Talk:USS Defiant (2375)/archive

From Talk:USS São Paulo

The following discussions originated from the talk page for the once-separate page for the USS São Paulo.

Name/registry

It's pretty insignificant, but I was wondering: did we ever see the Sao Paolo's original registry, or the exterior of the ship with the name "Sao Paolo"?  If so, does anyone know whether it was written with the tilde over the "a" (São Paolo) or not?  Should the article text say São Paolo or "Sao Paolo"? --Josiah Rowe 23:15, 30 Mar 2005 (EST)

I recall that there was a dedication plaque and knowing the americans it is more likely that it was "Sao", but I think we could very well use the correct spelling, as it is done with the USS Cortez -- Kobi - (Talk) 02:36, 31 Mar 2005 (EST)

"The São Paulo's motto was "Give me Liberty or give me Death...", a quote by Patrick Henry. The ship was "named for the people of Brazil." " I don't know if this is canon, but as it is 'named for the people fo Brazil', the motto would be 'Independence or Death' as the independence motto of Brazil. Just FYI, anyway. =]

USS Sao Paulo

If you are in reference to the USS Sao Paulo-that-became-the-Defiant, we never saw it's original NCC because the model used for shooting was the same model that was the USS Defiant NX 74205.  --Clarkhennessy 20:49, 1 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Actually, we did see it's original registry number, on the Dedication plaque. - AJHalliwell 20:53, 1 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, i took a closer look at my DS9 DVDs and you are right!  --Clarkhennessy 09:42, 3 Oct 2005 (UTC)

NCC-74205-A?

An IP user added info that this registry was used in the series finale of DS9. I've always heard that this wasn't the case, so i was wondering if there was any substantiation anyone has for this fact (like a screencap) . 

Also, there's no explanation for the {{pna-incomplete}} notice, which seems erroneous to have here -- after all there isnt much more information about this vessel. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel^talk

These changes were also made to USS Defiant (NCC-75633), and was noted on the talk page.  I, too, would like some sunstantiation.  —  THOR ^=/\= 02:09, 9 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Well, I watched "What you leave behind" again closely (as I've mentioned on the other talk page) and I have found NO occurrance of NX-74205-A or NCC-74205-A. Every shot clearly reads "NX-74205" on the hull. It seems there IS no substantiation, the claim is simply inaccurate. I cannot speak for the Making Of, but the episode itself clearly does not show any 74205-A registry. --Defstar 03:29, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I haven't seen the DVD behind the sceens either, but I've never seen NCC-74205-A anywhere on screen before. It may have been the intent of the producers to have an A suffix, but it never made it on screen. --Sloan47 22:17, 23 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Removed

Although the dedication plaque on the bridge gave the registry as NCC-75633, external CGI images seen in "What You Leave Behind" repeated the old Defiant registry with the "A" suffix. The CGI modellers did this to the new footage in the "What you Leave Behind" following the assumption that the Defiant qualified as a legendary starship. In the Making of "What you Leave Behind" on the Season 7 DVD Box Set, a close up of the vessel in Lightwave is shown with the registry NCC-74205-A. Also as a result of using stock footage from earlier episodes, the Defiant loses and gains the "A" suffix at random intervals.

I'd say we shouldn't add this in again until someone confirms the DVD has this feature, since the veracity is questioned above. -- Captain M.K. Bartel^talk 14:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

As far as i remember in that Episode. Starfleet Operations gave Sisko Special Dispensation to Change the name AND Registry number of the Sao paolo to the original of the Defiant. So the name, the registry number, and the dedication plaque should have been changed to reflect the Special dispensation granted.

This is one of 3 newly rendered sequences made specifically for the end WYLB that clearly shows the NX-74205 registry and IS NOT a stock shot of an earlier battle: [[1]]. I think the 75533 is incorrect, or at least sufficient evidence to suggest that the registry not be listed in the Defiant's article name - 121.44.246.28 13:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I too have recently watched the before mentioned scene and it clearly shows the registry NX-74205. Changing a ship's name is one thing, but changing the registry would just be stupid because this would make the whole point of having a registry number void. The number is what describes this ship, names can be changed. Having one number for two ships doesn't make sense at all.

And even IF the number was changed, it would have been changed to NCC-74205 and not NX-74205 again since the second ship is hardly a prototype. I would have accepted the NCC-74205-A theory (like the Enterprises do it), but there is even less evidence for that.

The most logical explanation is that—besides from stock footage—the CGI crew just did not repaint the model and used the old one. --Maxwell Fawkes 00:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Two Pages?

I am wondering why there are two pages for this one ship. USS Defiant has its own page.  I know that the name was changed, but why is that a reason to have two pages?  It would seem beneficial to have all of the relevant information about this ship and its history on a single page and then use a redirect for the other name.  Jdvelasc 18:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Added merge template.  One ship.  One page. – StarFire209 05:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Disregard what I said.  I didn't realize we already had a page for both the NX, and the later NCC (actually the Sao Paulo).  This page, and the NCC75633 should be merged.  Sorry.  :PHossrex 10:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The second Defiant and the Sao Paulo are one and the same ship, with a name change. This is not a suggestion to merge with the first Defiant. As such, I'd agree with a merge while keeping the other article title (whichever that may be) as a redirect. -- Cid Highwind 10:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

:P  I noticed that after my first post.  I entirely agree now, that they should be merged.Hossrex 10:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, didn't see that when I was posting my reply... Back then, when I was young, we'd get an edit conflict in that situation. ;) -- Cid Highwind 10:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Strongly agree with the idea of a merge: "One ship. One page." --Jayunderscorezero 17:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree as well. Kennelly 15:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree, but the USS São Paulo should get its own section on the Defiant (NCC-75633) page at the very top. Keep a redirect. --Cinder 12:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

So what does it take for this to happen? I'd do it if I knew how (well, maybe). :) --Cinder 05:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Star Trek Legacy Reference

Does the fact that the Sao Paulo appears in the game in 2380 really mean that they changed the Defiant's name back?  Couldn't another Defiant-class ship have been named Sao Paulo? 31dot 22:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Why does this page even still exist?

There is Video evidence that the registration number was changed to Nx-74205. You dont need any more evidence then that. It is VERY clearly seen multiple times in the last episode. This page should be Deleted.

Third Defiant?

do we really know if this Defiant was the third to carry the name? We know the Enterprise D was the fifth because the computer said so in "Relics" but is there any such data on the Defiant? --TOSrules 02:43, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is old, I know but I just have to respond :P.  Anyways, it might not be the third ship in Starfleet to bear the name Defiant however, it is the third canon ship to bear the name.  One in TOS two in DS9. --Terran Officer 03:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

3 years later: The article says "at least three", which is an appropriate in-universe perspective.

-A?

User:59.167.40.181 recently changed all the references within this article (as well as USS São Paulo) from NCC-75633 to NCC-74205-A and provided this addendum to chew on for why:

The New CGI Scenes made for "What You Leave Behind" clearly show a "-A" suffix attached to the registry, as opposed to the Sao Paulo's original NCC-75633 Registry. The CGI modellers who "refit" the original starship added the -A in the belief that the Defiant did indeed qualify as a legendary starship. Unadulterated views of the CGI model with -A are available in the DS9 Season 7 Box Set's special feature "The Making of What You Leave Behind"

My two points of question here are:

1. Is this legit?
2. If so, the page should be moved to USS Defiant (NCC-74205-A), right?.

—  THOR ^=/\= 02:02, 9 Oct 2005 (UTC)

• I seem to remember this is something Ira Behr suggested (adding an A), but couldn't because they wanted to reuse scenes for the last episode, and hence couldn't change the model. They most certainly didn't add an A. The exterior showed the old Defiant's number, but I think (don't remember off the top of my head) there's a source for the current number. - AJHalliwell 02:17, 9 Oct 2005 (UTC)

• The final scenes clearly showed NCC-74205-A in the scene where the Breen warship was coming up the ass of the Defiant just as the Cardassians switch scenes. And in the scene where the defiant barrel-rolls past the galaxy with the camera tracking it's bridge, you can read NCC-74205-A - 59.167.40.181 05:55, 9 Oct 2005 (UTC)

• I have watched those scenes again just now, there is NO mention of 74205-A. Every single shot of the Defiant registry reads NX-74205. Besides, if there had been an A-suffix, it would have read NCC-74205-A, since a second Defiant would not have been a prototype anymore. The claim is inaccurate. --Defstar 03:18, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)

• That would suggest that the faux Sao Paolo/Defiant had it's registry changed to NX-74205 rather then the Sao Paolo's original registry, which easily means the claim is justified in terms of the registry not being changed from the original ship's for the final scenes.

• I just watched those scenes too. There is NO -A on the Defiant in any of the scenes, be it the ones they reused from earlier episodes or the new ones that were created for "What you leave behind". There is also no Scene that shows the registry number being NCC - 75633 I stand by that the Registry number was changed back to the original and this page should also reflect that the Defiant is NX-74205 and was never anything else. When the Sao paolos name was changed so was its registry number.

• Hi could you perhaps post a screenshot of that sceen or a part of that sceen?

Repaint the model?

I thought the Defiants were CGI in the last four seasons? -- 81.149.5.86 09:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

That note in the article IS incorrect. The Defiant was CGI in "What You Leave Behind". -- DS9 Forever 00:12, January 17, 2010 (UTC)

Merge with USS São Paulo

One ship. Should be one page. – StarFire209 05:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it would make more sense to redirect Sao Paulo to this page, as this was the most recent name for that ship. --Alan del Beccio 06:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Some fans...

I removed:

Fans have attempted to rationalize this as a measure designed to confuse the Dominion forces. Assuming this is true, the 'real' registry number of the new Defiant is probably NCC-75633, as no mention was ever made of changing the São Paulo's number – only its name.  However, there is a possibility that the registry number of the new Defiant is NCC-74205, as the class was clearly put into production during the war.

If something like this needs to be justified with the "some fans" rationalization, then it is speculation and doesn't belong here. --Alan del Beccio 07:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Change back to USS São Paulo

If I remember correctly, the name change was only in effect until the end of the war, which we saw happen in the final episode, so the name would have reverted back at that time. - Archduk3:talk 12:23, September 18, 2009 (UTC)

It was never stated that it was only for the duration of the war.

ROSS: "There's something else on that PADD that might interest you."

SISKO: "Special dispensation from the Chief of Starfleet Operations to change the name from Sao Paulo to... Defiant."

EZRI: "Now what do you think of her?"

No mention of a time limit on the new name. I'm pretty sure it also stays "Defiant" in the relaunch, which is a detail I'd hope they would have caught. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 14:30, September 18, 2009 (UTC)

That seems pretty clear to me, so disregard the name change. - Archduk3:talk 14:36, September 18, 2009 (UTC)

I would either rename the page to USS Sao Paulo (NCC-75633) or merge it with USS Defiant (NX-74205). The registry in the title is simply wrong for this name, since we've only seen NX-74205 in connection with "Defiant", even in new CG shots created after the Sao Paulo had been renamed. – 86.49.116.43 21:20, July 10, 2010 (UTC)

Cloaking device speculation

I'm removing the following:

Possibly due too the fact that Captain Benjamin Sisko knew that the cloaking device shouldn't be used in the Alpha Quadrant, however he cloaked the original Defiant in a rescue mission for the Detapa Council in 2372, this direct Violation from the federation may in part be the reason why a replacement cloak was not given by Romulus, the federation has shown that they cannot be trusted to resist the temptation of using the technology in the Alpha Quadrant.

It is entirely speculation. The truth is, we don't know why the Romulans didn't give another cloaking device. For all we know, in the heat of the war, they didn't have time to give one, and then didn't feel the need after the fighting with the Dominion was over. We didn't exactly see this ship very long. Regardless, we just don't know why, and don't need to be inserting made up reasons. I'd add that the line above this note says "most likely" has no cloaking capability. We aren't even sure it doesn't. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 19:20, February 9, 2010 (UTC)

Removal of "NCC-75633" registry

For what it's worth, it was me who reverted that removal earlier - logged out for reasons that probably only Wikia could explain... ;)

In any case: that revert was re-reverted, but I still stand to it. First of all, it strikes me as very strange if the registry that is used as an article qualifier is then not listed on the page at all. Either the registry needs to be listed, or the article title changed! Second, what the article is about is some specific starship - and, apparently, that starship was registered as "NCC-75633" at some point of its lifetime. Even if that registry later changed, it should still be mentioned in the article. Of course, if that earlier registry is considered aprocryphal according to our policies, it wouldn't need to be listed - but again, in that case the article title needs to change.

What it boils down to: the current state of the article, with a registry in its title that is then not mentioned in the article text, makes no sense whatsoever. -- Cid Highwind 14:54, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

I removed 75633 from the box because it was listed incorrectly alongside the name Defiant, not Sao Paulo, as in the incorrect article title (which I can't rename, since I choose to be anonymous). Canonically we've only seen Sao Paulo 75633 and Defiant 74205, so I suggest either merging this article with the one on the original Defiant or changing the name in the article title to USS Sao Paulo (NCC-75633), while the text itself would explain that the ship was later renamed the Defiant. Since the ship wasn't involved in anything canonically interesting while it was named Sao Paulo, I'd prefer merging this page with the one on the Defiant. 

I see it was pointed out in the history of this article that 75633 is only used to formally differentiate the ship from the original Defiant, but it could mislead casual readers into thinking that the Defiant's registry really wasn't changed, which would be a serious inconsistency with the canon. Best to keep it simple and always use the correct name-registry pairs. – 86.49.116.43 15:04, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

The thing is that we're talking about one object that has had two different, but equally valid, names - so whatever we choose as the "primary" title of the article, the other name should as well point to it. Not sure if you're aware of how redirects work, but there is one in place, from USS Sao Paulo to this article. So, if anything, we just need to change which name is the primary title and which the redirect, but not lose one of the names completely.

Also, merging can't be the solution either, because in that case, we'd have an "aggegrate article", one article talking about two different objects - something we're trying to avoid wherever possible.

Last but not least, as far as I'm aware the question of which registry the second Defiant "really" used in the fictional universe we're talking about is still unanswered at best. The producers themselves said that cost of repainting was the reason for not prominently showing a Defiant with a new registry - and although we've chosen to run with what is on-screen, however, tiny and illegible, we shouldn't completely deprive our readers of those other possible interpretations. -- Cid Highwind 15:48, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

The problem here is USS Defiant and NCC-75633 in the same title, which has no basis in the canon. I don't really care which name is in the main title and which is in the redirect, as long as the registries next to those names match the canon. By using the current title as the primary link, MA is telling the casual reader that the ship was renamed but not reregistered, which is a very dodgy theory even if we're liberal with the canon. In a place as prominent as the title of an article, MA should strive to report solid facts as observed in the canon.

If we don't want to merge the article, then at least it should be named "USS Sao Paulo (NCC-75633)", since there is no doubt whatsoever about that particular name matching that particular registry. Or more verbosely, "The Second USS Defiant (NX-74205)", which is also 100% consistent with the canon regardless of producer intentions at one time or another. However, I consider it unacceptable for the article title to mislead the casual reader into thinking that MA officially believes the second Defiant was renamed but not reregistered. MA is an important resource and this could adversely affect official sources whose authors need a name and a registry NOW and are not really paying attention to details in the text. – 86.49.116.43 16:15, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

It shouldn't be called Sao Paulo, because that is not the ship's last known name.  Instead of differentiating with the registry number(since it's not entirely clear, although both should be in the article somehow) we should use something else- be it "Second", "New", or something else.--31dot 17:34, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

Fine with me. How about "USS Defiant (Sao Paulo)"? It respects both names yet gives "Defiant" the required prominence, while also avoiding the registry debate altogether. It may not be the usual naming scheme, but then again it's hardly a regular situation. – 86.49.116.43 17:43, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

Still, the ship that has now, perhaps, the registry "NX-74205" and the name Defiant is the same object that went by the name Sao Paulo and the registry "NCC-75633" before. Removing a perfectly valid registry from the starship sidebar is still inexplicable to me - I'm going to readd it, with the additional explanation that this was the registry the ship had while being named Sao Paulo. -- Cid Highwind 22:01, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

Ok, but the article still needs to be renamed. – 86.49.116.43 04:23, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

I vote for maintaining the article name as is - if only for simplicity reasons. It would be inappropriate to merge this article with the USS Defiant article on the basis of the two having the same name and registry because they are two completely different ships. We can't name this article "USS Defiant NX/NCC-74205-A" because despite the fact that it was the intention of Ronald D. Moore to change the registry as such, it didn't happen. Since we can't have two separate articles named "USS Defiant NX-74205" keeping this article with the Sao Paulo registry seems like the best option. However, Memory Beta lists this ship as "USS Defiant NX-74205 (II)" so maybe that could be an alternative? --Nero210 05:05, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

You haven't answered my argument. There is no simplicity in the casual reader thinking that the new Defiant is registered NCC-75633, or that (II) is part of its canonical designation. It's unacceptable for such a prominent place. MA must _never_ create canon, only document it. There are so many neutral, unbiased options for a title and I just named one above: USS Defiant (Sao Paulo). – 86.49.116.43 17:33, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

The "II" being in parentheses doesn't imply that its in the registry, it just makes it clear that this is a second ship with the same name and registry number. As for not making sense to the casual reader, well although Memory Alpha does make an effort to be accessible to the casual reader as much as possible, its primarily intended for long time fans. When you read this article it becomes clear that this Defiant was named after the original and the background information details the registry issues, so a casual reader can figure out the situation easily enough - regardless of the article title. --Nero210 18:03, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

(II) is not plain English for "the second starship to bear the name and the registry". It looks more official - remember Constitution II class from Starship Spotter? - and therefore runs the risk of someone misinterpreting it as official Starfleet nomenclature against our will. We should use either canonical Starfleet nomenclature (such as NX/NCC-xxxxx) or purely descriptive qualifiers such as USS Defiant (Sao Paulo). And regardless of how you'd like someone to read the article, there are people who will copy/paste the title because they don't care about the details, thus misrepresenting the position of the MA article. In short, MA can be responsible for errors in someone's presentation of the canon, and we don't want that if it can be avoided easily. – 86.49.116.43 18:29, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't have a problem with the page being at USS Defiant (Sao Paulo), since it avoids this whole registry number mess. One point though, in canon, both numbers are correct. We have the same problem with the USS Yamato. - Archduk3 01:11, July 13, 2010 (UTC)

Both numbers are correct but for different names. The number 75633 is seen on the dedication plaque saying "Sao Paulo", while 74205 is seen next to "Defiant" in VFX shots. This is different from the Yamato situation, where we have two numbers which clearly apply to the same name. – 86.49.116.43 04:41, July 13, 2010 (UTC)

Well... if we're trying to be totally exact (and from the length of this discussion, apparently we are ;)) even that would be speculation. Where's the "canon" statement that the old registry has become invalid once the new registry had been painted on the hull? Perhaps the "special dispensation" mentioned in the article included the authorization to paint an old registry number on the hull although the ship is, officially, still registered as "75633"? -- Cid Highwind 09:30, July 13, 2010 (UTC)

We report what we see, and what we see is NX-74205/Defiant and NCC-75633/Sao Paulo, regardless of fans who believe that registry numbers are assigned according to inviolate laws of physics, as opposed to being a purely human construct. I think the most appropriate title would be USS Defiant (Sao Paulo), because the ship is the Defiant and was the Sao Paulo, which also serves to distinguish it quite elegantly from the first Defiant-class Defiant. Let's finish the discussion and rename the article, or does anyone else have serious objections to MA not promoting a name/registry pair which has no basis in the canon? – 86.49.116.43 17:10, July 13, 2010 (UTC)

I renamed it (it's me under a username, so I'm indenting like this). Note that the dedication plaque, Encyclopedia and the script use the anglicized version Sao Paulo as opposed to São Paulo - there is no need to add special characters. – 1312.4 19:29, July 13, 2010 (UTC)

And I've moved it back.  The discussion is still ongoing.  Let there be some consensus rather than waiting 2 hours from your last comment. -- sulfur 19:40, July 13, 2010 (UTC)

It's not about consensus, but rather who can present a convincing argument and who can't. I took into account reasonable suggestions about keeping the article separate, about avoiding the registry debate, dismissed an argument by one poster who wanted to keep it like this allegedly for simplicity (even though the registry is complexity of the negative, creative kind) and wanted that the readers pay attention to the text and ignore the title (without explaining why we have to make it harder and more ambiguous than it has to be). What else do we need for this misrepresentation in the article title to be corrected? – 1312.4 19:48, July 13, 2010 (UTC)

Furthering a move war is not quite the way to get your point across, here. As an involved party, I'm not going to move this back myself, but urge any other admin to have a look at this and move back until a consensus has been reached. Meanwhile and for what it's worth, as a reply to your comment: of course this is about consensus - consensus is the single one thing that keeps any Wiki in shape, as far as no core policy is broken. Just because you think that your argument is the most convincing one (of course you do, as does everyone else of his argument) doesn't mean that it really is. Now, there might be a point about the current registry being slightly incorrect (although even that hasn't been proven beyond any doubt), but that doesn't mean that we need to hurry moving the article to some other title that might come with its own problems. -- Cid Highwind 20:13, July 13, 2010 (UTC)

You seem to think that the canon is a matter of how people see it through their personal lenses. It's not - it is what is physically presented onscreen or in the dialogue. That's how consensus must be reached, based on what everyone can see and hear. MA must be fully in service of the canon, and whoever presents arguments which are most consistent with the canon, that's the person who wins. I'm not saying my title is the only one possible, but it is objectively better than the last one, because it will not result in anyone putting NCC-75633 next to "Defiant". We can avoid that issue in the title - we really don't need to deal with the registry in such a prominent location, but can merely state the facts in the text and let the reader decide whether he'll respect the canon or follow his personal interpretation. The 75633 title is biased, simple as that, and I'm sorry that some people are incapable of separating fan-fiction from strict analysis of the canon, which doesn't tolerate personal views or unlicensed creativity. – 1312.4 20:22, July 13, 2010 (UTC)

While I would tend to agree that we should use what was onscreen regardless of fan ideas, the insistence that the NX-74205 number belonged to the ship under just the Defiant name isn't supported by canon. The ship always had the old Defiant number on it, you can see it in the reused footage of the ship arriving. So the number wasn't NX-74205 as just the Defiant, it was used for both. We know the real reason why the old number is on the ship, money, and we know from production sources that the number was suppose to be NCC-75633 as the Sao Paulo and NCC-74205-A as the Defiant. So we know that NX-74205 is not what was suppose to be used either way, and we know it's damn unfortunate that the books perpetuated that number. So in this case, I feel safe in saying that it's not our fault if someone who doesn't read the article comes to the wrong conclusion based on the current title. That said, I'm fine with moving this page to USS Defiant (Sao Paulo), for the reason I said above, but I'm not OK with the recent additions to the sidebar. - Archduk3 22:10, July 13, 2010 (UTC)

Uh, the reused stock footage said "Defiant". There is no physical law that would prevent someone from repainting the Sao Paulo before its dedication plaque was changed. Likewise, Ron Moore's personal idea isn't canon, because the canon is what ultimately ends up onscreen including changes made for budgetary reasons, so it is fortunate that the books didn't use the -A suffix. And the current situation is the fault of people like Sulfur who couldn't care less about the problem of unlicensed creativity and would be happy with a consensus of fanfic-minded people (assuming Sulfur determines somehow through some vague means that it exists, of course, as opposed to having a simple, canon-based procedure for renaming). 

MA is supposed to be serving the final canon, not any one producer's view or fan whim. Maybe you'd like to revise Star Trek characters so they look like the producers' ideal actors before they had to settle for others for whatever real-world budgetary or scheduling reason? Are we going to open up those floodgates, or is it going to be based perhaps on flimsy "common sense" views of what to include and what not to include? I seriously think that if people can't see the problem with perpetuating a name/registry pair which hasn't been seen in the canon, only in their ideal personal fanon or that of producers if they had the money, they should stop contributing on MA write fan-fiction, because what they really want is to influence the Star Trek universe creatively. – 1312.4 04:48, July 14, 2010 (UTC)

Well this is sounding awfully familiar; I have a sneaking suspicion that this has all happened before, and will happen again. With that in mind, I'm just going to do this by the numbers:

1. Use common sense, it's a policy.
2. Deck 78 - The very reason that we use common sense.
3. No personal attacks, it's also a policy, and just a good idea.

Now if you will excuse me, I'm off to write the continuing adventures of the USS ÜberEnterprise! - Archduk3 05:29, July 14, 2010 (UTC)

Hey, let's use common sense! We never see the name/registry pair Defiant/NCC-75633 but we see NX-74205 everywhere with that name, so we'll not use it. Ron Moore says so (well actually, that's not what he says), and he's the final arbiter of canon on ST according to Paramount's policy. Seriously, I haven't seen this kind of blatant canon-bending and disrespect of a finalized show in fifteen years. – 1312.4 05:38, July 14, 2010 (UTC)

OK, let's do that... with my magic powers of "common sense", I sense the following:

• Both registries were used for the one object this article talks about, even if in combination with different names. This means that the sidebar, which is supposed to contain a few bits of important information at a glance (and registry apparently has been considered to be such important information) should in fact not randomly omit one of those valid registry numbers - but instead present them, with whatever explanatory text really deemed necessary next to them. This, by the way, has been the single point of this discussion before it was hijacked to be about the page title like the umpteen other discussions above.
• Regarding the page title, common sense tells me that:
  1. Someone searching for "Defiant" or "USS Defiant" will end up on a proper disambiguation page or at least search result page anyway, regardless of the title of this page.
  2. Someone reading an article where this second Defiant is mentioned will be linked to this article in any case, regardless of the title of this page.
  3. Someone searching for "Sao Paulo" or "USS Sao Paulo" will end up on a search result page (because a redirect exists), regardless of the title of this page.
  • All in all, the above shows that the article will always be properly found - the exact page title to be used is not important as far as "findability" is concerned.
• Regarding the suggested title alternatives, I see that:
  • "USS Defiant (Sao Paulo)" would have the problem of being a totally unique naming scheme - and also, since some of the participants here seem to believe that our readers are too dense to add up 1 and 1, weird arguments could be made about this title being possibly misinterpreted as "the Defiant that has been built in Sao Paulo" or something.
  • "USS Sao Paulo (NCC-75633)" would have the problem of being overly complicated. No other ship with that name exists, so a qualifier is not necessary.
  • "USS Sao Paulo" would be a title with the only problem of not being the last name of this ship. Is this really a huge problem? (Remember that all sorts of "Defiant" titles would still redirect to this page, not changing the ways this article could be found or be linked to.) Another plus of this title would be that it relieves us from inventing some proper qualifier, which doesn't seem to exist.
  • As an aside, common sense also tells me that "USS Defiant (NX-74205)" is not a perfectly proper title for the first Defiant, because the same title would be valid for the second ship... but we aren't being totally anal, are we? :)

Result of this lengthy consideration: if this page gets moved, it should be moved to USS Sao Paulo, with the first sentence of the article changed to read "The USS Sao Paulo, renamed USS Defiant shortly after its launch, was..." and both registries be kept in the sidebar. -- Cid Highwind 10:52, July 14, 2010 (UTC)

You mean this ship wasn't build in Sao Paulo?! ;)

I was planning to fix my own complaint about the sidebar by using a ref tag to link to the note in the bg section, after some minor rewording to further explain the double number, as I think we can both agree that the sidebar really isn't the place to be explaining that. As for the name, if we move this, your idea seems to be the least painful at this time, so I'm all for it. - Archduk3 11:10, July 14, 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good - leaving both registries, but no explanation, in the sidebar, and adding some in-page link to further information - go for it! :) The sams standard could then perhaps be applied to the other two-registry-starship we have. -- Cid Highwind 11:51, July 14, 2010 (UTC)

Honestly "USS Defiant (NX-74205) (II)" would probably be the best article title, the "II" is separate from the registry implying that it is the second vessel with the same name and registry, and as mentioned the background section is pretty thorough about the registry issues. "Sao Paulo" in the title just isn't appropriate because it was not the final name of the ship. --Nero210 04:35, July 15, 2010 (UTC)

We've already determined that, regardless of the actual title, this article can be accessed via both: USS Sao Paulo, USS Defiant (NCC-75633). This is not going to change after a hypothetical page move. Why is having the article at the "non-final" name a bad thing? Don't just state that, explain. :) -- Cid Highwind 09:37, July 15, 2010 (UTC)

Double disambiguation bad! Sprinkles good! - Archduk3 10:06, July 15, 2010 (UTC)

Well because if Memory Alpha is suppossed to be an in-universe format historic database on the Star Trek universe all the latest information needs to be incorporated properly, in this case it includes using the final name of the vessel. Also, I never said worried about this article being accessible from USS Sao Paulo since the redirect is appropriate. I was just proposing the name. --Nero210 17:05, July 15, 2010 (UTC)

So, using a non-final name is improper because... it's not the final name? That's not a very convincing reason. :) -- Cid Highwind 19:28, July 15, 2010 (UTC)

Why don't we just call it "Second Defiant After the First One Went Kablooey?" There, problem solved. You're welcome. -Angry Future Romulan 19:32, July 15, 2010 (UTC)

I have an idea, and I can hear you all cringing through the tubes at the very thought of that. ;) Now bear with me, this may sound crazy: Why don't we give this article the USS Defiant (NX-74205) title, and use USS Defiant for the first one. It already redirects there anyway, and it is by far the most prominent example of a starship with that name, so why not simply use it as the title? I know it's not really a solution, but as far as I can see, there isn't going to be a solution that everyone likes, and at least this one doesn't have the MB double disambiguation, which they don't really seem to like either. - Archduk3 02:48, July 16, 2010 (UTC)

Cid I've explained my point of view to the best of my ability, so at this point I'll just be repeating myself so I'm not going to debate you. As for naming the first "Defiant" just "USS Defiant" and letting this one have the registry, switch them, let the new one have "USS Defiant" and the old one "USS Defiant (NX-74205)", since it was the first and longest serving I think it deserves it more. As long as "Sao Paulo" is kept out of the article title, I'm fine. --Nero210 03:46, July 16, 2010 (UTC)

I think Archduk's last idea is a good compromise. --31dot 08:47, July 16, 2010 (UTC)

As was to be expected, I don't like that idea. USS Defiant is the "natural title" for all Defiant starships and should thus be at least considered as the title of the disambiguation page (or a redirect to that). Now, as we're just discussing elsewhere, if one of the pages to be disambiguated is much more prominent than all others, that page could get the non-disambiguated title - but that is just a general guideline, we also have to consider the specifics of this case. The specifics of this case are that there's not only several "USS Defiant" ships that need to be disambiguated, but also several "USS Defiant (NX-74205)" ships that, somehow, need to be disambiguated as well. Handing out not only one, but both "natural titles" to different and more or less random articles seems all kinds of awkward for me.

As I see it, as long as we're just considering the Constitution-class vs. the Defiant-class USS Defiant, the latter seems indeed to be more prominent and thus deserving of the natural title (I guess this is why USS Defiant still redirects there). The moment a third ship enters the game, one that shares it prominence with the second one, we should drop that guideline and go for a proper disambiguation: USS Defiant should redirect to Defiant, that page should list, among others, all "USS Defiant" starships, and may, without further ado, link to a USS Sao Paulo article with the additional description of ", the Defiant-class vessel that was renamed USS Defiant shortly after launch". -- Cid Highwind 09:47, July 16, 2010 (UTC)

Greetings, it would seem that the article was once again moved to USS Defiant (Sao Paulo) despite it appearing that no consensus has been reached as of yet.  As a result, I've returned it to USS Defiant (NCC-75633) for the time being.  If this move was in error, I apologise, and will be more than happy to undo the edit. -- Commander Scott 08:59, July 22, 2010 (BST)

The disambiguation changes are fine with me but as it is now, while I don't care for this idea either, I would rather leave the page title the way it is than have Sao Paulo in the title.   (and if we can't reach an agreement, that's what will happen anyway) That way the number serves to disambiguate and Sao Paulo is not in the title.  I would feel more comfortable with the entirety of Cid's idea if there were other examples of articles not having the most recent title.  --31dot 10:12, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

Well, how many subjects do we have that changed names at all? I was thinking about marriage, but the main characters typically seem to keep their maiden names (Torres, Yates, ...). I was thinking about political entities, but those rather resolve or are replaced than simply renamed. I stumbled upon Kodos, which I thought was a proper example - but then I found a separate article at Anton Karidian (which should probably be merged one way or the other). So, I pose the opposite question: How many examples of articles using the most recent, but with a well-known previous, title do we have? 

Also, please keep in mind that this is not just an article randomly moved to some "outdated name" without reason - but one moved because the "most recent name" would be ambiguous and already in use. -- Cid Highwind 10:39, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

Again, it seems to me that the current title accomplishes that just fine, and without the name(which seems to be the point of contention)  However, do not consider me to be standing in the way of implementing your idea, as all it is doing is using the name to disambiguate instead of the number.--31dot 10:54, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

The only name change I can think of is Rodek/Kurn, which have separate pages, with all the actual info at Kurn, the old name. I don't really have a problem with Cid's idea, and my last suggestion was mainly because there seemed to be more resistance to using the name Sao Paulo at all then anything else. Either way, I still don't buy the argument that we should cater to people who don't read the page, especially since no one buys it when I try that. ;) - Archduk3 11:59, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

The current title is being criticized for falsely mixing a name and a registry that don't really go together. If there are valid reasons to consider this argument baseless and arbitrary, then the current title is the best one, yes. However, if we can't just cast the argument aside, then we need another title - and in that case, I'd still rather use a completely valid, though outdated, title ("USS Sao Paulo") than one that has other issues (double disambiguation, non-standard disambiguation, speculative registry, ...). -- Cid Highwind 12:18, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

While you're debating the finer points of double disambiguation and non-standard disambiguation, MA continues to mislead the casual reader by suggesting that even though we see NX-74205 on the former Sao Paulo, the ship was not really registered like that because registry numbers must be as consistent as the gravitational constant. 

Furthermore, I don't see a process in place which would allow this discussion to be finalized within a finite period of time. People are reverting my moves, but they also seem to think that consensus should be determined by the gut feeling of an administrator, as opposed to a definite process. Aside from unilateral action, what would be required to change this title within a finite period of time? 

"Sao Paulo" would be an OK solution for me (not ideal because there is no Defiant in the title, but OK) - however, the current title is seriously misleading. I would think that objectivity and solid facts are MA's number one goals, not even remotely comparable to the finer points you're discussing here. Am I the only one who has a serious problem with MA nudging the casual reader towards a highly debatable hypothesis? Practically any reasonable title without "NCC-75633" is better than this one. – 1312.4 16:15, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

The discussion is finalized when most people arrive at a mutually agreeable solution.  It certainly is not any one person implementing their views, be it an admin or yourself.  That might take some time.  Is there some sort of rush?--31dot 16:44, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

There is a rush, because the name/registry pair can appear tomorrow in an official source and spread from there. Take a look at this mutation. It would take me a while to figure out whether they used MA as a resource, but at the very least we should firmly contradict their views, not appear to support them. Canonically, the Sao Paulo became the Defiant NX-74205 and everything else is fan speculation, yet here they kept Sao Paulo's registry number for a future ship, and if that isn't bad enough, the number even has a suffix. They should've simply used a boring registry number for future Defiants, e.g. NCC-79332 (not -A, -B, -C etc., which haven't been confirmed as a must for different ships with the same name). – 1312.4 17:30, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

Actually, based on the distorted appearance, I'd say they used the Fact Files. Either way, STO isn't canon, that's a problem for MB. - Archduk3 18:13, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

Don't get me started on the appearance. However, I was referring to the registry number. Did the Fact Files use Sao Paulo's registry number? I don't have the Fact Files, so I can't check.

MA is responsible for making sure it's canon-based, even if other sources choose to go in a different direction. These kinds of shaky titles are unacceptable. – 1312.4 18:30, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

---

Commander Scott said below: Of course, number 4 does present its own problems, since despite what's shown on screen, the reuse of both name and number goes against everything that has been established before. If we were to let a little speculation slip into this voting process (!!!!!!!!!), the fact that the Sao Paulo's first appearance bears the Defiant's name and number due to the use of stock footage, we could postulate the notion that we weren't supposed to notice the use of the old name and number in the new footage (!!!!!!!!!), as it would simply be intended to match the combat footage taken from season 6. Should the second option become the choice of preference, this could help to make the decision more palatable for those who vote against it, since removing the ship's original name and number on the eve of battle would seem like a fairly low priority given that the transponder codes would already be reconfigured to represent the ship's true identity (!!!!!!!!!).

This is the kind of seriously flawed thinking I'm having a problem with here. Speculate and postulate in your own fanfic, but here you must present the canon to the world. – 1312.4 04:43, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

You yourself have been citing what is seen on the screen, and making subsequent changes to the location of the article based upon your personal interpretation of those events, have you not?

However, if we look strictly at the facts, the new ship was never actually labelled USS Sao Paulo NCC-75633, despite being told that that was the ship's name by Admiral Ross, and seeing the ship's registry on the dedication plaque.  As a result, all I did was offer a supposition based upon the visual evidence.  If this offends you in some way, then I suggest you take some time to reflect on just whose thinking is seriously flawed, as your attitude towards the people who've disagreed with you thus far leaves a lot to be desired. -- Commander Scott 06:38, July 23, 2010 (BST)

My proposed title, USS Defiant (Sao Paulo), is supposed to be a personal interpretation? All it means is that the ship is named the Defiant, and that we're disambiguating using its former name, Sao Paulo. The parentheses also happen to indicate that Sao Paulo is only a secondary name now. If the sequence of names isn't a rock-solid fact, I don't know how you're watching the show.

I haven't reviewed the opening shots again, but assuming the ship wasn't named the Sao Paulo (which is likely), all it means canonically is that it was repainted before its dedication plaque was changed. There is no need whatsoever to break the cardinal rule of canon analysis by ignoring onscreen evidence in this and all subsequent episodes, yet your mere speculation would require us to invalidate the stock footage and new VFX shots.

Face it, we don't live in that universe, so we don't know what kinds of exceptions Starfleet can make in its registry system. If it is physically possible for a different ship to be painted with the same name and registry, there is no need to reject onscreen evidence - it just adds to our understanding of registry numbers. It is presumptuous of you to suggest that we could "let a little speculation slip into this voting process" and influence the casual reader's views on the subject of registries, as opposed to merely reporting onscreen evidence, however it disagrees with one's personal view of registry numbers. – 1312.4 16:39, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, your proposed title is a personal interpretation of where the article should be located, and every time that you moved it to that location, it was arrogant presumption on your part to believe that your opinion outweighed all of the others here.  The same can be said of your systematic changes to the other articles featuring the second Defiant, whether it was the links, and/or the ship’s registry number.

It we were to follow your supposition that the Sao Paulo was repainted before it was renamed due to the use of stock footage, we would then have to consider the possibility that the Red Squad cadets enjoyed repainting the Valiant’s name and number so that it would be visually identified as the Defiant whenever stock footage was used.  The sheer ridiculousness of even having to conceive of such a notion is not lost on me, but I trust that I’ve made my point on this matter. -- Commander Scott 23:24, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

One consideration that hasn't been mentioned, as far as I can tell, is Memory Alpha:Canon policy#Tolerance in valid resources.  That says that we can make allowances for "Sophistication of optical effects (for example, streaming stars at warp, CGI)" and for "Production mistakes (for example, microphones in shot; differences due to different "takes" being used in editing; post-production errors or artifacts; etc.)".  Taken together, those could be considered to allow for the current article name, since in the real world the reason that the new Defiant had the same registry as the old one was that they couldn't afford to redo the CGI.  Just sayin'. —Josiah Rowe 21:56, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I’m not sure we even need to list the NX-74205 registry in the information box, since the order that Sisko reads out only pertained to the ship’s name, and not the registry.  Given that we know the new footage only featured the original registry due to the extensive use of stock footage from the previous seasons, I would think that any mention of the original Defiant’s registry number would be best left to the background notes, since the  Memory Alpha:Canon policy#Tolerance in valid resources would seem to allow for the article to not be mired in such unnecessary confusion.  -- Commander Scott 23:42, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

You thought it was OK to influence the thinking of casual readers concerning which registry was "really" used on the new Defiant. That's a totally different type of personal interpretation than picking one of several possible titles as long as they are consistent with the canon. Yes, the title is my own idea, based upon suggestions of others (if you would read the earlier discussion) and what we've observed in the canon. I just don't see it as such a serious change to warrant this much discussion, since we haven't seen an actual edit war, only reverts by administrators and by yourself (using the same "consensus" argument as opposed to a canon-based argument).

You're also showing a remarkable lack of subtlety when analyzing the canon, using any unusual situation as an excuse to introduce your personal views. In case of the Sao Paulo, we just have "Defiant 74205" everywhere in VFX shots, so there is no reason to doubt what we see, namely that the ship was repainted before it arrived at the station. However, in case of the Valiant, we also have a lot of shots of the CG model with the new registry, and what if the new shots are alternating with stock footage? (I haven't seen "Valiant" again, so I don't know to what extent stock footage was used or how it alternates with new VFX shots, but let's assume it does for the sake of the argument.)

We must wait for this kind of ridiculous situation before starting to doubt onscreen evidence, and that's my answer to Josiah's comments about production errors - yes, they exist, but they must also be impossible to rationalize in order to break the basic rule that what is onscreen is what actually happened. If stock footage was used as well, we can just explain it as inappropriate stock footage, since we can prove that it was used in another episode in a different context. We cannot invoke such an explanation for the Sao Paulo since the stock footage alternates with new VFX shots, so there is no proof that the footage is inappropriate. Again, the burden of proof is always on those who would contradict the basic rule that what is onscreen is canon.

Ironically, if the VFX people had chosen to mix stock footage of the Defiant's old registry with new footage showing Sao Paulo's registry, we would have a justification for 75633 because the weirdness of registry numbers switching back and forth would have to be explained somehow. However, since they chose to stick with 74205 throughout, it's 74205 according to available evidence. Everything else is speculation. Even if Sisko mentions only the name, it still isn't enough to contradict what is painted on the hull, since it only means that the number change was implicit when the name was changed. – 1312.4 06:10, July 24, 2010 (UTC)

By the looks of things, it would appear as though your understanding of the way a wiki works is not really fit for purpose when it comes such large scale edits, as you’re clearly mistaken in your belief that we (the administrators and users) need a canon argument to revert a change of location, when someone has circumvented the necessary consensus as you did.  As I’m sure you’re now beginning to realise, the administrators wouldn’t have felt the need to lock this article into place if that weren’t the case.

Why should we assume that the stock footage indicates that the ship was repainted before its arrival though?  Surely if that were the case, there would have been no need to even rename the ship, as it would have already been the Defiant.  This is essentially the same supposition that I made, albeit from the opposite angle regarding the identity that can be garnered from the extensive reuse of visual effects.

At this point, I think it's fair to say that you and I are going around in circles, and whilst I'm always up for a good debate, only the greater consensus can decide whether either of our views will have an effect on the content and/or location of the article going forward. -- Commander Scott 09:38, July 24, 2010 (UTC)

Of course you need a canon-based argument because I needed a canon-based argument as well for my own change, and I already explained why the current title contradicts the canon. What's unfair about that? Are you saying that it's fine to wait for a vague consensus of an undefined number of contributors while the canon is being contradicted and misinformation spread to the rest of the world? If I move the article so its title is consistent with the canon, I don't expect you to revert the change unless you have a proposal which is also consistent with the canon.

For example, if someone had merged the article with that on the Defiant instead, I wouldn't have said anything, or if someone had merely moved it to "Sao Paulo", I wouldn't have been as satisfied, but I would've accepted it if such a title is simpler to maintain. However, I see the article deliberately being moved back to the wrong title and nothing happening for days, while we're apparently waiting for a nebulous consensus. What's the status at this very moment? The article was supposed to be moved to "Sao Paulo", but I don't see anything happening.

You don't need to merely assume that the stock footage indicates the ship has been repainted - you can see that onscreen. A ship, formerly named the Sao Paulo, bears the Defiant's name and registry, and continues to bear the same name and registry in subsequent shots. If you're not happy with what you see, all you can do is try to show that it's physically impossible, a blooper, otherwise Paramount's canon policy stands. Since the rule is that what we see onscreen is canon, the burden of proof is on you. Can you prove that the ship couldn't have possibly been repainted in a spacedock before it arrived on DS9, perhaps because it's easier? There are any number of reasonable explanations for why the ship wouldn't have arrived with the Sao Paulo's name and registry number.

I see you don't have much experience with strict analysis of the canon or a desire to maintain the integrity of onscreen evidence, so I don't expect you to be convinced by this argument, but it doesn't change the fact that MA must support Paramount's canon policy and never override canon footage unless it shows something which is impossible to rationalize. Personal views and feelings mustn't enter into it, since the goal is to inform the general public about what we really see in the Star Trek universe, not what we might've seen if the VFX people had an ideal budget. – 1312.4 13:01, July 24, 2010 (UTC)

A consensus amongst the users MUST be reached before major changes are made. To use as simpler a language as possible, this is a democracy, and not a dictatorship.

As for the idea that we’re supposed to assume that the Sao Paulo was repainted prior to her arrival, why wouldn’t the ship have left Utopia Planitia as the Defiant?  The fact of the matter is that we’re not supposed to be able to tell that the Sao Paulo had the Defiant’s markings at the time of her arrival, and to try and suggest otherwise is just a speculatory explanation as to why the stock footage didn’t reflect the ship’s true identity.

As such, it’s an equally valid point to question whether we were ever supposed to see the original ship’s markings, even in the new footage.  The USS Enterprise NCC-1701-A set the precedent.  If we were to assume that the use of NX-74205 on the new Defiant was correct, then there would be hundreds, possibly thousands, of wartime casualties that would warrant the same treatment, and Starfleet’s naming and numbering scheme would be torn asunder.  The only reasonable explanation that can be applied is that the ship was supposed to bear a new registry number, just as the background sources have confirmed.  The only question that remains is which number it should have borne, and since we know that the ship definitely carried the NCC-75633 registry, that is the only number that should be referenced in this article, and the others that link to it.

To ignore the fact that stock footage has been used when other Defiant Class ships were shown in the series, is just a case of selective reasoning so as to ensure that the canon doesn’t interfere with your interpretation of what is shown. -- Commander Scott 01:54, July 25, 2010 (UTC)

If MA is what it purports to be, it can only be ruled by a pure dictatorship of Paramount's canon policy, while we're all merely followers whose task it is to present Star Trek in accordance with that policy, otherwise MA becomes an unlicensed fandom publication. That is why I don't have a problem with one person making changes as long as they are in support of the canon policy, or people reverting that change if they can argue it isn't consistent with the canon policy, but it's annoying when people don't care enough to realize that every second this title remains is another second where misinformation is being spread to the rest of the world. This is no 1970s fandom, where it really was a about a consensus of licensed and unlicensed fan publications, so whoever creates a more interesting publication is the person whose works become accepted.

The question is, can you see the old name and registry onscreen on arrival (because I don't feel like checking merely for the sake of an argument about how to interpret the canon)? If you can't see it onscreen, then there is no evidence that it was repainted before, but if you can see it onscreen, then it was repainted, because whatever is onscreen is canon according to Paramount's canon policy and you're not at liberty to assume otherwise, unless you have proof that it's impossible. The policy is that whatever we see onscreen is canon, not whatever Commander Scott feels would be better based on certain outside knowledge. The canon can be contradicted only by itself, and I don't mean vague, theoretical contradictions based on precedent. What you see onscreen must be proven to be literally impossible.

You're now basically weaving a conspiracy theory based on outside knowledge of how the show was made and assumptions based on previous Star Trek. You're presuming to explain how Starfleet runs things and yet you don't live in that universe. We don't know how many special dispensations were granted. We don't know whether Starfleet has codes other than registry numbers. You forget the precendent set by the NCC-1701, where a totally different design continued to bear the same name and registry (that isn't confusing?). Can that be somehow justified philosophically, because it could've still had a few girders from the old Enterprise, while the Sao Paulo didn't have any girders from the old Defiant?

You can choose not to believe what you see, but the burden of proof is on you, and you have to find evidence in the canon to support your theory, because only more canon can override existing canon, as I demonstrated in the Valiant example above. I can find alternative explanations day and night until you find proof that the ship couldn't have possibly had the same name and registry number. You may think it's selective reasoning, but I already explained that the "selection" in the Valiant example would be made by the remaining canon which shows the new registry, because the canon can be overridden only by more canon. 

It's about maintaining the integrity of the filmed Star Trek universe, making sure it doesn't become riddled with supposed "errors" merely because fandom has a problem with the choices made by the VFX people. We're not interested in Commander Scott's outrage at the unprecedented use of the same name and registry number or presumption to know full well how Starfleet runs things in-universe. Read the canon policy - what is onscreen is canon, everything else is secondary unless you have proof that what you see onscreen couldn't have physically happened. – 1312.4 07:02, July 25, 2010 (UTC)

Please stop using thousands of characters to say the same thing over and over again.  You have made your point; there is no need to regurgitate it.  It also does not change that this is a wiki, and decisions are made by consensus.  I'm sorry that does not satisfy you, but that's the way it is.  I also think you are confused about our purpose- we are not here to enforce canon, but to document it.  Enforcing canon is up to Paramount.--31dot 08:31, July 25, 2010 (UTC)

I am trying to show Commander Scott here just how important it is to respect onscreen evidence, but he doesn't seem to understand. You cannot decide by consensus whether to respect the canon! Also, since MA can only document the canon, the only way to enforce it is to make sure MA documents the canon as opposed to fan dissatisfaction with the VFX, so I really don't see a difference between enforcing and documenting in this case. – 1312.4 09:51, July 25, 2010 (UTC)

NX-74205 - Is it visible/legible in the new footage?

Due to the length of the previous discussion point, and the lag now present when replying within it, I've decided to pose this question in a new section.

As you know, I've been having a rather lengthy discussion with 1312.4 over the last few days. As a result of the points that he raised, I decided to go back and watch the combat footage from "What You Leave Behind" this morning, so as to ensure that I was fully versed on the appearances of the original Defiant's registry number in the footage that was created for the series finale. It’s interesting to note that during my viewing, it was impossible for me to correctly identify the ship’s number in anything other than the stock footage. I can only assume that this was a concerted effort on the part of the special effects team, as the new camera angles and high speed flybys appear to have been designed to create a sense of ambiguity for the viewer. This makes me wonder whether the knowledge of the original Defiant's registry being used in the new footage may have actually originated from the backstage sources, rather than a discernable appearance? -- Commander Scott 11:48, July 25, 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether there was a discernible appearance. If stock footage is all you can see with the old registry number, you cannot even contradict stock footage without proof that it is inappropriate, because it's part of the canon. The canon policy stands. You're desperately trying to go against the canon policy with nothing but background info and speculation in hand, whereas what you really need is proof in the actual canon that the ship retained Sao Paulo's registry.

Here you can see comments by Mike Okuda (ignore the poster's incorrect conclusion about -A: all Mike Okuda says is that the original number was retained). This would also mean that there was no need to revise various Okudagrams showing NX-74205, so you can probably try to determine if the number is visible on any of them. – 1312.4 14:47, July 25, 2010 (UTC)

Vote

So this has gotten pretty long, and we seem to have some ideas on the table, so I'll summarize:

1. Keep the page here
2. Change the page name to USS Sao Paulo
3. Change the page to USS Defiant (NX-74205) and that page to USS Defiant (or vise versa)
4. Use a double disambiguation like MB: USS Defiant (NX-74205) (II)

We seem to be talking in circles at this point, and while we try not to use straight up voting, it has been done before for things like this.

• Since I'm from Chicago, I'm going to introduce some voting irregularities by voting twice: 3 or 2, I'm fine with either. - Archduk3 18:36, July 22, 2010 (UTC)
• Only 2, but I still think that USS Defiant (Sao Paulo) is by far the most accurate representation of the ship's identity. I really don't see why replacing the registry number with "Sao Paulo" is such a huge problem. The (II) looks dangerously official, while using 74205 for disambiguation is confusing, since it implies that the first Defiant didn't have that registry number. – 1312.4 18:41, July 22, 2010 (UTC)
• Either 1 or 2, as they are basically the same idea(differentiate with either the name or the number)--31dot 18:42, July 22, 2010 (UTC)
• If a move has to happen (which seems to depend on policy and not on majority opinion), then (from the above suggestions) definitely #2 and none of the others. However and just for the record, as always if "voting" is being brought up: "majority voting does not equal 'forming a consensus'", and "neither voting nor consensus can circumvent existing policy". :) -- Cid Highwind 21:31, July 22, 2010 (UTC)
• I'm definitely in the 1 or 2 camp, with a slight inclination towards number 2.  Number 4 does have its merits though, as the (II) is an accurate reflection of the fact that the ship is the second to be seen bearing that particular name and number.  Of course, number 4 does present its own problems, since despite what's shown on screen, the reuse of both name and number goes against everything that has been established before.  If we were to let a little speculation slip into this voting process, the fact that the Sao Paulo's first appearance bears the Defiant's name and number due to the use of stock footage, we could postulate the notion that we weren't supposed to notice the use of the old name and number in the new footage, as it would simply be intended to match the combat footage taken from season 6.  Should the second option become the choice of preference, this could help to make the decision more palatable for those who vote against it, since removing the ship's original name and number on the eve of battle would seem like a fairly low priority given that the transponder codes would already be reconfigured to represent the ship's true identity. -- Commander Scott 00:00, July 22, 2010 (BST)

That seems to be most of the people involved, missing only the two Romulans and sulfur, and who really cares what sulfur thinks anyway? ;p Everyone so far is OK with changing this to USS Sao Paulo, albeit for seemingly different reasons, and while this vote isn't a consensus, I think everybody can agree at this point that the Sao Paulo name is the "lesser evil" while still remaining within MA policy and canon. That said, unless anyone objects, we can move this within the next few days. - Archduk3 23:54, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

Tentatively putting the wheels into motion sounds like a good idea to me Archduk.  Should this change ultimately go ahead, I’d like to suggest the opening of the article be adjusted to something similar to the suggestion that was made by Cid Highwind:

“The USS Sao Paulo (NCC-75633), renamed in honor of the USS Defiant (NX-74205) shortly after its launch, was...”

I must admit, I’m not fully versed on the acceptable language to be used in these articles as of yet, but I feel this new opening may negate the necessity to list both registry numbers in the information box, thus allowing the bulk of the article to provide the pertinent information more naturally. -- Commander Scott 02:12, July 23, 2010 (BST)

I think we should move the page to USS Defiant (NX-74205) (II) . It is the USS Defiant not the USS Sao Paulo. The Sao Paulo was renamed to USS Defiant.--TyphussJediVader 01:48, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

• I haven't participated in this discussion before, but if you're collecting opinions, I think that option #2 is the most sensible.  Option #1 is technically inaccurate, option #3 is potentially confusing to readers, and option #4 is ugly.  The only problem with option #2 is that it isn't the "last" name of the ship in question; however, it's the clearest and simplest option. —Josiah Rowe 01:55, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

I just checked the latest Star Trek Encyclopedia, where the information concerning the Sao Paulo is placed in the article on the original Defiant. There isn't even a separate Sao Paulo entry which would merely redirect the reader to the Defiant article. This would be consistent with one of my earliest proposals, namely to merge the two articles. The Sao Paulo just isn't that important - I doubt that most readers remember what the ship was called before it became a reset-button for the destroyed Defiant. – 1312.4 15:09, July 24, 2010 (UTC)

• I'm going to vote for option 4, USS Defiant (NX-74205) (II), like MB. --Nero210 21:50, July 24, 2010 (UTC)