For general discussion, please visit Memory Alpha's Discussions feature, or join the chat on Discord.
End of Line
OK. We've all run in circles for the last several 100KB of text - let's put an end to that. The majority seems to believe that the change towards two equally "canon" Melbournes is not a good idea - and, this is in agreement with our canon policy. Let me quote:
- In the event that any of this information [production or reference material] contradicts on-screen information, however, then the information stated on-screen will take precedence.
The only thing that this still hinges on - and basically, what this whole discussion boils down to, is the simple question: "Is it a contradiction, or is it not?". In the light of another part of the same policy, which reads:
- [...] archivists should be guided by the principle that a valid resource with a higher precedence can (but does not have to) be given slightly greater evidentiary weight for purposes of writing the article from a Trek universe standpoint than the valid resource with a lower precedence.
, the majority of contributors to this discussion believes that the above suggestion would be contradictory - and as such, should be avoided. Especially in light of the fact that, after all, this is still an encyclopedia about a TV franchise, and as such should not outright contradict reader expectation about what can be found here. As AHolland, a past contributor to this site, put it (and thanks, Alan, for finding that):
- If the goal of Memory-Alpha is to be an encyclopedia of Trek material looked at as authoritative, trustworthy, and accurate we *have* to treat the material in Trek consistent with the intention of the production staff.
The audience, after viewing the two Wolf 359 battle depictions, expects one Melbourne to have been destroyed in that battle, not two. This expectation should not be contradicted if we don't have to - and in fact, no valuable information is completely lost if we don't have two articles instead of one.
Long story short - I'd call the above discussion(s) a consensus for now, and ask you not to intervene if that decision gets put to article space.
Personally, I'm not going to reply here again, unless something really new gets brought up - until then, silence doesn't mean I'm no longer convinced of the decision described above. If this article is no longer the way you'd liked it to be, I'm sorry... -- Cid Highwind 23:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
- I support Cid's point of view.--31dot 23:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
- Support — Morder 23:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
- Support, and if there is a 4k+ response to this, I'm boycotting that user (whoever does it) :P --OuroborosCobra talk 23:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
- Support– Cleanse 01:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- Violently support. --TribbleFurSuit 02:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed this boils down to "Is it a contradiction, or is it not?"
- Violently support. --TribbleFurSuit 02:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- Support– Cleanse 01:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with Cid that we should be guided by our policy when deciding our answer on this. Our basic POV-policy states: "If there are subjects that have conflicting references in the stories, simply add all the given information, and optionally add a background note explaining that there is a conflict." But we have stopped simply adding all the information.
- Among the invalid resources we have listed Fan fiction of any kind. There are two types of fan fiction, the expanded universe type and the "compacted" universe type. Both are just as misleading. MA currently filled with the latter. To still achieve the maximum ammount of objectivity, our canon policy has the guideline statement: "The presumption should be that a conflict does not exist unless no other explanation is reasonable under the circumstances." It is there to allow the maximum ammount of diversity possible to reflect canon and valid content objectively.
- To weed out some of the distorted claims thrown around here. The only reference to the so called "production staffs original intentions" comes from reference material where a scenic art supervisor and a graphic designer state: "There were actually two Starships Melbourne used in these episodes..." and give out their personal opinion: "...we now assume that the Melbourne "really" was an Excelsior class ship".
- This note has absolutely nothing to do with the production staffs original intentions. We cannot allow sidenote speculations from reference material determine the possibilities in the Star Trek Universe. Star Trek canon is intentionally vague on what is possible in the in-universe, to allow a maximum ammount of flexibility. Opinions of some production staff members to simplify everything down should not be taken into account when creating an encyclopedia about canon and valid content.
- "Is it a contradiction, or is it not?" Yes is utter fan fiction and to be honest here people, audience expectation gets contradicted by almost every episode of Star Trek. No is an objective fact, follows our presumption policy, and if implemented in the way I have suggested also manages to produce an article that our POV-policy calls for. --Pseudohuman 05:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- For the love of Surak and all that is holy, I support Cid. --From Andoria with Love 05:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- Umm.. so am I to understand you guys want an edit war? I dont see any resolution reached here. --Pseudohuman 09:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- I think that is really out of line for you to threaten. The majority of users here seem happy with this solution. You're going to have to learn in life that not everything is going to go your way, and even in wikis unanimity is not required. In addition, some things need to be dealt with on a case by case basis. I'm sorry we don't buy your point of view that this is fan fiction run awry, but we just don't. You're going to have to live with that, and if you carry out your "suggestion" of an edit war, you are not going to get your position into the article, and will probably only get yourself blocked. I don't want to see that, I don't think anyone else does, we all value your contributions as an editor, but we do not agree with you in this case. This article has been a contentious issue for literally more than a year now, and we have a solution that an overwhelming majority agrees with. Whether you personally feel this is a violation of our policy (though most of us do not share this belief), or fanon, or whatever, you can't keep pushing this when the rest of us don't share your belief. --OuroborosCobra talk 09:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed, not only is this "background rewrite" / "content shift" limited to just the "facts" (...both onscreen and off...), it explains the "contradiction" (...content that is not "purely" verifyable onscreen...) without getting into "fan rationalizations" (...original research...) as to why various scenarios are possible, as supported (...almost entirely...) by "verifyable sources" (...permitted resources...) which essentially explains the "situation" in its entirety. For those who feel the need delve into the world of contradiction (...which I understand is the "resolution" we've decided to avoid...), they can visit the external link to the EAS analyses... --Alan 12:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- If seven votes to one isn't a consensus, I don't know what is. Sounds like a resolution to me.--31dot 18:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, for one, voting doesn't apply here, so it doesn't mean anything. There have been several people who do not support this representation. Secondly, you already started the edit war. So i'm not thretening to start one that has already been started. Any admin who misuses his power to create and protect vandalism should loose his admin rights. The edits you have made are basically vandalism and anyone should feel free to undo them. --Pseudohuman 22:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- Calling what was done to this page "vandalism" is a big stretch, even for you, Pseudo. No admin has misused his "power" here. What was done to the article was agreed upon by everyone except for one person, then that one person threatened (or appeared to threaten) to revert said changes and begin an edit war. Hence, why the page was protected, in order to prevent the disruption to the community and site. Also, Memory Alpha operates on a general consensus, which is defined as the "majority of opinion". This is really the only way to operate since there is obviously no pleasing everyone, especially in cases like this. --From Andoria with Love 22:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed, calling this an "edit war" and "vandalism" is utter bullshit Pseudo and you know it. This discussion was clearly in support avoiding the "conflict" by addressing it as background information over treating it in-universe. So simply put, that is exactly what was accomplished. The rewrite was clean and concise, and since this has been ignored multiple times, I will stated it again: the rewrite SUPPORTS ON-SCREEN CANON, while still addressing the contradiction that the production staff created entirely themselves, in the background section. If they NEVER admitted it, we would have NEVER known about it, based purely on on-screen evidence, therefore meaning that this entire
waste of timediscussion would have never happened. --Alan 23:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed, calling this an "edit war" and "vandalism" is utter bullshit Pseudo and you know it. This discussion was clearly in support avoiding the "conflict" by addressing it as background information over treating it in-universe. So simply put, that is exactly what was accomplished. The rewrite was clean and concise, and since this has been ignored multiple times, I will stated it again: the rewrite SUPPORTS ON-SCREEN CANON, while still addressing the contradiction that the production staff created entirely themselves, in the background section. If they NEVER admitted it, we would have NEVER known about it, based purely on on-screen evidence, therefore meaning that this entire
- Calling what was done to this page "vandalism" is a big stretch, even for you, Pseudo. No admin has misused his "power" here. What was done to the article was agreed upon by everyone except for one person, then that one person threatened (or appeared to threaten) to revert said changes and begin an edit war. Hence, why the page was protected, in order to prevent the disruption to the community and site. Also, Memory Alpha operates on a general consensus, which is defined as the "majority of opinion". This is really the only way to operate since there is obviously no pleasing everyone, especially in cases like this. --From Andoria with Love 22:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support Wow umm... I clicked on the archive to read the fun discussion stuff, I should've looked to see how long it would be... it's been like an hour of reading... ... I came here from Federation Starships just for fun. I wanted you guys to know that the effect you were going for worked well. I read a little bit on the ship, what happened to it. Then I read background, and I mean background as nothing was conclusively shown on screen, on production changes. No speculation, no fandom, no off-screen explanations. After all this is memory-ALPHA. – Saphsaph 09:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Day late and a dollar short there. This discussion was essentially over two months ago. But thanks anyway. --Alan 15:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- I figured so. But seeing as the discussion was started in 2007... I figured it wouldn't hurt just in case someone down the line decides to pick it up! – Saphsaph 05:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, for one, voting doesn't apply here, so it doesn't mean anything. There have been several people who do not support this representation. Secondly, you already started the edit war. So i'm not thretening to start one that has already been started. Any admin who misuses his power to create and protect vandalism should loose his admin rights. The edits you have made are basically vandalism and anyone should feel free to undo them. --Pseudohuman 22:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Apocrypha
The TNG short story "Trust Yourself When All Men Doubt You" in The Sky's the Limit established that the Nebula-class Melbourne was under construction and intended to replace the Excelsior-class Melbourne when the Borg attacked. The Nebula-class Melbourne was launched early, and both ships were lost at Wolf 359. The Nebula-class Melbourne was the ship offered to Commander Riker
This is quite interesting. Is it possible that the author of the story made this assumption based on the MA USS Melbourne article in 2007? Just curious about that. ; Ambassador/Ensign_Q 13:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Nebula class Melbourne
In the German edition this ship has a separate article. I am in favor of separating the article here as well. It is obvious that the spacecraft is canonical, because the wreck is so clearly identified. --Mark McWire 21:44, May 8, 2011 (UTC)
- Please don't reopen that discussion(see the archive).--31dot 21:58, May 8, 2011 (UTC)
Actually I do not want to read pages of old discussion. That should be just a neutral comment. I also do not think independently of the old debate that the current article reflects the Canon properly. --Mark McWire 22:26, May 8, 2011 (UTC)
No we are not crazy. We ignore only the non-canonical statement of the encyclopedia, because we have no rule requiring the inclusion of production information. Both objects exist in the Canon, so both have an article. The Nebula-variant, so for us as canonical as the Excelsior variant. --Mark McWire 22:49, May 8, 2011 (UTC)
- My point is that unless you have some sort of new argument, this comment only serves to restate what was said before.--31dot 00:13, May 9, 2011 (UTC)
- Mark McWire, the in-universe sections in MA shouldn't be considered as "pure-canon" to start with. We are trying to create an internally consistent in-universe database out of all the canonical material which isn't internally consistent, as it is full of small errors, retcons, new versions of episodes with replaced effects and a variety of anomalies. Everything less prominent which is deemed not compatible is thrown into bg when it is a self evident inconsistency or when producers give a statement on it being one. This is what the majority of editors here want MA to be like, so it is the way it is. --Pseudohuman 01:33, May 9, 2011 (UTC)
My problem is: What speaks for the other hand, there are two spacecraft of the same name? It is, indeed, that the spacecraft was labeled at all, even if you can not read in the episode. On the other hand, we know from the model of what was written right there. So I see it like that of the Nebula-class USS Melbourne is canonical. I find it contradictory that you accept on the one hand, statements by the production staff, on the other hand, doubts the labeling of the models used in the Canon. The USS Bellerophon (NCC-62048) will be accepted from you, too, though you can not read the name in the episode. Where then is the qualitative difference? --87.182.50.112 12:23, May 9, 2011 (UTC) --Mark McWire 13:26, May 9, 2011 (UTC) Edit: In my opinion it does here is a judgmental, without giving the reader the freedom to choose. Those who only look at the episodes will probably not come to the conclusion that one of the two spacecraft should be preferred. Although one other, the marking of the wreck without background information also can not know... difficult case. But your one-sided preference bothers me. --Mark McWire 13:26, May 9, 2011 (UTC)
- Mark, I made the same arguments. But as you can see, MA has the policy I noted above, which as you can see is a mandate to reach this kind of one-sided preference on everything. --Pseudohuman 16:53, May 9, 2011 (UTC)
- Readers can believe whatever they wish to believe; they don't need our help to do that, and that's not our job. Our job is, as stated above, is to be consistent with the following: "If the goal of Memory-Alpha is to be an encyclopedia of Trek material looked at as authoritative, trustworthy, and accurate we *have* to treat the material in Trek consistent with the intention of the production staff."
- I will second Archduk and oppose any effort to split up this page.--31dot 19:12, May 9, 2011 (UTC)
I can not understand how the Nebula-variant against the "intention" of his production crew. It is as canonical as the other, even if the authors are subsequently believe that it is not there should be. That does not do that undone that we could see it. And, moreover, at least the appearance as Rikers table model is canonical. The performance is even sense because he should be given command of this ship, but he refused. This is indirectly also clear that he should be given command of the Nebula-variant, otherwise his memory would not even remember;) --Mark McWire 23:04, May 9, 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but your responses here are really hard to read - are you using some translation tool? Perhaps it would be better to continue this discussion on MA/de. For what it's worth, the answers to all of your questions, as far as I can understand them, are already in the discussion archive that you were asked to read. -- Cid Highwind 09:02, May 10, 2011 (UTC)
- Mark, production crew intention was for there to be only one Melbourne, both models were used to represent the same ship, so that is why it would be against the intent for us to state there were two. Canonicity of the models is not the question. --Pseudohuman 12:31, May 10, 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, Yes I have used a translation program (Online Google Translation tool) ... Although I can read English but not really speak or write. Discussions of which I am not involved, not help me much. I'm not about to ask questions but to defend my position. The background is to indicate that in some "Star Trek" forums, some users, the English MA as the source. As a result, they deny the existence of the Nebula-variant, because it is supposedly written here. I have nothing against it if someone by itself has such an opinion, but I have a problem with the fact that they are influenced by the English article in this direction. I do say so openly and without any intention of becoming a personal insult: I think your spread a false representation of this canonical fact. Otherwise, I find your work here just fine. --87.182.48.197 12:40, May 10, 2011 (UTC) In my view, be due to the TNG episode "Future Imperfect" verify the existence of the Nebula-Melbourne because Riker recalls and has built this ship in his memory. He apparently was offered the command of this ship, why he can imagine it as a souvenir in its future ready room. --87.182.48.197 12:45, May 10, 2011 (UTC)
- Mark, you are correct. Our in-universe database is not intendet to be "pure-canon". It is what you might call an inconsistency-sensored version of canon. In our view the desktop model was retconed out by the Excelsior-models appearance based on our canon-policies. --Pseudohuman 13:15, May 10, 2011 (UTC)
For me it is only relevant thing I can actually see. So I can understand this view, but did not share. Already in Rikers room was a model of a Nebula-class ... Point. --87.182.48.197 13:22, May 10, 2011 (UTC) I have now entered the canon appearance in Unnamed Nebula class starships so at least this is entered correctly. You should at least mention the canonical appearances of the wreck and the table model. Let's just ignore for the moment that they were labeled. --Mark McWire 13:37, May 10, 2011 (UTC)
- So the can of worms opened up again. I argued a while back that adding the Nebula-Melbourne as an unnamed ship is for us a bad compromise. It means we are half-ignoring the producers intent for this to be a retcon and the intent for this to be a single ship represented by two different models, which is okay by itself, if we want to do that. But we are then treating the name and registry of the other ship as a problem and censoring it out even though there is no valid reason for it to be a problem. A reason for the double names is being pointed out in apocrypha. Which isn't canon of course, but the apocryphal account proves that there is no conceptual problem with the double naming situation. It is in fact a perfectly plausible scenario. So I say go with one article or split all the way. Not this rationalized "half-split". --Pseudohuman 15:25, May 10, 2011 (UTC)
- ...and this is what we get by lending credence to a user who can't even be bothered to review the previous discussions on this. We treat this the same way we treat other retcons, like the remastered TOS episodes, and I haven't seen a new reason to change that, so I'm reverting the changes to the Unnamed Nebula class starships page. If there's some change in the previous consensus here, it can be readded, but personally I'm going to oppose treating it as another starship. - Archduk3 16:39, May 10, 2011 (UTC)
- I oppose that as well. Mark, following your reasoning, we would need two different articles for Saavik, who was played by two different actresses. We would need three for Tora Ziyal. This is a similar situation- one ship played by two different models. I will probably not have any further comment at this time unless some new issue comes up.--31dot 17:16, May 10, 2011 (UTC)
The fact that there has been only one spaceship, according to producers under the name "Melbourne" does, indeed not that this wreck has been. Following your reasoning, you can not read the name in the Canon. Then there are no canonical evidence that the wreck should be the same ship. It can be an arbitrary Nebula-class starship, which was destroyed near Wolf 359. With a little inspiration, you can even argue that it could be the destroyed USS Bellerophon. Of course I know that this is far-fetched. This should serve as an example. For me, the appearance of this wreck is canonical, after all, it is clearly visible. It was even shown in DS9, and thus is even shown that it can not be the Melbourne, because we had the damaged Excelsior-class have seen, which apparently does not agree with it. And mind you in the same episode, even within a short time. --Mark McWire 22:10, May 10, 2011 (UTC)
neutral Question
I will now come from the defense of my position on a completely neutral question: Why do the producers in the DS9 pilot, the Nebula-wreck reused and not previously shown Excelsior-wreck? We have seen in the first few seconds as the Excelsior-Melbourne were damaged and is subsequently drifted. At the end of the battle they have reused the Nebula model. Is there even any evidence? Why have they used this model from TNG again, if they really wanted to replace it? Does anyone out a coherent response? --87.182.43.41 12:13, May 11, 2011 (UTC)
- Cost. The footage existed, no reason to re-film it all. -- sulfur 12:16, May 11, 2011 (UTC)
- Apart of that, it was "some ship damaged at Wolf 359" before (TNG) and it is "some ship damaged at Wolf 359" now (DS9). Just because the producers didn't use it as the Melbourne doesn't mean they're no longer allowed to use it as some anonymous other ship. In fact, it is a nice touch to see the same unnamed ship wreck in both depictions of the battle. -- Cid Highwind 12:41, May 11, 2011 (UTC)
Ok. If definitely the spaceship in the window is not Melbourne, it has some other nameless ship to be or not? Hey, it's even almost the same screenshot as in the episode "Unification", which is registered as nameless spaceship. --87.182.43.41 13:41, May 11, 2011 (UTC)
- You will have to take that up with the people that reverted you... -- Cid Highwind 14:23, May 11, 2011 (UTC)
I'm quite simple: I just wait until the debate here is forgotten. Then I just start a new attempt. If necessary, I can sit out this debate all the rest of my life. I will never give up my membership. "Good things take time", my grandma always says. ;-) --87.182.43.41 15:06, May 11, 2011 (UTC)
- No one has asked you to "give up your membership", but the conversation discussing your question is not going anywhere, much like the previous discussion, which you refused to read. People aren't going to "forget".--31dot 15:15, May 11, 2011 (UTC)
I have now reads, at least until the half. English reads to me, unfortunately, a bit exhausting. I agree that there is only one Melbourne might have been. And I also agree that the evidence for the Excelsior-class predominate by far. The nebula wreck should at least be taken as unnamed starship. There are, in my view, no reason to ignore this wreck because it was used even later. Moreover, in the DS9 episode both ships to see in such a way that you can see that they are not identical. Why do you not agree with me? Even the authors after the class change the old model for another wreck on battlefield reused. --87.182.43.41 15:32, May 11, 2011 (UTC)
- I understand your point, but it isn't a different ship if it was labeled as the Melbourne. We ignore the fact that it appeared as a Nebula class vessel and instead think that it is an Excelsior class ship since that was the intention of the production staff. You can believe whatever you wish personally, but that it how we treat it here.--31dot 15:43, May 11, 2011 (UTC)
But the Nebula model in DS9, which could be seen in the window, was not the Melbourne. The Melbourne we have seen some scenes before and that was definitely not the same ship. It is clear that the authors of this model in other contexts have used. That makes it, in my view, to its own independent space ship. --87.182.43.41 15:53, May 11, 2011 (UTC)
- I explained in the above discussion which you were part of Mark, the logic of why it is a bad compromise. --Pseudohuman 16:35, May 11, 2011 (UTC)
I'd rather find a compromise at all, but I do not share your views on what it is. For me, the restraint of these canonical information is not acceptable. And as long as I'm here, I will (if only because I forgot this discussion in a few months back anyway) probably try it again and again. For me this is an information gap that should be completed. My hope is that the user composition be so in a few years is that one can agree on a compromise that is not based on censorship. --Mark McWire 17:18, May 11, 2011 (UTC)
- Nothing is being censored, and even if it was, it is not us doing the censoring, but Trek producers who have ultimate control over the canon universe. This conversation will remain here so there is no need to repeatedly bring up the same issue over and over.--31dot 18:54, May 11, 2011 (UTC)
The fact that this controversy will never come to an end, should actually be evidence enough that the whole thing something is not optimal. Your solution may be legitimate, but it is not final We are (based on a compromise) agreed that it should have been only a space ship with the name "Melbourne". We also agree that more speaks for the Excelsior variant. However, we are probably not agree to deal with the Nebula-variant, which is a canonical spaceship. My basic problem is that you refuse a canonical occurrence in the database record. And because only a non-canonical subjective statement. Memory Alpha suppresses canonical facts just because they do not fit the opinion of the producers. According to the scheme you can also delete the episode "Threshold" because some producers do not see them as canonical. --Mark McWire 19:36, May 11, 2011 (UTC)
- Also, I could tag a post-it to my screen, reminding me to ask for a Melbourne merge on MA/de every Wednesday evening from now until eternity. Does that suddenly make your solution "not optimal", too? -- Cid Highwind 20:53, May 11, 2011 (UTC)
@ Cid: I respect people who support their views. I would have no problem with it. Rules are created by people and as the composition of the users of this wiki in the course of time changes, so does the majority opinion. There will come a day where the majority opinion is on my side .. I have to wait long enough. If I've learned as a child in school: Nothing lasts forever. And certainly no man-made rules. --Mark McWire 22:25, May 11, 2011 (UTC)