Fate? Edit

Curious: Is anyone aware of what happened to this ship (canon or not)? Just wondering why there was a new one in TNG. -Randy 10:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The Saratoga's Registry is NCC-1887 Edit

For the fourth DREXTV-04, there was a feature on the Miranda-class starships. Among the ships shown, there was the first Saratoga from the fourth movie. The registry is clearly visible on the model, and it's NCC-1887. This update precipitates the moving of several articles, and changing the registry to the correct one. Here is the episode: 02:33, April 15, 2011 (UTC)

The first priority is what appeared in canon. Other information about the model is certainly valid content, but article titles are based on what was observed in canon. Admittedly, I can't tell from the picture here if it is an 8 or a 6- so it is possible the 1887 appeared, but we need to go by whatever appeared in canon.--31dot 02:38, April 15, 2011 (UTC)

31 Dot, first, we didn't see or hear the first USS Bellerophon's registry or name in "Emissary". Yet, the article title for this starship is USS Bellerophon (NCC-62048). This change came after Doug Drexler's website released a photo showing this model with its name and registry clearly visible. With this precedent, I thought I had good grounds to request a similar change for the Saratoga. We now have the chance to see the name and registry clearly. (See !:50 in the web episode.) Secondly, I would raise an issue with your first sentence. There is an article here on the Apollo-class which conflates the T'Pau-type starship with the Starfleet Apollo-class Starship. The only connection between these two is from a non-canonical source, and comes from a ship list. The T'Pau, in its entry in that source, is not identified as an Apollo-class starship. Furthermore, the class for the T'Pau is not given in the canon. So, if we are adhering strictly to canon, then the Bellerophon article title wouldn't be "USS Bellerophon (NCC-62048)". Instead, this Nebula-class ship would be sent to the Unnamed Nebula Class Starships page for both its name and registry were never mentioned or seen in the episode. There would be a background info section on this starship stating that a model was labeled with this name and registry that was used for the first DS9 episode. Additionally, the Apollo-class page wouldn't exist in its current state. There would be two articles - one for the Starfleet Apollo-class, and one for the T'Pau-type starship. If I come across as cranky, I apologize but when I see these examples on this wiki, and I am told by an admin that this request is not valid when there are grounds for this change, I see a conflict between one and the other, and I become frustrated and angry by what I see as an inconsistent policy.Throwback 03:05, April 15, 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I think there's been a misunderstanding here. Here's the policy that applies in this case - "Visual material can be supplemented by clearer visual images of the identical material seen (for example, production art identifiable as being the same as shown on screen in an episode but more legible than what is shown on screen) if the clearer image is a freeze frame from the episode, contained in an authorized publication, or otherwise generally and publicly available from a verifiable production source." (Canon policy)
Here, the screenshot shows that the registry is "1**7", where * is an unclear number. Since there's a verifiable production source showing that 1887 is the numbering that was present on the model (at 1:50 into the video), 1887 is valid for the purposes of MA.–Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 03:41, April 15, 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, made the change, since it's all over the model and the blu-ray image shows that it's an 8 as well. As for the rant, don't get angry if someone wants conformation. You seem to expect someone else to do the changes for you, so you should expect them to want to make sure this is correct first. - Archduk3 07:18, April 15, 2011 (UTC)
Whoa. Take it easy, Throwback. All I wanted was a second opinion as to if the number was seen in canon.(I even said that I couldn't see it.) I didn't say your request was not valid, or that your information was wrong, or even that the information shouldn't be in the article. I don't think any major piece of information should be changed without some sort of second opinion.--31dot 12:00, April 15, 2011 (UTC)