reflect on just whose thinking is seriously flawed, as your attitude towards the people who've disagreed with you thus far leaves a lot to be desired. -- Commander Scott 06:38, July 23, 2010 (BST)

My proposed title, USS Defiant (Sao Paulo), is supposed to be a personal interpretation? All it means is that the ship is named the Defiant, and that we're disambiguating using its former name, Sao Paulo. The parentheses also happen to indicate that Sao Paulo is only a secondary name now. If the sequence of names isn't a rock-solid fact, I don't know how you're watching the show.

I haven't reviewed the opening shots again, but assuming the ship wasn't named the Sao Paulo (which is likely), all it means canonically is that it was repainted before its dedication plaque was changed. There is no need whatsoever to break the cardinal rule of canon analysis by ignoring onscreen evidence in this and all subsequent episodes, yet your mere speculation would require us to invalidate the stock footage and new VFX shots.

Face it, we don't live in that universe, so we don't know what kinds of exceptions Starfleet can make in its registry system. If it is physically possible for a different ship to be painted with the same name and registry, there is no need to reject onscreen evidence - it just adds to our understanding of registry numbers. It is presumptuous of you to suggest that we could "let a little speculation slip into this voting process" and influence the casual reader's views on the subject of registries, as opposed to merely reporting onscreen evidence, however it disagrees with one's personal view of registry numbers. – 1312.4 16:39, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, your proposed title is a personal interpretation of where the article should be located, and every time that you moved it to that location, it was arrogant presumption on your part to believe that your opinion outweighed all of the others here. The same can be said of your systematic changes to the other articles featuring the second Defiant, whether it was the links, and/or the ship's registry number.
It we were to follow your supposition that the Sao Paulo was repainted before it was renamed due to the use of stock footage, we would then have to consider the possibility that the Red Squad cadets enjoyed repainting the Valiant's name and number so that it would be visually identified as the Defiant whenever stock footage was used. The sheer ridiculousness of even having to conceive of such a notion is not lost on me, but I trust that I've made my point on this matter. -- Commander Scott 23:24, July 23, 2010 (UTC)
One consideration that hasn't been mentioned, as far as I can tell, is Memory Alpha:Resource policy#Tolerance in valid resources. That says that we can make allowances for "Sophistication of optical effects (for example, streaming stars at warp, CGI)" and for "Production mistakes (for example, microphones in shot; differences due to different "takes" being used in editing; post-production errors or artifacts; etc.)". Taken together, those could be considered to allow for the current article name, since in the real world the reason that the new Defiant had the same registry as the old one was that they couldn't afford to redo the CGI. Just sayin'. —Josiah Rowe 21:56, July 23, 2010 (UTC)
To be honest, I'm not sure we even need to list the NX-74205 registry in the information box, since the order that Sisko reads out only pertained to the ship's name, and not the registry. Given that we know the new footage only featured the original registry due to the extensive use of stock footage from the previous seasons, I would think that any mention of the original Defiant's registry number would be best left to the background notes, since the Memory Alpha:Resource policy#Tolerance in valid resources would seem to allow for the article to not be mired in such unnecessary confusion. -- Commander Scott 23:42, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

You thought it was OK to influence the thinking of casual readers concerning which registry was "really" used on the new Defiant. That's a totally different type of personal interpretation than picking one of several possible titles as long as they are consistent with the canon. Yes, the title is my own idea, based upon suggestions of others (if you would read the earlier discussion) and what we've observed in the canon. I just don't see it as such a serious change to warrant this much discussion, since we haven't seen an actual edit war, only reverts by administrators and by yourself (using the same "consensus" argument as opposed to a canon-based argument).

You're also showing a remarkable lack of subtlety when analyzing the canon, using any unusual situation as an excuse to introduce your personal views. In case of the Sao Paulo, we just have "Defiant 74205" everywhere in VFX shots, so there is no reason to doubt what we see, namely that the ship was repainted before it arrived at the station. However, in case of the Valiant, we also have a lot of shots of the CG model with the new registry, and what if the new shots are alternating with stock footage? (I haven't seen "Valiant" again, so I don't know to what extent stock footage was used or how it alternates with new VFX shots, but let's assume it does for the sake of the argument.)

We must wait for this kind of ridiculous situation before starting to doubt onscreen evidence, and that's my answer to Josiah's comments about production errors - yes, they exist, but they must also be impossible to rationalize in order to break the basic rule that what is onscreen is what actually happened. If stock footage was used as well, we can just explain it as inappropriate stock footage, since we can prove that it was used in another episode in a different context. We cannot invoke such an explanation for the Sao Paulo since the stock footage alternates with new VFX shots, so there is no proof that the footage is inappropriate. Again, the burden of proof is always on those who would contradict the basic rule that what is onscreen is canon.

Ironically, if the VFX people had chosen to mix stock footage of the Defiant's old registry with new footage showing Sao Paulo's registry, we would have a justification for 75633 because the weirdness of registry numbers switching back and forth would have to be explained somehow. However, since they chose to stick with 74205 throughout, it's 74205 according to available evidence. Everything else is speculation. Even if Sisko mentions only the name, it still isn't enough to contradict what is painted on the hull, since it only means that the number change was implicit when the name was changed. – 1312.4 06:10, July 24, 2010 (UTC)

By the looks of things, it would appear as though your understanding of the way a wiki works is not really fit for purpose when it comes such large scale edits, as you're clearly mistaken in your belief that we (the administrators and users) need a canon argument to revert a change of location, when someone has circumvented the necessary consensus as you did. As I'm sure you're now beginning to realise, the administrators wouldn't have felt the need to lock this article into place if that weren't the case.
Why should we assume that the stock footage indicates that the ship was repainted before its arrival though? Surely if that were the case, there would have been no need to even rename the ship, as it would have already been the Defiant. This is essentially the same supposition that I made, albeit from the opposite angle regarding the identity that can be garnered from the extensive reuse of visual effects.
At this point, I think it's fair to say that you and I are going around in circles, and whilst I'm always up for a good debate, only the greater consensus can decide whether either of our views will have an effect on the content and/or location of the article going forward. -- Commander Scott 09:38, July 24, 2010 (UTC)

Of course you need a canon-based argument because I needed a canon-based argument as well for my own change, and I already explained why the current title contradicts the canon. What's unfair about that? Are you saying that it's fine to wait for a vague consensus of an undefined number of contributors while the canon is being contradicted and misinformation spread to the rest of the world? If I move the article so its title is consistent with the canon, I don't expect you to revert the change unless you have a proposal which is also consistent with the canon.

For example, if someone had merged the article with that on the Defiant instead, I wouldn't have said anything, or if someone had merely moved it to "Sao Paulo", I wouldn't have been as satisfied, but I would've accepted it if such a title is simpler to maintain. However, I see the article deliberately being moved back to the wrong title and nothing happening for days, while we're apparently waiting for a nebulous consensus. What's the status at this very moment? The article was supposed to be moved to "Sao Paulo", but I don't see anything happening.

You don't need to merely assume that the stock footage indicates the ship has been repainted - you can see that onscreen. A ship, formerly named the Sao Paulo, bears the Defiant's name and registry, and continues to bear the same name and registry in subsequent shots. If you're not happy with what you see, all you can do is try to show that it's physically impossible, a blooper, otherwise Paramount's canon policy stands. Since the rule is that what we see onscreen is canon, the burden of proof is on you. Can you prove that the ship couldn't have possibly been repainted in a spacedock before it arrived on DS9, perhaps because it's easier? There are any number of reasonable explanations for why the ship wouldn't have arrived with the Sao Paulo's name and registry number.

I see you don't have much experience with strict analysis of the canon or a desire to maintain the integrity of onscreen evidence, so I don't expect you to be convinced by this argument, but it doesn't change the fact that MA must support Paramount's canon policy and never override canon footage unless it shows something which is impossible to rationalize. Personal views and feelings mustn't enter into it, since the goal is to inform the general public about what we really see in the Star Trek universe, not what we might've seen if the VFX people had an ideal budget. – 1312.4 13:01, July 24, 2010 (UTC)

A consensus amongst the users MUST be reached before major changes are made. To use as simpler a language as possible, this is a democracy, and not a dictatorship.
As for the idea that we're supposed to assume that the Sao Paulo was repainted prior to her arrival, why wouldn't the ship have left Utopia Planitia as the Defiant? The fact of the matter is that we're not supposed to be able to tell that the Sao Paulo had the Defiant's markings at the time of her arrival, and to try and suggest otherwise is just a speculatory explanation as to why the stock footage didn't reflect the ship's true identity.
As such, it's an equally valid point to question whether we were ever supposed to see the original ship's markings, even in the new footage. The USS Enterprise NCC-1701-A set the precedent. If we were to assume that the use of NX-74205 on the new Defiant was correct, then there would be hundreds, possibly thousands, of wartime casualties that would warrant the same treatment, and Starfleet's naming and numbering scheme would be torn asunder. The only reasonable explanation that can be applied is that the ship was supposed to bear a new registry number, just as the background sources have confirmed. The only question that remains is which number it should have borne, and since we know that the ship definitely carried the NCC-75633 registry, that is the only number that should be referenced in this article, and the others that link to it.
To ignore the fact that stock footage has been used when other Defiant Class ships were shown in the series, is just a case of selective reasoning so as to ensure that the canon doesn't interfere with your interpretation of what is shown. -- Commander Scott 01:54, July 25, 2010 (UTC)

If MA is what it purports to be, it can only be ruled by a pure dictatorship of Paramount's canon policy, while we're all merely followers whose task it is to present Star Trek in accordance with that policy, otherwise MA becomes an unlicensed fandom publication. That is why I don't have a problem with one person making changes as long as they are in support of the canon policy, or people reverting that change if they can argue it isn't consistent with the canon policy, but it's annoying when people don't care enough to realize that every second this title remains is another second where misinformation is being spread to the rest of the world. This is no 1970s fandom, where it really was a about a consensus of licensed and unlicensed fan publications, so whoever creates a more interesting publication is the person whose works become accepted.

The question is, can you see the old name and registry onscreen on arrival (because I don't feel like checking merely for the sake of an argument about how to interpret the canon)? If you can't see it onscreen, then there is no evidence that it was repainted before, but if you can see it onscreen, then it was repainted, because whatever is onscreen is canon according to Paramount's canon policy and you're not at liberty to assume otherwise, unless you have proof that it's impossible. The policy is that whatever we see onscreen is canon, not whatever Commander Scott feels would be better based on certain outside knowledge. The canon can be contradicted only by itself, and I don't mean vague, theoretical contradictions based on precedent. What you see onscreen must be proven to be literally impossible.

You're now basically weaving a conspiracy theory based on outside knowledge of how the show was made and assumptions based on previous Star Trek. You're presuming to explain how Starfleet runs things and yet you don't live in that universe. We don't know how many special dispensations were granted. We don't know whether Starfleet has codes other than registry numbers. You forget the precendent set by the NCC-1701, where a totally different design continued to bear the same name and registry (that isn't confusing?). Can that be somehow justified philosophically, because it could've still had a few girders from the old Enterprise, while the Sao Paulo didn't have any girders from the old Defiant?

You can choose not to believe what you see, but the burden of proof is on you, and you have to find evidence in the canon to support your theory, because only more canon can override existing canon, as I demonstrated in the Valiant example above. I can find alternative explanations day and night until you find proof that the ship couldn't have possibly had the same name and registry number. You may think it's selective reasoning, but I already explained that the "selection" in the Valiant example would be made by the remaining canon which shows the new registry, because the canon can be overridden only by more canon.

It's about maintaining the integrity of the filmed Star Trek universe, making sure it doesn't become riddled with supposed "errors" merely because fandom has a problem with the choices made by the VFX people. We're not interested in Commander Scott's outrage at the unprecedented use of the same name and registry number or presumption to know full well how Starfleet runs things in-universe. Read the canon policy - what is onscreen is canon, everything else is secondary unless you have proof that what you see onscreen couldn't have physically happened. – 1312.4 07:02, July 25, 2010 (UTC)

Please stop using thousands of characters to say the same thing over and over again. You have made your point; there is no need to regurgitate it. It also does not change that this is a wiki, and decisions are made by consensus. I'm sorry that does not satisfy you, but that's the way it is. I also think you are confused about our purpose- we are not here to enforce canon, but to document it. Enforcing canon is up to Paramount.--31dot 08:31, July 25, 2010 (UTC)

I am trying to show Commander Scott here just how important it is to respect onscreen evidence, but he doesn't seem to understand. You cannot decide by consensus whether to respect the canon! Also, since MA can only document the canon, the only way to enforce it is to make sure MA documents the canon as opposed to fan dissatisfaction with the VFX, so I really don't see a difference between enforcing and documenting in this case. – 1312.4 09:51, July 25, 2010 (UTC)

1312, when you say that production errors "must also be impossible to rationalize in order to break the basic rule that what is onscreen is what actually happened", you're creating a standard which is higher than what's written in the canon policy. It would be possible to rationalize microphones in shot, or stars streaming (or not) in warp. (Perhaps the microphones are Starfleet recording equipment; perhaps some variation in engine specifications causes stars to appear to "stream" in warp sometimes and not to appear to do so at other times.) The point of the "tolerance" section is that when the answer to the question "why does it look like this when it used to look like that?" has to do with the limitations of TV or film production, we don't need to go to great lengths to explain it.
As you say, our job here is to record what was shown on TV or film. However, if different people disagree about how to interpret what is shown (and that's what's happening here, whether you like it or not), the proper way to resolve that conflict is through discussion and consensus-building. If one person thinks something is self-evident truth and another thinks it's a personal interpretation, the conflict is resolved through broader discussion. That's how a wiki works. If you don't like the way that the discussion is going, you might want to consider your rhetorical methods: unilateral page moves and stamping your foot and saying, "THIS IS HOW IT IS!" aren't likely to convince anyone. —Josiah Rowe 02:35, July 26, 2010 (UTC)

The limitations of TV or film production are a very slippery slope. If we allowed ourselves such liberties, we could just as well pretend that the TNG era didn't feature Excelsiors, because we know they couldn't afford to build new miniatures. There is a danger of disintegrating what is seen onscreen into a myriad personal views which could never be reconciled with a rational argument, only by vote. That's why in those cases, strictly following the canon policy requires proof that what we see cannot possibly be rationalized.

We know what kind of recording equipment Starfleet uses because we've seen dozens examples of it in the remaining canon, and we also know what 20th century recording equipment looks like because it's part of our world, so it's usually a no-brainer to prove such bloopers, but maybe there are cases where you can't - where the recording equipment just happened to integrate all too well into the scene. Stars at warp are totally different, because we have only a layman's view of warp drive and aren't justified in saying what is possible and what isn't. We can guess that it's a VFX problem, but it's not the same as having proof in the canon that what we see is impossible.

The same applies to the registry debate - how do we know what Starfleet can and can't do, except if we presume to know more because we have access to backstage sources? And yet, the guy who invented registry numbers for the TNG era says it is not a ridiculous blooper, but rather a result of careful consideration of what to show onscreen given budgetary limitations. If a rule was valid yesterday, it need not be valid tomorrow if the next script or budgetary limitation comes along, which is why it can only be used as a secondary source and never override the canon.

I did not stamp my foot and say how it is - I merely didn't allow to any one of Commander Scott's arguments to remain unanswered, and he's tried a number of them: Valiant (where we have other canon evidence with the new registry number), vague extrapolation without proof about thousands of special dispensations etc. There just isn't any need to contradict the canon in this case, because there is no proof that what we see is wrong. I'm just waiting for Commander Scott to come up with such proof, but he's merely revising the Star Trek universe to fit his own preconceived ideas of how registry numbers should behave. – 1312.4 05:10, July 26, 2010 (UTC)

I cited the stock footage of the Defiant that was used in "Valiant" (like the stock footage of the USS Voyager that was used in "Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges") to point out that the stock footage used to represent the Sao Paulo was not adequate proof that the new ship had been repainted prior to its arrival. Continuing to make comments about me to try and detract from your attempts to create new precedents and ignore existing policy is not the way to make friends and influence people.
Given your propensity to advise the people that disagree with your changing perception of what is applicable to articles pertaining to the Star Trek universe to go and write fan fiction, I believe it's only fair of me to advise you to go and bake some pancakes, because your flip flopping will be of use in the kitchen. -- Commander Scott 06:07, July 26, 2010 (UTC)
Excuse me, 1312, you did "stomp your feet" when you unilaterally moved the page based on your own reasoning, before the discussion was concluded. The appearance of Excelsiors in TNG is not the same thing as a boom mike in a shot. Boom mikes are not talked about or referenced in the production. I suppose we should believe that Bill Gocke traveled into the future and was hiding in Sela's office with Picard, Data and Spock. As to the changing nature of writers due to scripts or budgets, that's what television is. --31dot 08:51, July 26, 2010 (UTC)

Commander Scott: why do you continue to ignore the difference between stock footage which was contradicted by new footage and stock footage which wasn't contradicted by new footage? Didn't I already explain why we can ignore it in case of the Valiant, which also applies to the case of "Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges"? People are accusing me of repeating myself, but you just don't seem to grasp the difference or choose to ignore my argument conveniently. You can disprove canon with more canon, but not if you don't have more canon to disprove it with. Precedent doesn't count - you must have a ridiculous situation where the ship is changing registry numbers all the time, depending on whether we're looking at stock footage or not. And where exactly am I flip-flopping on the subject of "what is onscreen is canon"? If anything, it was you who suggested either 75633 or 74205 (II) as a potential title in the voting section. How does that make any sense? It just means that you couldn't care less about what's onscreen.

31dot: I moved the page after a brief discussion based on an argument in the canon, because something had to be done to fix the current title. Can we do something with it already? Who knows, maybe this discussion will even stop - now there is a revolutionary idea. And didn't I mention that usually we can identify boom mikes as bloopers, but we still need proof that they are bloopers, because it may not apply in all cases? What about Dr. Crusher wearing a watch in one episode? Maybe it was Gates McFadden who forgot to take it off or maybe not, but if it is reasonably possible for her to be wearing an antique, we cannot ignore onscreen evidence. And yes, that's what television is - didn't I say that? Isn't that the basic reason why we shouldn't ignore what's onscreen for no reason, because pretty much everything is a result of one limitation or another?

I'm now pretty much tired of this discussion, so I don't plan to respond to any more posts. In conclusion, yes, there are bloopers. Yes, the idea that the guy with the chewing gum was in the same room as Sela is so ridiculous that it cannot possibly be anything other than a blooper. But if it can be explained rationally in-universe, it stops being a blooper and becomes part of that universe. And then we have unprecedented situations which arose due to budgetary limitations, as in the case of this registry number - it is not a blooper. You can read Mike Okuda's comments on the subject, which I linked to already. What is most important, however, is to respect the rule that what is onscreen is canon and cannot be ignored without proof, otherwise it's a violation of the official canon policy. – 1312.4 18:21, July 26, 2010 (UTC)

Vote Edit

(Please use a bullet point ( * ) when voting and standard indenting for comments.)

So this has gotten pretty long, and we seem to have some ideas on the table, so I'll summarize:

  1. Keep the page here
  2. Change the page name to "USS Sao Paulo"
  3. Change the page to "USS Defiant (NX-74205)" and that page to "USS Defiant" (or vise versa)
  4. Use a double disambiguation like MB: USS Defiant (NX-74205) (II)
  5. Merge the two Defiant articles

We seem to be talking in circles at this point, and while we try not to use straight up voting, it has been done before for things like this.

  • Since I'm from Chicago, I'm going to introduce some voting irregularities by voting twice: 3 or 2, I'm fine with either. - Archduk3 18:36, July 22, 2010 (UTC)
  • Only 2, but I still think that USS Defiant (Sao Paulo) is by far the most accurate representation of the ship's identity. I really don't see why replacing the registry number with "Sao Paulo" is such a huge problem. The (II) looks dangerously official, while using 74205 for disambiguation is confusing, since it implies that the first Defiant didn't have that registry number. – 1312.4 18:41, July 22, 2010 (UTC)
  • Either 1 or 2, as they are basically the same idea(differentiate with either the name or the number)--31dot 18:42, July 22, 2010 (UTC)
  • If a move has to happen (which seems to depend on policy and not on majority opinion), then (from the above suggestions) definitely #2 and none of the others. However and just for the record, as always if "voting" is being brought up: "majority voting does not equal 'forming a consensus'", and "neither voting nor consensus can circumvent existing policy". :) -- Cid Highwind 21:31, July 22, 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm definitely in the 1 or 2 camp, with a slight inclination towards number 2. Number 4 does have its merits though, as the (II) is an accurate reflection of the fact that the ship is the second to be seen bearing that particular name and number. Of course, number 4 does present its own problems, since despite what's shown on screen, the reuse of both name and number goes against everything that has been established before. If we were to let a little speculation slip into this voting process, the fact that the Sao Paulo's first appearance bears the Defiant's name and number due to the use of stock footage, we could postulate the notion that we weren't supposed to notice the use of the old name and number in the new footage, as it would simply be intended to match the combat footage taken from season 6. Should the second option become the choice of preference, this could help to make the decision more palatable for those who vote against it, since removing the ship's original name and number on the eve of battle would seem like a fairly low priority given that the transponder codes would already be reconfigured to represent the ship's true identity. -- Commander Scott 00:00, July 22, 2010 (BST)

That seems to be most of the people involved, missing only the two Romulans and sulfur, and who really cares what sulfur thinks anyway? ;p Everyone so far is OK with changing this to "USS Sao Paulo", albeit for seemingly different reasons, and while this vote isn't a consensus, I think everybody can agree at this point that the Sao Paulo name is the "lesser evil" while still remaining within MA policy and canon. That said, unless anyone objects, we can move this within the next few days. - Archduk3 23:54, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

Tentatively putting the wheels into motion sounds like a good idea to me Archduk. Should this change ultimately go ahead, I'd like to suggest the opening of the article be adjusted to something similar to the suggestion that was made by Cid Highwind:
"The USS Sao Paulo (NCC-75633), renamed in honor of the USS Defiant (NX-74205) shortly after its launch, was..."
I must admit, I'm not fully versed on the acceptable language to be used in these articles as of yet, but I feel this new opening may negate the necessity to list both registry numbers in the information box, thus allowing the bulk of the article to provide the pertinent information more naturally. -- Commander Scott 02:12, July 23, 2010 (BST)
  • I think we should move the page to USS Defiant (NX-74205) (II) . It is the USS Defiant not the USS Sao Paulo. The Sao Paulo was renamed to USS Defiant.--TyphussJediVader 01:48, July 23, 2010 (UTC)
  • I haven't participated in this discussion before, but if you're collecting opinions, I think that option #2 is the most sensible. Option #1 is technically inaccurate, option #3 is potentially confusing to readers, and option #4 is ugly. The only problem with option #2 is that it isn't the "last" name of the ship in question; however, it's the clearest and simplest option. —Josiah Rowe 01:55, July 23, 2010 (UTC)
I just checked the latest Star Trek Encyclopedia, where the information concerning the Sao Paulo is placed in the article on the original Defiant. There isn't even a separate Sao Paulo entry which would merely redirect the reader to the Defiant article. This would be consistent with one of my earliest proposals, namely to merge the two articles. The Sao Paulo just isn't that important - I doubt that most readers remember what the ship was called before it became a reset-button for the destroyed Defiant. – 1312.4 15:09, July 24, 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm going to vote for option 4, USS Defiant (NX-74205) (II), like MB. --Nero210 21:50, July 24, 2010 (UTC)
In wikipedia, articles of ships that have been renamed are under the last name of the ship. IMO we should follow that. We could place information of the two ships on the same "USS Defiant (NX-74205)" page in different sections. Precedences of two different items with the same name with a single page exist in MA: Antimatter universe, NCC-G1465, Copernicus (2269). --Pseudohuman 16:19, July 25, 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting precedent, so I added a fifth option to choices. Not really sure those articles are inline with MA policy, but at the very least we are no longer dealing with just a single case. - Archduk3 17:53, July 25, 2010 (UTC)

  • I revised my vote to 5, since this option is even better than USS Defiant (Sao Paulo). The latter proposal was created based on feedback that we should have a separate article, but if we can merge them, the naming scheme isn't a problem any more. No one should think that I'm not flexible in terms of details, as long as the title doesn't contradict the canon. – 1312.4 18:37, July 25, 2010 (UTC)
Two different ships, two different articles. It would be like having the two President George Bushes in one article.--31dot 19:26, July 25, 2010 (UTC)
Not if GWB never became governor, president or anything to warrant more than a tiny section in the article on GHWB. That's the basic argument here - the Sao Paulo is such a blatant reset button for the original Defiant that a lot of people may not even remember the original was destroyed or what the replacement was named originally. It also appears in only a few episodes, whereas the original Defiant spans seasons - look at the size of the current article. I just think it's an elegant solution to all these headaches about the naming scheme, given that we can't use the latest name or the registry to differentiate it from the original Defiant. – 1312.4 19:45, July 25, 2010 (UTC)
  • I change my vote to number 5, since this option is even better than USS Defiant (Sao Paulo). Let's just vote number 5 and get this over with.--TyphussJediVader 23:37, July 25, 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree that option 5 is an elegant way around the problem, and I'm changing my vote to 5 as well. —Josiah Rowe 02:39, July 26, 2010 (UTC)
Since the second Defiant participated in the final battle of the Dominion War, and was indirectly responsible for it coming to end when Odo beamed down to Cardassia Prime, I feel that it's earned the right to have its own article; whether that's USS Defiant (NX-74205) (II), USS Defiant (NCC-75633) or USS Sao Paulo. -- Commander Scott 05:02, July 26, 2010 (UTC)

Current results:

  1. 3 (including Cid)
  2. 4
  3. 1
  4. 1
  5. 4 (including Pseudohuman)

These numbers include people who are for more than one option. Based on this, I'm starting a discussion below about the possibility of a merge. - Archduk3 22:57, July 26, 2010 (UTC)

NX-74205 - Is it visible/legible in the new footage? Edit

Due to the length of the previous discussion point, and the lag now present when replying within it, I've decided to pose this question in a new section.

As you know, I've been having a rather lengthy discussion with 1312.4 over the last few days. As a result of the points that he raised, I decided to go back and watch the combat footage from "What You Leave Behind" this morning, so as to ensure that I was fully versed on the appearances of the original Defiant's registry number in the footage that was created for the series finale. It's interesting to note that during my viewing, it was impossible for me to correctly identify the ship's number in anything other than the stock footage. I can only assume that this was a concerted effort on the part of the special effects team, as the new camera angles and high speed flybys appear to have been designed to create a sense of ambiguity for the viewer. This makes me wonder whether the knowledge of the original Defiant's registry being used in the new footage may have actually originated from the backstage sources, rather than a discernable appearance? -- Commander Scott 11:48, July 25, 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether there was a discernible appearance. If stock footage is all you can see with the old registry number, you cannot even contradict stock footage without proof that it is inappropriate, because it's part of the canon. The canon policy stands. You're desperately trying to go against the canon policy with nothing but background info and speculation in hand, whereas what you really need is proof in the actual canon that the ship retained Sao Paulo's registry.
Here you can see comments by Mike Okuda (ignore the poster's incorrect conclusion about -A: all Mike Okuda says is that the original number was retained). This would also mean that there was no need to revise various Okudagrams showing NX-74205, so you can probably try to determine if the number is visible on any of them. – 1312.4 14:47, July 25, 2010 (UTC)

To effect a large scale change, one must be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that something is true, in this case, that the second Defiant carried the same registry as the first. You yourself argued that the new footage was proof that the original registry has been carried over, but upon my investigation, I found that I was unable to verify it. This in and of itself casts doubt as to whether the second ship ever carried the first ship's registry, as the stock footage is covered by the tolerance in valid resource policy, which (if further investigation proves my analysis to be correct) will nullify the impact that it can have on the information that's presented in the article.

Now, if you wish to debate this with me further, I suggest go and watch the episodes in question, and then thoroughly research the policies that are in place here, because until you do, you're just going to continue playing the same tune, whilst indulging in a bit of synchronised swimming on the ways and means.

To everyone else, I look forward to hearing your thoughts. :-) -- Commander Scott 17:18, July 25, 2010 (UTC)

Where is the proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the ship had Sao Paulo's registry? Surely you can find it somewhere around here, if you expect that whoever named this article and thus introduced his own large-scale change must have had such proof. I have to bend over backwards to revert someone's off-the-cuff decision, which was probably based not so much on canon evidence as on the idea "Hey, I can use the registry to disambiguate, let's do that." Please go and find proof which was responsible for this article being named the way it is - you might even win this argument.
No, I did not argue that everything depended upon new footage, but only mentioned it in addition to everything else. You're twisting my arguments and grasping at straws in your non-canonical effort to discredit the efforts of Star Trek VFX people at maintaining onscreen consistency. If all you found so far is stock footage which hasn't been contradicted in any way, it's enough. It's onscreen, and what is onscreen is canon barring further canonical evidence. You go and find proof for your assertion that we must violate the canon policy and ignore canon footage. So far, you still haven't found any proof that the ship retained Sao Paulo's registry or had an -A suffix added to it.
People like you aren't interested in maintaining onscreen integrity of the Star Trek universe and following the canon policy, only about revising it to suit their preconceived ideas. Maybe you'd like to imagine that we haven't actually seen that many Oberths and Excelsiors because of all the stock footage? Maybe you'd like to imagine that the Enterprise-C really looked like Andrew Probert's original design, before it had to be simplified for budgetary reasons? Maybe Tasha Yar still lives in your universe, because the problem is that the actress left? Go on and write your own fanfic, since you obviously have no respect for what ended up onscreen and strict derivation of articles using the canon policy. No wonder MA is disintegrating if it's asking for a consensus of people who like to contradict the canon without proof. – 1312.4 18:04, July 25, 2010 (UTC)

You know, I've done my best to ignore your personal jibes, so I'd like to apologise in advance to the members and administrators who will read this, but I've finally had enough. You don't know me and you don't have a clue what I think about the greater Star Trek universe, so I would advise you to think very carefully about how you proceed, because I am not the only one who is tired of your attempts to create new precedents and dictate terms. You are wholly unqualified to be making any comments about anyone, and equally unqualified to be making changes to an encyclopaedic resource such as this. You have been nothing but rude, arrogant and condescending in your contravention of the rules of common decency, and I hope you come across someone who is more willing to kick you off your perch in due course, because the fact you're still here after making such denigrating comments is a real shame for the whole of this community. -- Commander Scott 04:46, July 26, 2010 (UTC)

The number was discernible, if just barely. - Archduk3 18:29, July 25, 2010 (UTC)

And there endeth this particular foray. Thanks Archduk. :-) -- Commander Scott 04:42, July 26, 2010 (UTC)


Based on the current vote numbers, and at least one precedent, the option of merging this with "USS Defiant (NX-74205)" seems to not only be on the table, but also popular. I'm not really sure if this is OK with policy, despite a precedent, so this section can be used to discuss this in detail instead of the Vote section (or we could move this to the policy talk page). - Archduk3 22:57, July 26, 2010 (UTC)

Vehemently Oppose - This is an entirely separate ship from the old Defiant, regardless if the name and registry number is the same for both ships, they're two separate starships and it would be inappropriate to merge them. --Nero210 07:41, July 27, 2010 (UTC)
I must agree with Nero; this is a separate ship with its own accomplishments, and as such, should maintain its independence from the original Defiant article. If we are to assume that the ship really did carry the same registry as its predecessor, then I'm forced to conclude (albeit reluctantly) that the only real option can be to move the article to USS Defiant (NX-74205) (II). -- Commander Scott 08:42, July 27, 2010 (UTC)
I would much prefer not to merge them, but if we cannot agree on a way to disambiguate them, it would be a slightly better solution than leaving the page here.--31dot 10:24, July 27, 2010 (UTC)
Merging comes with its own set of problems, some of which serious enough to not go for it, I think:
  1. First of all, we have to keep in mind that these are two different ships. Merging can't happen in the standard sense of the term where, for example, the two "History" sections of the individual articles would be combined into one new history section. Instead, the merged article would need to become an "aggregate article", basically a simple concatenation of first the NX-article and then the NCC-article. This will make the article hard to navigate.
  2. Then, with concatenating the two articles, we'll be losing the sitewide standard layout of starship articles, and to a lesser extent articles in general. Two sidebars? Two "Appendices" sections - or just one section where each time it needs to be explained which of the two ships a specific note refers to? How will the start of the second "sub-article" be separated from the end of the first - and if it's done via a H1-heading, what will the exact string used be, and couldn't that be the title of a separate article in the first place?
  3. What's with incoming links? Right now, all incoming links can easily go to the ship that is being talked about. After a merge, all links would basically go to the NX-Defiant, because it's the first one mentioned on the page - unless we introduce another variable for {{USS}} that allows to create links to a specific subsection on the target page. Pretty much non-standard, and all sorts of difficult.
  4. Last but not necessarily least, what's with the redirect "USS Sao Paulo", which we'll want to keep even after a merge? That title will then be connected to both Defiants, although only one of them should be.
All in all, I think that merging does nothing to improve the situation, and will instead make it worse than going with any of the rename suggestions (even worse than keeping it under the current title). Thus, I'm totally against it. -- Cid Highwind 11:00, July 27, 2010 (UTC)
Copernicus (2269), as it is now before we separate that into two articles, is what the merged page would be like. --Pseudohuman 12:11, July 27, 2010 (UTC)
Compare the number of existing subsections here (10+2, not counting Appendices sections) and there (0+0). I don't think that what works there necessarily must work here as well. That, and the fact that the other page is about to be split for very similar reasons to those that are supposed to work in favor of a merge here. ;) -- Cid Highwind 12:22, July 27, 2010 (UTC)
If we dont merge, one possible way to distinguish the pages could be USS Defiant (2370) & USS Defiant (2375). That has precedences in USS Drake (2364) and USS Drake (2373) and in several shuttle-pages, etc. --Pseudohuman 12:50, July 27, 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure that the precedent set by the two Drake's can really apply here, because neither of those ships were seen on screen for us to be able to ascertain their full identity. Should using the year as a means of disambiguation be looked upon favourably though, would USS Defiant (NX-74205) (2375) be an acceptable alternative, or would it be more appropriate for us to alter the Constitution-class Defiant's heading to 2268 as well? -- Commander Scott 13:05, July 27, 2010 (UTC)
Neither alternative would be "more appropriate". Not the first, because the bracketed suffix serves only one purpose - to disambiguate one article from another that would otherwise have the same title. If the second suffix already does this, there's absolutely no need to complicate matters by using the first one at the same time. And not the second because, while 2370 and 2375 are the respective years of construction, 2268 is, what exactly? The in-universe year during which we, as the TV show viewers, saw the ship? "2268" does not have the same relevance as the other two years, so it isn't necessary (and sensible) to imply as much.
I still favor "USS Sao Paulo" over all other solutions, but regarding using disambiguations, the new suggestion to use years for both Defiant-class Defiants seems preferable to all others. -- Cid Highwind 13:34, July 27, 2010 (UTC)
I could support using year of construction as well(or some other use of years).--31dot 14:01, July 27, 2010 (UTC)
Well, considering that double disambiguation is already being considered for this article Cid, the (2375) would have simply served the same purpose as (II) if applied to the name and registry combination. The years of the two Drake's are also based upon when they were referenced in the show, hence my suggestion of 2268 for the Constitution-class Defiant. We must also remember that the NX-74205 was in mothballs for an undisclosed period of time prior to her activation in 2371 as well. -- Commander Scott 14:04, July 27, 2010 (UTC)
Oppose merge - for very much the same reasons Nero210 and Commander Scott stated. Both ships started out as separate entities and should be treated as such, same name and registry notwithstanding. Merging them would be paramount to merging USS Enterprise with USS Enterprise-A and nobody is suggesting that (I guess we should be grateful that the "A" did not canonically started out as the USS Yorktown). As for the disambiguation, since the registry is no help (if we can assume that in the case of double-named ships, the last is to be used), I personally have a slight, very slight, preference for the years-use. - Sennim 14:05, July 27, 2010 (UTC)
2370 and 2375 are the years of commishioning of the two ships from the dedication plaques. --Pseudohuman 14:35, July 27, 2010 (UTC)
I'd definitely prefer to go with "USS Sao Paulo" if it comes down to the choice of using that, or the years that each of the ships were commissioned as the form of disambiguation. -- Commander Scott 16:41, July 27, 2010 (UTC)

I'm opposed to a merge and any use of a double disambiguation as I think both will look cluttered and unencyclopedic. That said, using the commissioning years as the disambiguation seems fine to me. - Archduk3 16:47, July 27, 2010 (UTC)

Using the years is acceptable to me to disambiguate the articles. Though I think "USS Sao Paulo" is fine if every feels that it's incorrect then commission date should be just fine. — Morder (talk) 00:05, July 28, 2010 (UTC)
Although I still think that merging is the most elegant solution, I'm OK with either using "USS Sao Paulo" or disambiguating with the years, since there seems to be strong opposition to the merge in some quarters. —Josiah Rowe 00:47, July 28, 2010 (UTC)

Vote IIEdit

So at this point we're down to just the two options left that have significant support:

  1. Moving the page to "USS Sao Paulo"
  2. Moving this page to "USS Defiant (2375)" and "USS Defiant (NX-74205)" to "USS Defiant (2370)"

It's one or the other folks, since we've written the actual page length several times over on why it can't stay at the current title, and there is significant opposition to merging the article. Let's sound off here and put this one to bed.

  • 2. I expect less complaints in the future if the title is at something with Defiant in it. - Archduk3 04:59, July 28, 2010 (UTC)
  • 2 - this seems a very sensible way to keep USS Defiant in the title, which is an absolute must in my opinion. As I understand it, registries were only included in the first place to disambiguate. Where they fail to do so, some other measure can be used. Year of commissioning is a quite sensible one. Anyway, what is it about starships that leads to such division? :-p– Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 06:16, July 28, 2010 (UTC)
  • 1 - Disambiguating with the commissioning dates just doesn't feel right to me when we have a considerable amount of information available to us on these ships in comparison to the ones (the two Drake's) that were used as an example for that precedent. -- Commander Scott 08:04, July 28, 2010 (UTC)
  • 2. This seems like the most acceptable solution to most of us, even if it isn't the first choice of some. If nothing else, it is better than the status quo.--31dot 09:31, July 28, 2010 (UTC)
  • 2. --Pseudohuman 10:23, July 28, 2010 (UTC)
  • 2 In my opinion the best of the less than perfect options (A Sao Paulo redirect could be added) - Sennim 12:00, July 28, 2010 (UTC)
    • Note: A Sao Paulo redirect already exists.
  • I vote number 2, it's a good idea.--TyphussJediVader 13:24, July 28, 2010 (UTC)
  • Meh. I'm OK with either of these options; while neither is great, they seem equally "good enough" to me. —Josiah Rowe 18:16, July 28, 2010 (UTC)
  • I hate them both, but I hate option two less and could live with this one getting "USS Defiant (2375)" and the original getting "USS Defiant (2371)" (not 2370 - sorry for the nitpick ;) ) --Nero210 01:42, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
    • Note: 2370 is the commissioning date. We didn't see the ship until early 2371 though. - Archduk3 03:04, July 30, 2010 (UTC)