I see what the article says but the category creates lots of questions. Retconned material is information which was changed when TOS and TNG were remastered. The problem here is that the "Rigel"-class appeared on the okudagram before the remastered TNG. So this is also in-universe information and there should be an in-universe article about this class. Tom (talk) 22:01, February 9, 2014 (UTC)
- Small retcons like this also happen when a series is ongoing, registries and classes of ships, USS Melbourne, USS Yamato, James R. Kirk, Beverly G. Crusher, and so on. --Pseudohuman (talk) 00:52, February 10, 2014 (UTC)
I understand this. But my point is, that the term "Rigel"-class appeared on screen and is following canon information regardless what happended with specific ships on later graphics. My understanding of MA is that we need an in-universe article for this ship class. Tom (talk) 10:58, February 10, 2014 (UTC)
- I think what we determined to be the "least intrusive" way of handling retcons was to assume that both "states" exist side by side unless that leads to an irreconcilable difference or error. "James R. Kirk" would be an example of such error, because the same person can't have two different middle initials at the same time. Replacing one display graphic (or city CGI) with another would be an example of no error, because we can assume that both graphics, or two different views of the same city, were shown.
- The proper category of this article then, probably, depends on whether the term "Rigel class" was seen independently of the "USS Zhukov" ship that later became an Ambassador class ship. If there were other ships called "Rigel class", or if the class name was used without reference to any specific ship, then this article should stay in-universe. If it was only ever used in conjunction with the one "USS Zhukov" that we later saw as an Ambassador-class ship, then we'll have to admit that Rigel class was probably retconned for good. -- Cid Highwind (talk) 11:31, February 10, 2014 (UTC)