Talk:USS Revere

Class designation
What is the permitted resource for citing this as a Hermes-class vessel? And registration? If none, these designtions should be removed. Aholland 11:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The registration number was mentioned in the dialogue in Star Trek: The Motion Picture. The class designation was based on the suggestion of the site's founders that we recognize the source of the vessels, Star Fleet Technical Manual, as valid. -- Captain M.K.B. 12:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm guessing, then, that the ship name and registry were in the background "operations" talk in the film. Did that survive into the Director's Edition? I know they fiddled with some background stuff a bit. And can you point me to where the canon-exception for the class documented is on the site? Given its source, it would have to be some kind of one-off exception, I believe. Thanks! Aholland 13:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The dialogue in the radio chatter was made louder and more distinct in the director's edition. -- Captain M.K.B. 13:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

But since it doesn't say "USS Revere, Hermes-class vessel", is there an exception to the canon policy hidden away somewhere on the site that associates the Revere with the Hermes-class itself? Otherwise it is nothing more than speculation and should - of course - be moved to background as to its class. Aholland 14:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * There is some discussion around on one of the old pages that had the conclusion to include the Revere and Hermes into this database, because of the situation as the Technical Manual was used as the source. We are likewise doing the same with secondary sources published today and information like this was buried too long. Aholland, may I kindly ask, that you enjoy the data given on sites related to the Technical Manual and stop doubt every part about it? In the past we had agreed to include a minimum of data (you will not find Starbase 1 or the USS Sirius in Memory Alpha). What is presented here should be respected by archivistes who joined the project later. I'm sorry that I have to become personal, but I'm really sick to have to defend articles written in the past. -- Kobi 14:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

If you would be so kind as to point me to the old pages, I'd appreciate it. The whole point of a wiki is to have a constant check and balance as to data. Respect as to existing work is one thing, but not commenting when material is in contravention of existing policies, is in contravention of past policies, and is not in keeping with stated goals for the site is something else. If there was an explicit and verifiable policy exception granted for this material, let's find out where it was given and note it so that future archivists such as myself don't bring up these things again and no one will need to defend anything. But in the absence of anything like that, this type of article sticks out like a sore thumb. So I, respectfully, ask that material be cited as per practices and police or modified as per policy. Whether the inclusion of data that shouldn't be here is old or new. Aholland 15:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Aholland, the class wasn't mentioned in the movie, but it was the intention when this site was founded that starship class info of starships mentioned in canon but fleshed out in secondary sources that were used in preparation of the canon material be honored. previous canon discussions started by this site's founders have mentioned this, as have offsite discussions in the chat and message board -- the ships mentioned in canon from the Franz Joseph SFTM, TNG Technical Manual and ST Encyclopedia, and to a lesser degree the DS9 Technical Manual have all been researched by the site's founders and prominent members before the founding of this site. i consider the class designation of the four ships mentioned in the Motion Picture dialogue to be admissable, as has been found by the site founders, because the Technical Manual was treated as a canon resource in the preparation of this movie. if all you want is an addition to the rules stating this, this can be done, in order to prevent the information being removed from the article. -- Captain M.K.B. 16:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, what I was looking for was something evidencing that the founders in their creation of policy at the time (likely a little more ad hoc, perhaps?) allowed the association of ship names with classes that were never seen or mentioned in any production. Ever. I am not suggesting changes to current policy, just conformance to it if the exception was never actually granted. Since it would be an exception to policy if allowed, the basis for the exception should be noted in some verifiable way other than "trust me - it's okay". (And as an aside, the first film did not treat the Tech Manual as canon; it just borrowed a few bits here and there. By that point Roddenberry was trying to distance himself from others' interpretations of Trek - both for financial and creative reasons.  If you need examples, the Federation seal was different, as was the location of Starfleet headquarters.)  Aholland 01:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)