I expect to soon see a "Are we sure this is the millennium falcon?" here; I believe this is, and the TrekBBS had a forum on it with a pic of the lighting changed and from a frame or two later where you can see that little cylindric-shooter part on the side a little better. () - AJ Halliwell 00:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
While I may be more optimistic, keep his link and this info in mind if you have second thoughts about the Millennium Falcon.--Tim Thomason 01:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Visual confirmation aside, is there a source for the current claim on the page that says John Knoll specifically put the Millennium Falcon in the film? — Scott (talk) 20:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I can't find a source online, so I've made it more vague. There are plenty of old message boards and stuff that shows that this possible "misconception" predates its inclusion on Memory Alpha.--Tim Thomason 05:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Tim! However, I feel that the claim still needs a source. Such ambiguity is hardly encyclopedic. — Scott (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
"Cylindrical ship at the Battle of Sector 001": Why is the Millenium Falcon described as a "Cylindrical ship". It hardly looks cylindrical. --GDK (talk) 07:33, March 7, 2013 (UTC)
This ship was a rough-build combination of an Excelsior-refit class parts with two nacelles attached like on normal Excelsior-class ships, and a third connected at the bottom of the saucer with a Constitution-class nacelled pylon. No name or registry was assigned to this model. The only data about this model comes from the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Technical Manual, though the picture shown in the manual is incorrect.