I wonder if the Pegasus really was a testbed design ship. I got the impression that the Admiral Pressman in "The Pegasus, TNG) was lying through his teeth to cover up the fact of the cloaking device.
When he beamed aboard the Pegasus all he seemed interested in was getting the cloaking device, he didn't even try to download the computer's memory to see if he could find out what happened to the Pegasus before it "de-phased." – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.127.116.11 (talk).
- It seems like the ship was at least the test bed for the new uniform design, since all the dead officers aboard were wearing uniforms that were not adopted by the rest of starfleet for another seven years.--18.104.22.168 02:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
"These Are the Voyages..." Edit
47 Reference Edit
Is there a prohibitive reason why this ship's registry number isn't listed in 47 references? I'd have thought this article's image might even make a worthy addition to that page, having one of the more obvious 47's clearly emblazoned there. --22.214.171.124 11:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- Done ;) - Enzo Aquarius 16:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
From Talk:USS Pegasus (Too Short a Season) Edit
USS Pegasus Edit
How do we know the ship referenced by Admiral Jameson in "Too Short a Season" is not the same ship Riker served on as helmsman? I don't think they need two separate entries, because I'm nearly certain they are the same ship. If we consider the fact that Oberth class ships were in service in the 2280s (USS Grissom (NCC-638)), but also in service in the 2360s (SS Vico)), it stands to reason that the USS Pegasus in question is the same vessel. It could have been in service during the Klingon Conflict (2290s or 2340s), and still been in service in 2358, when Ensign Riker was helmsman. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 126.96.36.199 (talk).
- The question is really academic, as this ship did not make it into the final episode. This has a separate entry because it wasn't in Too Short a Season. 31dot (talk) 23:00, April 17, 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced that some unaired reference needs its own article if the only other ship resides at USS Pegasus (no disambiguation). This single sentence could as well be located in the background section over there, with a disclaimer that we don't know whether this was intended to be the same ship. If a separate article is considered necessary, it should at least be linked from the non-disambiguated title. --Cid Highwind (talk) 10:12, September 15, 2013 (UTC)
- That would be a good enough reason for a separate in-universe article - but since this article is a production POV article about a throwaway reference that even was cut from the final product, it might suffice to integrate it to the one Pegasus article we have. Given that we'd otherwise need proper disambiguation from that article, it might be easier both for us and for readers to do that.--Cid Highwind (talk) 11:26, September 15, 2013 (UTC)
- Cid, the problem I'm having with your argument for a merge is that if that if only the original creator of this article had chosen a better way to disambiguate, it would fall flat. That doesn't feel right and I can't help but feel that when you say it might be easier if we merged, you really mean that it might be easier if these kinds of pages weren't around. These articles might not be canon, but it doesn't follow from that that the bar for removing them should be set lower. They're not second-class articles, merely non-canon ones. We decided that these articles are valid, and thus it is only logical to treat an issue with the disambiguation the same way we would treat it in any other article; by thinking of another way. What about, "USS Pegasus (cut scene)" or "USS Pegasus (cut)". Or maybe "USS Pegasus (Jamerson)". There's plenty of logical ways to disambiguate, and it would hardly be uneasy to do so. -- Capricorn (talk) 01:13, September 18, 2013 (UTC)
- “When you assume..." - I guess you know that saying, so please don't assume I meant more than I really said. This is not about me having some hidden agenda regarding all sorts of "non-canon articles". I'm just arguing that a one-sentence stub article about something that no one will ever search for is not the most sensible thing to have around. Just because we generally allow those type of article, it doesn't mean that it always is the best form of presentation for some tiny bit of information. --Cid Highwind (talk) 07:57, September 18, 2013 (UTC)
- I definitely search for that kind of information, so I guess that's an assumption too. That being said, after sleeping on it my post does read a bit aggressive and I apologize for that, it's not productive to attack people like that in discussions. But even if I regret the way I said all that, I do stand by my actual argument. I didn't want to suggest you had a hidden agenda, merely that I think these kinds of pages are generally regarded as having a lower threshold for merging or deleting and so on then articles on canon subjects, and even though they're something fundamentally different, I don't think there's really any reason to warrant that. If, hypothetical speaking, this was an article on a canon Pegasus with a poorly chosen disambiguation modifier, then the discussion would never go to a merge (since they must clearly be different ships) - and even though it's not, the same reasons that a merge wouldn't be the way to go also seen to apply here. -- Capricorn (talk) 13:04, September 18, 2013 (UTC)
- The problem with comparing this to a different situation is that... It's a different situation. ;-) Of course we would keep an article about a canon ship, but at the same time we would just delete an article with content that doesn't belong here at all - or merge articles where there's not enough content for a separate one. This article doesn't fall clearly in either of the extreme groups (keep/delete), which is why we're having this discussion in the first place; and seeing how this "not-mentioned" ship is already mentioned on Mark Jameson and in the episode article (although in the wrong place), and additionally still needs to be mentioned on USS Pegasus, anyway, all those mentions might be enough. I still think they are. --Cid Highwind (talk) 20:32, September 18, 2013 (UTC)
Well, to get back to the actual suggested disambiguation, I used the title of the episode because of the precedent set by Frank (Star Trek). That said, I'm for having this as a separate article. - Archduk3 21:02, September 18, 2013 (UTC)
- Cid, I'm trying to not assume things, but it just seems like you're doing it again; what we consider canon or not and what we consider worthy of inclusion on this wiki are two totally sepperate things. And going by precedent, this article does clearly fall on the keep side of the keep/delete continium. It's less then canon, so you assume it has less going towards keeping it too, but that just doesn't follow, neither through logic nor through precedent. Also, @ Archduk3, I agree with your reasoning to call this "USS Pegasus (Too Short a Season)". I hadn't thought of that precedent when I made those suggestions, but I agree. -- Capricorn (talk) 23:03, September 18, 2013 (UTC)
Seems to me that even if the canon Pegasus was launched and lost in 2358, it is still possible that it had two captains during that year. Wouldn't it be less speculative to assume that the cut line was about the same ship and not about another ship with the same name active around the same time... --Pseudohuman (talk) 14:20, December 19, 2014 (UTC)
- What do you mean by "two captains during that year" exactly? The article doesn't mention any years. -- Capricorn (talk) 05:34, December 20, 2014 (UTC)
Well the canon Pegasus was a 12 year old ship lost 12 years ago. So presumably launched in 2358 and lost later in 2358. In the script of "Too Short a Season" there is the line about Jameson commanding "the old Pegasus in the Klingon conflicts" Just saying that within 2358 Jameson could have first commanded the canon Pegasus in the Klingon conflicts, and Pressman could have assumed command of the ship after Jameson for the cloaking device test. I think the normal way of dealing with a situation like this is to assume that the two references are of the same ship.
What I suggest is a merge of this article into the bg-section of the USS Pegasus page, with the disclaimer note that it is not certain if this bg-reference is of the same ship. --Pseudohuman (talk) 08:45, December 20, 2014 (UTC)