Page Split Edit

I wanted to comment on the recent page split yesterday, but then had other things to attend to. Anyway, I think these "aggregate articles" are really only useful if we can't be sure that the topic isn't the same in both cases. Here, we definitely seem to have two different vessels, one Nebula class, one Intrepid class, so keeping them on the same page instead of creating a disambiguation doesn't make sense. However, one little problem I still see is using the registry number as article qualifier: the article doesn't state this, but if this number is from the Encyclopedia, like so many others, we probably shouldn't use it in such a prominent location. Can someone confirm the exact source of this reference? -- Cid Highwind 09:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the doubtful sources for the registry numbers were one of the reasons to keep the ships in one place. There are several reasons the ships should stay on one article (save for the "series" ships) -- Kobi 10:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, in this specific case, we had two clearly separated "sub-articles" on one page, both were more than stubs, and most links went to one of the sub-articles directly, anyway (while making use of some counter-intuitive link code). I don't think that every such aggregate article needs to be split up, but I don't see good reasons for keeping two or more topics combined on one page if they are definitely distinct entities. Perhaps we can move the discussion about such aggregate articles in general to a different place, if it needs to be discussed further - regarding the registry number, DITL shows a "Encyclopedia" source for this one, and if I don't hear anything different, I will work on this article later today to clear that up. -- Cid Highwind 11:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

First three comments copied to Forum:Aggregate articles. Continue discussing registry number issue here, article split there. Thanks. -- Cid Highwind 14:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Registry Edit

Even though we don't have a discreet source telling us this, the Encyclopedia is passing on second hand knowledge. Since it describes the decals labeled onto the model, we know that this vessel's model was labeled as such.

To wit: The ST: Encyclopedia is not the source of the registry -- the USS Beller(e)phon model is the source. The Encyclopedia is how we know this. -- Captain M.K.B. 13:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Does the Encyclopedia somehow differentiate between information "reproduced" (=registry number was on the ship model) and information "invented" (which did happen in some cases, for example the Constitution class registries)? -- Cid Highwind 14:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Dropping in my 2 cents. Mike, you seem to be saying that if the Encyclopedia says the registry number is on the model, then we can use it beyond background information. I disagree. The Encyclopedia is full of errors and such, and some information that is flat false. I would say that we would still need to confirm the Encyclopedia with another source, or else just use it in background. --OuroborosCobra talk 14:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: accuracy of the Encyclopedia registry.. since there are numerous comments regarding the ship's misspelled label, these would seem to indicate the ship was indeed labeled with a name and registry. While the Encyclopedia is known to "invent" information for ships that were not shown, it hasn't gone so far as to flat out lie about whether a ship had a registry labeled on it. While there is the possibility that the Encyclopedia contains typographical errors (re: USS Chekov) in the registry, i think the fact that they pass it on to us in the reference confirms that it was in fact there. In reference to whether this registry contains typos, OC, I'm stumped. Since we have found typos before, does this mean the Encyclopedia is automatically disbelieved? -- Captain M.K.B. 15:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it needs to be disbelieved, but rahter relegated to background information only, as per our canon policy. If that information can be confirmed, in a secondary source, (such as production side information, or a picture of the model, or something), then it can be used in the main article. --OuroborosCobra talk 15:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, actually, registries from the Encyclopedia are not to be relegated to background info, as per canon policy. One of the "hot topics" was that we could use the reference as long as it wasn't proven wrong by another source. I haven't seen any discussion changing the Encyclopedia's status as an allowable resource. -- Captain M.K.B. 15:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Re-read Memory Alpha:Resource policy#Restricted validity resources, where the Encyclopedia is listed. Here is the relevent section:
The following resources may be referenced in Trek Universe articles, but should be formatted as background information as described in Memory Alpha's Manual of Style.
I will add that there has been a lot of confusion as of late. I was under the same impression you are, but then one of the other admins (I believe it was Cid) pointed this out to me. --OuroborosCobra talk 15:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
(In reply to Mike, OC was just a little quicker than me, apparently) This is not true for the current version of the canon policy - and before that comes up again, it hasn't been stated as clearly as you are presenting it here in the limbo version that existed in the years before that. Actually, the old canon policy stated that "the Star Trek Encyclopedia and the Star Trek Chronology are primary sources, and as such should not be repeated verbatim in articles. They may be referenced in part, although contributors should be aware that some speculation exists within them which may not be considered valid." The validity of this information has been unclear at best, all the time. -- Cid Highwind 15:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Fine, then these articles need to be recombined, then, unless someone is patient enough to wait for an archivist to find a way to confirm this registry was labeled onto the model, since we disbelieve the Encyclopedia's honesty. -- Captain M.K.B. 15:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Why would that be? It needs to be moved to a title without registry, perhaps, but one Intrepid class and one Nebula class are still different vessels... -- Cid Highwind 15:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Fix't. -- Captain M.K.B. 15:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Unknown registry Edit

have it be known, that the USS Yamaguchi was in fact labeled with its unique name and registry, various photos of this can be found on modeling websites and the like.

i find it hard to believe that the Bellerophon wasnt similarly labeled, since both ships appeared in the same scene, and all ships in that episode were labeled with verifiable registries. but the Encyclopedia isn't proof enough for some in this discussion, and i can find no corresponding photos of the Bellerophon model.

However, i believe the Encyclopedia probably has the number at least partially correct to the source, we simply need confirmation to move this article back to its correct location, USS Bellerophon (NCC-62048). -- Captain M.K.B. 16:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

There's a new photograph of Doug Drexler on his blog(X) with the Bellerophon that clearly shows the registry. --Jörg 16:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Removed Edit

The Star Trek Encyclopedia misspelled the name as "Bellerephon". This raised the question whether the typographical error misspelling the name originated in the Encyclopedia, or another backstage source.

This photo [1] shows that the name was spelled correctly on the model. The mistake is probably rooted with the Encyclopedia writers, and I feel this is nitpicking them, albeit softly.Throwback (talk) 12:21, August 11, 2014 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-NC unless otherwise noted.