Talk:USS Melbourne (Nebula class)/archive

Merge suggestion (2007)
I find the rationalisation for the Nebula and Excelsior class Melbournes to be very far fetched. There's nothing in BOBW that clearly establishes the Melbourne as a nebula class on screen, and Emissary shows the melbourne at Wolf 359 to be Excelsior class. If I'm not mistaken, the Star Trek Encyclopedia says that while the Nebula model was used in BOBW, they decided to make it the more detailed Excelsior model, exactly as stated in the background info. It's clear to me that the producers intended for the Melbourne to be excelsior class instead of the Nebula class, and the rationalisation seems to be pure speculation. The idea of the Excelsior class Melbourne being recently retired and then reactivated isn't supported when watching BOBW and Emissary, and the fact that we have seen other excelsior class ships in service many years after BOBW (such as the Lakota and the numerous Excelsiors we saw in the fleets fighting in the Dominion War) suggests that the Excelsior class is not due for retirement. All in all, I think that it is safe to say that since Emissary, that the Melbourne was meant to be an Excelsior class vessel. I'd like to see this article merged with the excelsior class Melbourne, with information about the Nebula class version added in background information. Additionally, it leads to confusion to have two Melbournes. Was the melbourne mentioned in 11001001 the nebula or Excelsior class vessel? Tiberius 06:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No comment about this? I still think the idea of two different vessels named Melbourne is pure speculation.  --211.26.178.83 04:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to say that I think that both "Melbourne" articles should be merged, with the Nebula class/excelsior class added as a bit of background information. It's simply too much to believe that memory Alpha has gone to such lengths to justify something in canon when it wasn't even seen on the screen. --Tiberius 04:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It was seen. --Alan 23:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Not in any identifiable form though. While we may be able to determine that a particular ship is Nebula Class, there's nothing that we can get from the TV screen that proves it was labelled the Melbourne. And if we are to invent far fetched ideas in order to fit star trek canon with behind the scenes info, then the Hansens were on the starship "Jefferies" rather than the Raven. I just don't see how we can use a piece of behind the scenes information about something that was never clearly seen on screen to support a complicated and - face it - clumsy attempt to justify the inclusion into canon of something that is behind the scenes only. At best, it merits just a background info section on a merged Melbourne article: "While the Melbourne was portrayed by a study model for the Nebula Class ship in BoBW, it was decided to use the more detailed Excelsior class model for when it was clearly seen in Emmisary." That covers everything quite nicely.--Tiberius 03:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No, it doesn't. The Nebula-Melbourne was seen again after BOBw but BEFORE Emissary, with a clear name in Registry (TNG: "Future Imperfect").  Furthermore, the Nebula-Melbourne was in "Emissary" as well, along with the Excelsior Melbourne.  And finally, the Nebula-Melbourne appeared as dedication model in Sisko's office several times, again labelled Melbourne.  Not to mention that there were no Excelsior-class wreakages in Wolf 359.  Granted, that isn't a great point, but still, how could Shelby identify the wreaked Excelsior as the Melbourne?  The front saucer of the Melbourne was heavily damaged, and the registry was gone.  There was at least one other Excelsior Class at Wolf 359, so it would be impossible to know that the Exclsior class was in fact the Melborune by simply looking at it.  The Nebula-Melbourne, on the other hand, had its name intact, and is easily recognizable as it is a unique Nebula design, so it is highly unlikely that Shelby could have confused it with the Bellerophon for example.


 * In the end, the Nebula-Melbourne appeared in more episodes than the Excelsior-Melbourne, and it also makes more sense in BoBW than the Excelsior Melbourne. In addition, the verbal mention of the Excelsior Melbourne was dropped, and the registry isn't visually apparent. Ensign Q 16:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all, the registryon the model in Riker's ready room in Future Imperfect cannot be read. I examined it and could just make out a vague greyish blob where the registry is due to the angel the surface of the model makes with the camera as well as the light reflecting off it. The actual prop may have been labelled as the melbourne, but so what? If we are to say that everything included on props is canon, then as I have said, the hansens followed the Borg on the USS Jefferies, not the USS Raven. Secondly, that entire sequence occured in an alien holodeck, so there's no way to know how accurately it represents "reality". Also, the front of the Excelsior Melbourne's saucer may have been destroyed, but that doesn't mean Shelby had no way of identifying it. The saucer is not the only location where a starship displays its registry number.--Tiberius 02:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any episodes other than BoBW where the actual starship makes an appearance, and the name Melbourne is clearly visible on the saucer of the Exclsior class model before it is destroyed in the DS9 Pilot, whereas the name and registry on the Nebula version was never clearly seen. And in any case it is a very bad idea to have two starships with the same name in a battle. It could lead to confusion - "The melbourne is sending out a distress call!" "Which one?" - which could lead to disaster in such a dangerous situation. If there was an old Melbourne that was retired, and then brought back into service just to fight at Wolf 359, surely it would have been given a different name? In any case, ask yourself this... If you had nothing else but the episodes themselves, what class starship would you conclude the Melbourne was? The argument that the Melbourne was an Excelsior class vessel can be made using nothing but on screen evidence. No such argument can be made supporting the Nebula class Melbourne. To do that, one MUST cite behind the scenes information. "Yes, but when you look at the shooting model that was actually filmed...." That's behind the scenes. Since when does behind the scenes information have an equal weight as canon on screen evidence?--Tiberius 02:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't say that it is clearly visible, for one. As the article states, the verbal mention of the Excelsior-Melbourne was dropped; if it had been aired, than yes, it would be hard to dispute.  And Exclsior-class ships are only labeled on the saucer.  There is simply no way that Shelby could have known it so quickly, it is just physically impossible.  Ensign Q 14:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Frankly, it would be better if we just ignored the Excelsior-Melbourne altogether, it was clearly just a last-minute decision by producers, and the registry isn't that clear. Ambassador 14:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter - we saw it clearly labelled on the Excelsior saucer in Emissary. It's clear enough for me to read "Melbourne" on my video (not DVD) copy of the DS9 pilot. And it's certainly much clearer than we ever saw the Nebula class onscreen.--Tiberius 02:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * For the TKO, which image can you read the name and registry on:


 * Also, the model is just that, a model. --Alan del Beccio 21:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Can we get a consensus on this? I think that merging the articles to the Excelsior class article and mentioning how the Nebula class filming model appeared as the ship in BoBW is the best idea.--Tiberius 08:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I recently contributed to Ex Astra Scientia, and Bernd now added the Melbourne issue to a section on his site:


 * http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/ship_names.htm


 * Now for my side:


 * If we were to declare the Excelsior-Melbourne the only Melbourne, it would cause problems. No Excelsior-class wreakage of any kind is seen in BoBW graveyard during that episode.  Then again, we clearly saw in "Emissary" that the Excelsior-Melbourne wasn't totally destroyed, so we can assume that the wreakage was still there by the time the Enterprise arrived.  So that point in itself is not enough for an excuse for two Melbournes.  A bigger factor is that we clearly saw the the Excelsior-Melbourne's front saucer section was destroyed, along with it the two registry and name identifications on the ship.  Plus, there was at least another Excelsior-class at the Battle, namely the USS Roosevelt. As I said before, it is impossible that Shelby could have known that that specific Excelsior-class wreakage (assuming that's what she saw) was actually that of the Melbourne, as it could have easily have been that of the Roosevelt.


 * The Nebula-Melbourne, on the other hand, was the only Nebula-class ship of its type that we know of at Wolf 359. Plus, it's forward registry/name identifications were still visible in BOBw.  Shelby would have no problem recognizing the Nebula-Melbourne in that case.


 * There are also other reasons why we should not dismiss the Nebula-Melbourne. For one thing it was the original intented Melbourne and it was seen on screen, unlike the originally intended USS Pegasus which was never seen on screen.  The Nebula-Melbourne, in fact, appeared many times over the course of TNG and DS9, as a dedication model in each, labeled "Melbourne".  It was even seen in "Emissary" during the Battle of Wolf 359, along with the Excelsior-Melbourne.


 * Frankly, I think the Excelsior-Melbourne was a rushed decision by producer, based on FX rather than continuity, like the K'Tinga in that Star Trek Enterprise episode. Why they didn't just use the regular Nebula-class model for the Melbourne instead of for the Bellerophon is beyond me.  Consider also that the Melbourne was never verbally mentioned further adds to conclusion that Excelsior-Melbourne was an cookie-cutter solution to a problem.


 * Certainly making the Nebula-Melbourne the only Melbourne would solve the problem easily, except for the fact that the registry and name were clearly seen. Then again, the Brattain was clearly labeled "Brittain", the Jenolan was labeled "Jenolin", the Bozeman has two visible registries, the Zhukov was labeled "Zuhkov NCC-62136", aalmost all the Constitutions seen during non-remastered TOS were labeled NCC-1701, the USS Defiant (NCC-75633) was seen with the registry "NX-74205" and even "NCC-74210", and on and on.


 * Concluding, I think the two-tier Melbourne approach we have now is the best solution for those who don't want to dismiss continuity or the Excelsior-Melbourne. Personally, I think it would be better if we dismissed the Excelsior-Melbourne altogether, but for a comprimise the two-Melbourne approach is the only way to go.


 * Ambassador/Ensign_Q 22:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

To dismiss the Excelsior Melbourne is to dismiss on screen canon evidence. And the claim that the name and registry were visible on the hull at Wolf 359 is not likely, as there are no images of the nebula class ship with a readable name and registry. The only time we have seen a ship with a readable registry that said Melbourne was on the excelsior ship in DS9. The Canon evidence by itself would prove that the Melbourne was an Excelsior class vessel. The only way to deny it is to cite information from behind the scenes. And the Canon policy article here on Memory Alpha clearly states that what is seen on the screen over rules any behind the scenes information. The claim that the melbourne was a nebula class vessel does not come from on screen evidence, whereas the Excelsior class Melbourne does. This in itself should settle the debate.--Tiberius 02:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd like to add that no one is suggesting dismissing the Excelsior one. To meet the canon policy, I do have on screen evidence that proves the Nebula one when connected with the background info. When looking at the wrecks at Wolf 359, Shelby lists the ships she is seeing, and there is no Excelsior wreck visible. She names the Melbourne. Guess what, no Excelsior, yes Nebula. You may have to accept, like it or not, that TWO Melbournes were at the battle. --OuroborosCobra talk 02:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

A quick search on StarTrek.com shows that the actual producers of the show consider it an Excelsior class vessel. They also clarify that this Excelsior class vessel was the one Riker was offered command of, and was also the one involved in the incident with the Bynars. The producers themselves say that the Melbourne was an Excelsior class vessel. They also state that the melbourne that Riker was offered, and the melbourne at Starbase 74 when the Bynars stole the Enterprise was also the excelsior class. OuroborosCobra, I understand that you have evidence, but that evidence is contradicted by direct on screen evidence. When On screen evidence contradicts behind the scenes evidence, the Mem Alpha canon policy states very clearly that behind the scenes information like this does not outrank actual on screen evidence. The claim that there were two USS Melbournes is just speculation that is being presented as fact in an attempt to maintain background information as canon when Mem Alpha's on Canon policy indicates that it should not be. In fact, given that the only source for the Nebula class Melbourne is from behind the scenes sources, it should be "formatted as background information as described in Memory Alpha's Manual of Style", as quoted from the mem Alpha page on the canon policy regarding behind the scenes information. The same article says, "In the event that any of this information contradicts on-screen information, however, then the information stated on-screen will take precedence." This seems to settle the deabte - officially, the USS Melbourne was an Excelsior class vessel. I cannot see any justification for the speculation that there were two Melbournes, especially when the official Star Trek website states very clearly that the USS Melbourne was only ever an Excelsior class vessel and never a Nebula class vessel.--Tiberius 02:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The library at StarTrek.com is not written by the producers and is replete with errors, some that our own Jorg has tried to fix. It isn't production source information. In addition, my information does not contradict on screen evidence, it IS on screen evidence. Or can you show me the Excelsior class ship seen when Shelby says Melbourne? No, I don't think you can. Two ships had the name. Accept it already. It isn't the worst thing in the world. --OuroborosCobra talk 02:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

it's still speculation to claim two melbournes. And there is direct onscreen evidence to show the Excelsior class USS Melbourne. The registry on the Nebula model was unreadable on screen, so the only source to indicate a Nebula class melbourne is behind the scenes information. Memory Alpha's own Canon Policy states that when two sources are in contradiction, then "articles archivists should be guided by the principle that a valid resource with a higher precedence can (but does not have to) be given slightly greater evidentiary weight for purposes of writing the article from a Trek universe standpoint than the valid resource with a lower precedence." It seems that we are allowing speculation in this article merely for the sake of allowing behind the scenes information to be just as valid as direct on screen evidence. It seems to me to be a violation of Memory Alpha's own policies, so while it may not be the worst thing in the world, it's still against this site's own policies.--Tiberius 02:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Melbourne named, Nebula visible, Excelsior not. I don't NEED a regisstry, or a visible name, I have that. --OuroborosCobra talk 03:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

What YOU need or don't need is irrelevant. What I like or don't like is irrelevant. What is relevant is that MA policy for resolving contradictory information is to lend more weight to the information visible on screen. That's what has to be used.

And in Emissary, we have Excelsior visible AND clearly labelled as Melbourne.--Tiberius 09:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If the only ship visibly named Melbourne is an Excelsior, then it's the only Melbourne.
 * Behind the scenes models are irrelevant.
 * The lack of Excelsior wreckage visible to the viewer is irrelevant. Not every scrap of wreckage was shown. ("Absence of proof is not proof of absence.")
 * The Nebula wreckage shown was not visibly marked as the Melbourne.
 * Shelby's comment conflicts with the visible evidence so either she misidentified the Nebula or she was referring to something other than the Nebula wreckage. Otherwise, you have to speculate that not only did Starfleet have two ships of the same name, it managed to put both those ships in the same fleet and made no effort to distinguish them.  References to the ship have been the definitive the Melbourne indicating only one such named ship as opposed to the old Melbourne or the new Melbourne or a Melbourne which would be the case if more than one ship of the same name existed. You are also speculating that despite the technology available, the only way to identify a ship is visually. (I don't recall the episodes, but I'm believe that one Enterprise or another has come upon a debris field and identified what ship it used to be. Why not here?)


 * Pluralitas non ponenda est sine necessitate.


 * My opinion: There was no Nebula-class Melbourne. The Excelsior was the only one. Assertions that a Nebula Melbourne existed should be relegated to speculation if not deleted.  The background information about the model and speculations about Shelby's comment should be put into the article for the Excelsior.  --StarFire209 07:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

As a further note about the nebula class melbourne, it only appears on the Enterprise's viewscreen immediately after Riker says, "On Screen", and then for a brief moment in the lower left corner. It quickly moves out of sight as the Enterprise is moving forwards and passes the wreck. This occurs 16:32 into the episode. Shelby does not mention the melbourne's name until 16:57 - a full 25 seconds AFTER the ship claimed to be the nebula class Melbourne appears. Immediately before the names the Melbourne, there is a shot showing the viewscreen as the wrecks of all the ships float past - and NONE of those ships visible is a nebula class vessel. And as for no identifying marks on the Excelsior class ship's hull, that's a ridiculous reason to claim she would not have said it if the melbourne had been the Excelsior ship we saw destroyed in Emissary. First of all, the model of the nebula melbourne that was filmed had a lot of damage on the top of the saucer, and when I zoomed in on my DVD I could make out something that looked like the registry number alone with no name. And it's entirely plausible that Shelby simply looked down at the moitor next to her that was displaying a list of the ships. Surely starfleet would have some way of identifying ships other than marking on the hull, yes? Such as emergency transponders? In any case, a clear photo of the nebula class model used can be seen here and it does NOT say USS melbourne on there, so Shelby couldn't have been reading the name off the hull, and the only visible registry is NCC-6204* - the final digit of the registry isn't visible. The last number could be anything. it could be 62047. The model itself doesn't prove it was the melbourne. The issue is ridiculous - the only Melbourne was the Excelsior class vessel.--Tiberius 09:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Still no idea what your image is supposed to show... since images on Ex-Astris can't be linked to. Maybe link to the article it is contained in.  Interestingly, I do note that you did not note that the Ex-Astris people, despite the evidence in the image that you mention, which is rather difficult to see with the link unless you pull some clever trickery, do agree with the idea that there were two Melbourne ships.  In fact, they do that in their own Wolf 359 article, and draw attention to that fact.  Point remains though, that there is no consensus for a merge of these articles, as there is a lot of evidence to both sides of the equation, and as such... by MA standards, that suggests that no merge should/can be made at this point in time. -- Sulfur 13:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow, heated discussion... A lot of good points have been brought up. While I agree with Sulfur in that a merge might not be the best option at the moment (because there is a Nebula-class model labeled "Melbourne", and we accept that information according to our policies), I'm not sure if the "Two-Melbournes-hypothesis" should really presented as fact. What I gather from the discussion is that there was no definitive connection between Nebula-class and the Melbourne in one scene (and maybe an intention for it to be that way), but a definitive connection between Excelsior-class and the Melbourne in the other scene depicting the same event. It's not the first time something was "ret-conned" (if it even was ret-conned at all), so perhaps we should really just note that fact as a comment, and pretend there really, necessarily were two Melbournes at the same time. -- Cid Highwind 13:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there was a Nebula model that was made as the melbourne and was then damaged and filmed for BoBW. But that source is behind the scenes only. It was later contradicted by on screen evidence - a higher source than background info. memory Alpha's policies on this are clear. The on screen evidence is canon with the backstage info added as a background information section in the article. That is what should be done here.--Tiberius 07:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. The two Melbourne theory is based on insubstantial evidence.   Shelby's comment is open to interpretation.  If the on-screen Excelsior Melbourne didn't exist, the interpretation that implies that  the Melbourne was a Nebula might be valid because of the background information.  But the Excelsior Melbourne does exist so the background information has to remain in the background and that interpretation can't be valid.  Individuals or other websites are free to believe there were two Melbournes.  But MA shouldn't show it as canon. – StarFire209 13:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * What about the USS Prometheus two registry approach? That isn't canon according to your black and white intepretation of canon. Ambassador/Ensign_Q 15:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see how that directly relates to this discussion. I also don't see an issue with Prometheus but can discuss that there.– StarFire209 17:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It relates because if we were to go with your definition of canon, then we couldn't have done the two registry approach because, in your view, it impedes with what MA defines as canon. The registry issue is the same as the two-Melbourne issue in that sense.64.230.123.47 21:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC) (akak Ensign_Q)


 * Prometheus is one ship with two different numbers. Logically and canonically, there's nothing that says you can't have that.  See my response there and at Talk:Registry regarding registry numbers. By your assertion, the Melbourne issue is two different ships with one name and number. Logically, there's nothing that supports that.  Canonically, there's nothing indisputable that supports that.  By my assertion, the Melbourne issue is one ship plus one flawed or misunderstood statement by Commander Shelby.  Logically, it makes sense.  Canonically, there's substantive evidence that supports that.


 * As I see it, Memory-Alpha is an attempt to make order out of chaos. With hundreds of TV episodes and movies, spanning multiple time frames in both the real and fictional universes, created by dozens of producers, directors, writers and technicians of varying degrees of skill, talent, competence, knowledge of what's gone before, adherence to that knowledge, and commitment to that adherence, plus the occasional f*** up, there are millions of pieces of information. We are trying to take these bits and pieces and detritus and push, pull, prod and jam them into something coherent.  It's like a huge jigsaw puzzle with some pieces missing and a few extras thrown in.  I like jigsaw puzzles.  I'm here because it's challenging and entertaining.  Canon policy helps identify what pieces to use.  But we need to be reasonable (or "logical") in how we work with these pieces.  Otherwise, we're not making order out of chaos, we're just stirring it around.


 * It comes down to this. If you want to believe there were two Melbournes, you can. But the idea flies in the face of logic.  If you want everyone to believe that idea (that is, if you want it in canon), you need to present some on screen evidence with a lot more substance than Shelby's questionable statement.  – StarFire209 23:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I see NOTHING questionable about Shelby's statement, or the models we saw (especially the two in conjunction). I have been accused here of trying to discount information, so I am finally going to respond to that. I am discounting NOTHING, you are. I am not denying the Excelsior, I am refusing to deny the large amounts of evidence for the Nebula. There is NO logical problem with there being two ships either. Would we have that in todays navy? No. But then again, we would not have a permanently assigned flagship with no flag officer either, yet they do in Trek. We would not have women wearing miniskirts in todays navy, they do then. There is no logical problem here, just refusal to believe what was on screen and stated, and I am tired of it now. --OuroborosCobra talk 01:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Apparently you have not understood what I've written. I have not said you or anyone else discounted information.  What I have implied and am expressly saying here is that the two Melbourne theory discounts logic as well as an understanding of the English language.

In the English language, use of the definite article 'the' with the name of a ship indicates that it is the only ship of that name. Use of the ship's name with neither a definite article or an indefinite article ('a','an') also indicates it the only ship of that name. All on-screen dialog references regarding a ship named Melbourne have used either the definite article as in "the Melbourne" or no article. There are no on screen references using the indefinite 'a' ''Melbourne. Therefore, to speakers of the English language, this indicates there is only one ship named Melbourne. According to Canon Policy, Valid Resource, Rule 1, this dialog establishes that there is only one ship named Melbourne.


 * As Tiberius showed earlier, there is clear on-screen evidence of an Excelsior-class ship bearing the name Melbourne. According to Canon Policy, Valid Resource, Rule 2, this visual evidence establishes that the (one) ship named Melbourne was an Excelsior-class.


 * As noted by several writers, the Enterprise passed the wreckage of the 39 ships destroyed at Wolf 359, that wreckage included a Nebula-class ship. The name of that ship was not visible at normal magnifications.  Shortly thereafter, Commander Shelby referred to the Melbourne. Shelby did not point at the Nebula wreckage when she said that.  Shelby did not identify any wreckage in particular as the Melbourne.  Because the Nebula wreckage was very prominent, she may or may not have been referring to that ship as the Melbourne.  However, the name was not visible and she may have been mistaken as we have already established that THE Melbourne was an Excelsior-class.  She may have been referring to the wreckage of one of the other 38 ships destroyed.  It is also possible that she was referring to the Melbourne in general in the knowledge that had Riker accepted that command, he would have been dead or assimilated.  Without additional dialog or on-screen activity her utterance lacks clarity and is inconclusive in establishing that the Nebula-class was also named Melbourne.


 * As noted earlier by Tiberius the enlarged picture of the wrecked Nebula-class has no name visible and only 4 of the 5 registry numbers visible. If Shelby did look at this ship and identify it as the Melbourne it is unclear how or why she did.


 * This information is discounted in accordance with Canon Policy:
 * Models are production material and valid for background.
 * Other websites arguments and interpretations are expressly non-canon.


 * Therefore, by applying basic logic and an understanding of the rules of the English-language to the dialog and visual evidence available, in accordance with Canon Policy, it STILL appears that there was only one ship named Melbourne, it was an Excelsior-class and the assertion there was a second Melbourne is unfounded.


 * Finally, I thought this was one place where trying be logical would be a good thing. – StarFire209 03:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you please write shorter responses? Seriously, you can summarize better than that, I'm not going to waste my time reading through 3000+ every time. One thing, 39 ships were not visible when Shelby made her comment, they just weren't. We have the shooting model, and guess what, half of the ships on this site are named FROM THE SHOOTING MODEL. That is how we operate here. We also have the model that Riker had in the ready room, which matches the model of the Nebula from BOBW. Matches the ship he was OFFERED COMMAND OF. But as I said, half of the ships on this site are named from the model because the names weren't visible on screen. --OuroborosCobra talk 03:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * But that is still missing the fact that a later episode depicted the battle again, this time showing (much more clearly than anything before) a ship called Melbourne being destroyed, and it was a Excelsior-class vessel. As was said, that may very well be a ret-con (depending on what really was intended at the time of BoBW), but that doesn't invalidate the information. Even if we accept a second Melbourne (because of the named models), there's just no need to assume that this second Melbourne was definitely destroyed at Wolf 359, too. -- Cid Highwind 09:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by destroyed? The wreakage of the second Melbourne shows the ship with multiple hull breaches and severe damage, so it wasn't destroyed technically like say, the USS Saratoga (NCC-31911).  Then again, if we use that logic the Excelsior Melbourne wasn't destroyed either. 70.51.229.182 16:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the wordiness. I get like that when I feel I'm not getting through. Shooting models may be useful but they shouldn't be allowed to create contradictions. If the new movie shows a list of ships destroyed at Wolf 359 that doesn't match the list based on the shooting models, which is canon? (If they do, let's hope they don't show Melbourne as a Galaxy-class.) – 68.83.22.132 14:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Cid, with do respect, I am NOT forgetting about Emissary and the new footage, I am saying that there are TWO Melbournes. Two. So what if it was clearer? The other one was clear enough, especially when coupled with the model We have tons of ships here, especially BOBW ships, named only from the model. This ship was seen, so was the other, they are BOTH Melbournes. Hell, if you want me to come up with a logical explanation for the two of them being their, I'll go with DITL's (obviously not canon and should not go in the article), the Excelsior Melbourne was getting retired, but pulled out to take part in the battle (they needed every ship they could get), and the Nebula one had been built to replace it. There goes the logical problem of two Melbournes. I really don't see the problem, but if we get rid of this, we better also get rid of USS Alka-Selsior, USS Chekov, etc., as we have even LESS on screen evidence for those names. I am not discounting Emissary, not at all. Don't know why you would think that, because I'm not. --OuroborosCobra talk 20:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Nor am I discounting the Excelsior-Melbourne from "Emissary". I was the one who came up with 2-melbourne approach in the first place.  70.51.229.34 20:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC) (aka Ensign_Q)

The fact remains that there is no evidence for a Nebula class Melbourne that is not directly contradicted by the highest of canon sources - what appears on the screen. (and don't tell me that we saw a nebula class melbourne on screen. Unless you can show me a framegrab that shows the model clearly labelled melbourne, it doesn't count.  Same with the model Riker had.)  The claim that there were two Melbournes is just an attempt to avoid saying that the shooting model that we never got a look at didn't count.--Tiberius 07:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I hope this isn't going to be the way this issue is dealt with, with it being swept under the rug. Can we get a clear decision on this, merge or no merge?--Tiberius 01:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd have to say no, on the Merge, if we have evidence on a Nebula Class, and a Excelsior class having the name Melbourne, it should be left as such. With the two name thing, that's really easy, with the though that it was mentioned Starfleet was in such a rush, that the ships didn't have time to offload the civilians, right? Perhaps a nearby training ship or ship that was testing technology went to the battle.  And no, I am not offering a speculation to post on the site, or to use as reasoning for both pages to exist.  Aside from the fact both pages seem to have enough info to exist, the pages also seem to be sourced, I'd say canon wise, they both exist.--Terran Officer 20:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

There's no source for a Nebula class Melbourne that has not be directly contradicted on the screen. And there is no canon source for two Melbournes. All we have to support the Nebula Melbourne is behind the scenes info, and MA's policy clearly indicates that in the event that backstage info is contradicted by on screen info, the on screen info is more authoritative.--Tiberius 23:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I hate to sound rude, but I am going to. You continuing to say "there is no source" is an outright lie. You have been shown now a number of on screen sources and other sources that match what we allow on MA, by our policies. Quit lying and saying there isn't. -- G O  R E D S O X  23:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

My point has always been that there is nothing that we saw on screen the legibly said "USS Melbourne" on a Nebula class vessel. I know full well that there have been nebula class models that have had that label, but those labels were never visible in the finished episodes that went to air. There was only one time when there was a ship clearly labelled "USS Melbourne" in an episode, and that was the Excelsior class vessel in the DS9 pilot. Yes, I have been shown those pics of the wreckage at Wolf 359, and I have been shown images of the model on Riker's desk in "Future Imperfect", but the fact remains that never in the actual episodes do we see them clearly labelled as the Melbourne. To see the label, we MUST go to backstage, behind the scenes sources. The Exclesior class melbourne, on the other hand, was clearly seen to be labelled the Melbourne in the finished episode. So, we must use backstage sources to support the Nebula-Melbourne claim. And when a backstage source conflicts with an on-screen source, which one is more legitimate?--Tiberius 04:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * There was nothing on screen for just about any of our Wolf 359 ships. What is so bad about two Melbournes? Does it violate some rule that we saw elsewhere stated in canon? What Starfleet regulation is being violated here? --OuroborosCobra talk 05:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Not Starfleet regulations, but this website's own policies. The states "Information from production materials (such as dialogue in scripts that was cut for the finished product) and reference materials (such as the Star Trek Encyclopedia) should be noted in the relevant article's background section."  Given that you can't provide any evidence for a Nebula class Melbourne that doesn't fall into the category of production material as used in this sense, the direct on screen evidence for an Excelsior class Melbourne as seen in the DS9 pilot clearly overrides the production material-based claim for a nebula Melbourne. The same article also states "'In the event that any of this [production material] information contradicts on-screen information, however, then the information stated on-screen will take precedence.'" From this, it is clear that the clearly visible Excelsior class Melbourne takes precedence over the nebula class Melbourne claim. To claim that there was a Nebula class melbourne is either a violation of memory Alpha's canon policy, or it is just pure speculation. Thus, I believe that the proper form for this article should be based on the Excelsior Melbourne seen in "Emmissary", with a background section saying that the ship was represented by a nebula class model for the best of Both Worlds, but that when it came time to film a close up of the vessel for DS9, the choice was made to go with the more detailed Excelsior model. This satisfies the MA canon policy, removes the speculation about two different ships with the same name at the same place and still provides information about how the Nebula model was used when they actually filmed the episode. And for the record, I don't have a problem with the other wolf 359 ships because the shooting models for those (such as the Kyushu etc) aren't contradicted by later episodes. The Melbourne is the only case where such a contradiction exists.--Tiberius 03:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * There isn't much more that could be said here, I think. Unless we want to take another shot at our policies (for which this wouldn't be the right place), Tiberius is right - and, on top of that, it's not as if information would be lost by following this merge suggestion. Where visitors now have to read two articles and find out what is speculation and what is fact themselves, the merged article would present the same information in a less misleading way. -- Cid Highwind 11:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * If that is the decision, we are going to have to consider our position on a large number of starship articles from Wolf 359, and merge them into unnamed ship articles. As I see it, we either accept model information, or we don't. --OuroborosCobra talk 12:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Then you are apparently seeing that wrong - see the policy part that was cited above. To be honest, I wouldn't mind a stricter policy in that regard, but that's not the way it has been decided again and again. -- Cid Highwind 12:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I've read the policy above, and I don't see how it applies, as I don't see any contradiction, what so ever. I would only see contradiction if we tried to include one over another, but we aren't doing that here, therefore I see no contradiction, just supplementary information. The only way you could convince me this was a canonical contradiction is if you could present me with irrefutable canon evidence that there can only be one ship with a name at any given time in Starfleet. Now, as far as I know, we do not have said evidence, therefore I do not see a contradiction to support the removal or demotion of this information. Therefore, if we are going to merge, it can only be on the basis of excluding background information. --OuroborosCobra talk 13:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

OuroborosCobra, the contradiction is that backstage production material says the melbourne was a Nebula class vessel when on screen evidence says the melbourne is an Excelsior class vessel. In this case, MA's own canon polcy 9which I have quoted) indicates that the direct onscreen evidence over-rides the production material. The only reason to maintain the Nebula melbourne is to keep production material as being equal to on screen evidence - which it is not.  True, there is an explanation with the two melbourne idea, but that is pure speculation.  If we are to treat production material as canon, then the Hansen's ship was the Jefferies, not the Raven, because there was a graphic on janeway's computer that called it the jefferies.  This is the exact same sort of thing.  When production material X contradicts onscreen evidence Y, Evidence Y is considered canon and evidence X is included as a background note, nothing more.  This is MA's own canon policy, and you are refusing to apply it in this case.  As for the other ships at Wolf 359, I am not proposing to remove the articles of them and merge them into an "unamed ship" article. Your claim about accepting model information or not isn't applicable, because I have never said that a ship whose name and registry are only visible in production photos doesn't count. My claim is that the name and registry visible only in production photos doesn't count IF AND ONLY IF that information is constradicted by a higher source. When it comes to the Melbourne, the name and registry visible on the shooting model of the Nebula class is indeed contradicted by a higher source. Thus, I am proposing that it be changed to reflect that higher source.--Tiberius 02:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, please shorten your response. Honestly, I am not reading through your text walls each time, and I am sure you could be far more concise than you are. Second, change your thinking slightly, and suddenly there is no contradiction. On screen evidence from Emissary says that there was A Melbourne that was Excelsior class. I don't remember anything on screen in Emissary saying that it was the only Melbourne present, do you? On screen evidence from two episodes of TNG combined with the model information (and the models were seen onscreen, just not at the best angle) says that there was A Nebula Melbourne. Essentially, stop saying "the Melbourne" and start saying "a Melbourne", and suddenly there is no contradiction. --OuroborosCobra talk 09:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

There's no rule saying how much I'm allowed to write here. Secondly, if there was more than one Melbourne at Wolf 359, why didn't Riker say, "Which one?" when Shelby reported those ships that had been destroyed? Thirdly, the idea of two melbournes is nothing but speculation in order to keep the background information of the nebula Melbourne on the same standing as the clearly seen excelsior Melbourne. If we are to have things like that as canon, then the real source of the Enterprise's power is a hampster on a treadmill, because that's what it had in the MSD in engineering, even though it was never seen. As I said before, the Nebula class melbourne is only recognisable when you look at backstage sources, and as such should be disregarded when contradicted by evidence on screen. To say that there were two melbournes at all is speculation based on a contradicted source.--Tiberius 18:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow, a lot here.....I will say that I support the concept of a merge, with a mention of the various theories regarding this situation. I don't think this would require excluding very much material.  I do know that the Encyclopedia said that the Melbourne was "really" an Excelsior-class ship, despite its appearance in BOBW, and that it was switched so a model with more detail could be used.  While not appropriate in every case, I think in this relatively minor case we should go with the intentions of the powers that be. 31dot 16:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * There may not be a steadfast rule on "how long" a post should be, but if you write a 50 line text wall that could have been done in 10 lines, no one is going to read it all. That is a fact of the internet. As for Riker asking "which one", the Nebula one was ON THE SCREEN (one of those visuals you keep denying took place), therefore he could SEE which one with his own two eyes. As I have said 50 times now, there are dozens of articles based on nothing more than background information, so given the amount of on screen information we have, I see no reason to deny this canon status while allow USS Alka-Seltzor (or whatever it is), which was meant as nothing more than a joke. --OuroborosCobra talk 19:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Do we know for certain that the names of the vessels coincided with the ones that were on the viewscreen as they were being spoken? Is it possible that the reading of the names had nothing to do with the vessels that were on the screen(perhaps they were simply naming off ships they knew were at the battle, and were not witnessing them)?  I also don't see how a merge would diminish the canon status of a theory which the powers that be themselves have said is not correct. 31dot 19:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * She paused and was looking at each one as they appeared. Call me crazy, but you don't look at a small number of wrecks, then list a random and completely different list of names while staring at them. --OuroborosCobra talk 20:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I see your point, although it would not be unreasonable to think that Shelby was in shock over the situation and that was affecting her. I also wonder how she knew the names of the ships if she couldn't see them, assuming she was seeing what we were(I mean, if we could read them, we wouldn't be having this conversation) 31dot 20:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Same way we have identified them, familiarity with ship class, other features, etc. --OuroborosCobra talk 20:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

As for Shelby's mention of the Melbourne, I've already stated: "{The Melbourne} only appears on the Enterprise's viewscreen immediately after Riker says, "On Screen", and then for a brief moment in the lower left corner. It quickly moves out of sight as the Enterprise is moving forwards and passes the wreck. This occurs 16:32 into the episode. Shelby does not mention the melbourne's name until 16:57 - a full 25 seconds AFTER the ship claimed to be the nebula class Melbourne appears. Immediately before the names the Melbourne, there is a shot showing the viewscreen as the wrecks of all the ships float past - and NONE of those ships visible is a nebula class vessel" earlier on this talk page. I don't know why this has been ignored, but it certainly shows that Shelby certainly wasn't reading the names of the ships off the screen. And as for that USS Alka-Seltzer thing, I don't have a problem with that because there is no higher source that contradicts it.--Tiberius 12:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * OuroborosCobra - THe issue here breaks down to this: The Excelsior Class Melbourne is seen clearly on screen, registry number and all. The Nebula class is not in a way that it can be identified as the Melbourne without the aid of background info. This means that under Memory Alpha's cannon policy the evidence for the Melbourne being Excelsior class is stronger than that for Nebula Class. As a result the Nebula Class information should be listed in the backgrond section of the Excelsior class Melbourne page. – Trek 13:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Further to my last comment, if the USS Melbourne should be considered a nebula-class at Wolf 359 because of Shelby's dialoge, then the USS Magellan that took part in Operation Return should be considered a and have it's own entry. There just as much on screen evidence. (Personally I don't think there's enough evidence for either to have a seperate page). – Trek 11:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Riker
Should the "Riker offer of command" be on both articles main text. If we keep these pages separate, which I think is a good compromise idea, should it not be interpreted that only the Nebula Class Melbourne was the one that was offered to Riker and actually commanded the fleet, as it's wreckage was the one seen on screen and the fact that he had the model of the Nebula one on his imaginary table and not the Excelsior one and there's always the fact that a Galaxy Class battle bridge was the set where Hansen's message came from, which is what I would expect to see on a Nebula Class ship too not necessarely on a Excelsior. --Pseudohuman 15:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. I don't know who editted that back in on the other article, since it specifically said NOT to do so. 70.48.243.97 00:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding these new subsections: shouldn't we solve our first issue before running new tangents off the existing problem? ---Alan 01:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think i'm going back on my previous argument on this one. Excelsior-Melbourne is propably the the stronger candidate here, even though I think there was a note from a production source that the Nebula-Melbourne was specifically added to "Future Imperfect" as a reference to the events of BOBW. It was in the Star Trek The Next Generation Companion. I hope someone has it and can check the exact wording. Or if I'm just imagining it :-) But still the evidentiary weight is on the Excelsior-Melburne as it's name comes from a clear on-screen appearance. The possibility should be noted in the Excelsior-Melbourne page though. --Pseudohuman 22:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The Nebula-Melbourne was the only Melbourne seen in the wreakage of BOBw. Shelby's comment was directed at the Nebula-Melbourne, not the Excelsior.


 * And why did you say the wreakage was transported to Z15? We already agreed on several other pages that that at least was speculation. 70.51.233.196 21:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * We? How can that be, this is your first post here. Also, if the model in both episodes reads the same name, if indeed that is the argument in the first case, theoretically it should follow through in the second case, if the same model is reused again... --Alan 21:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Registry
Why do we need to assume that this Nebula Class Melbourne had a different registry than the Excelsior one? There is absolutely no basis to assume that two federation starships can't have the same registry and serve at the same time. There is a very clear president of two starships with same registry in TAS "More Tribbles, More Troubles" and those were even of the same class of ship! Why would it now be such an inconsistancy? --Pseudohuman 01:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you please state which ship in that TAS episode had the same name? 64.230.127.134 16:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Neither of the ships were named in that TAS episode, so we don't know if they had the same name too. I don't think the assumption should be made that two ships can't have the same name at the same time. The Yeager-Yeager seen active before and after the appearance of the Sabre-Yeager is an example of two ships with the same name serving at the same time, there is also the Nebula-Prometheus and Prometheus-Prometheus with no mention of the previous destroyed. There is off course the ambiguous statement that would date FC before the appearance of the Yeager-Yeager, but it could just as well refer to any unseen "latest Borg attack" as nothing more specific is stated and stardates are much more accurately maintained in that era. --Pseudohuman 17:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding these new subsections: shouldn't we solve our first issue before running new tangents off the existing problem? ---Alan 01:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

11001001
Would it not be more likely that the Nebula-Melbourne was the one being repaired at the Starbase 74 in "11001001" as it's the one referenced throughout TNG anyways? A pointer towards this is that prior to the mentioning of attempting to send the Melbourne after the Enterprise, they considered calling the Trieste for help, but it was thought to be too slow and too small. This Nebula-Melbourne in contrast would seem to be a better match for a Galaxy Class ship than an Excelsior Class one. I know it's not much to go on but still. --Pseudohuman 14:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding these new subsections: shouldn't we solve our first issue before running new tangents off the existing problem? ---Alan 01:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This one cancels out too as the evidentiary weight is on the Excelsior-Melbourne sorry for bringing it up. --Pseudohuman 22:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Archive?
Any way some of this could be archived on a subpage? It's getting hard to edit it.--31dot 22:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I second that proposition. Hossrex 22:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Archive what? They are all active conversations, with exception of the first, which I only split from the second half so the "redux" line could be found, (just click "edit" on the "2008" line) as all points there are still as valid. Of course, it would all be a lot easier had the above three subsections weren't added until the first problem was solved. --Alan 22:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The portions of this "active conversation" which are more recent have essentially regurgitated what was said in 2007. It's not like anything new has been said.  I'm not saying get rid of it and forget about it, just that it would be nice to create another page for it.--31dot 22:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Info removed from article
''and Admiral J.P. Hanson's flag ship at the Battle of Wolf 359 against the Borg in 2367. It was destroyed, along with 38 other starships. Prior to its destruction at Wolf 359, the Melbourne transported Admiral J.P. Hanson and Ltd. cmdr. Shelby to Jouret IV to asisst the USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-D) at examining the destruction of the New Providence colony.''

The script for BOBW states that Hanson is aboard a Galaxy-class starship (the battle bridge, from the viewscreen message), and it is not stated that the Melbourne is the Excelsior class seen at the start of Part I. -- Michael Warren 23:19, 20 May 2004 (CEST)

I gotta say, this NCC-42031 registry is complete bunk. The Excelsior seen in Emissary had the NCC-64203 reg plainly visible (while the Nebula had no name or registry visible, indicating it was probably another vessel. --Captain Mike K. Bartel 08:16, 18 Jun 2004 (CEST)

The whole Melbourne doppelganger story has already been scientifically scrutinized by Ex Astris Scientia.com. The Nebula model in BOBW was labeled "Melbourne" (this ship is one of sisko's models in his office, too). However, as far as the registry is concerned, in don't know nothing... --BlueMars 12:35, Jun 18, 2004 (CEST)

The Excelsior in "Emissary" had no visible registry. That's just a fandom urban legend. I dunno where that second registry number came from. However, the Encyclopedia also makes the baseless assumption of discounting the Nebula-class example. We need to make sure that both versions are still mentioned. -- Dan Carlson 20:58, 18 Jun 2004 (CEST)
 * Im going to furnish a screencap, Dan. I read the registry off the hull of the Melbourne from a freezeframe of a VHS tape when i was 13 years old, before the Encyclopedia even came out. Unless we are picking and choosing which canon this site chooses to recognize, which would really make me wonder why we are wasting so much bandwidth and storage space even writing a canon policy and discussing it. The Nebula-class Melbourne is listed where it belongs, as a non-canon footnote in a background section, because it was neither seen onscreen clearly, nor does it jive with the more obvious and visible Excelsior. And I doubt we are allowed to simply 'make up' registry numbers like the previously unheard of NCC-42031 previously in this article--Captain Mike K. Bartel

I am going to mention the Nebula-class ship, because the model clearly said Melbourne, and it was later scene as a model in. 64.230.101.115 23:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The Nebula model may have been marked "Melbourne", but that name was never visible onscreen, and it was visible on the Excelsior-class seen in "Emissary". Now, Starfleet has been known to do some non-standard things with names and registries, but having two ships with the same name at the same time is a bit of a stretch without some "hard" canon sourcing. The usual course of action in these cases is for the onscreen canon to trump the derivative source. It's OK to mention the Nebula model here as Apocrypha, but not to say there were two Melbournes at Wolf 359. There was a Nebula prototype present at Wolf 359 (and its wreckage seen in BOBW and Emissary), but it's name wouldn't have been the Melbourne. --Emperorkalan 01:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

How about the simpler and much more correct answer? The F/X people screwed up, as they frequently do. Instead of trying to write and argue over an elaborate explanation of how "they must be right" and "it's CANON!!!", why not just admit that screw-ups happen in Hollywood, and this is one of them? Roundeyesamurai 01:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Where's the fun in that? Jaf 02:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)Jaf

If you look at the picture of the Nebula class model form Future Imperfect, you can see it says USS Melbourne. Also, we can dismiss the registry on the Nebula Melbourne as "unknown". 207.61.101.2 15:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The Future Imperfect model is from a holodeck simulation. it might be one of the things that clued Riker in that he was in unreality, if a Nebula model was labeled with the Excelsior's registry. Since the NCC-62043 Melbourne was seen clearly, in a real situation, as an Excelsior; the NCC-62043 Melbourne seen in a simulation is outweighed. While we know the model at Wolf 359 was labeled the same way, it wasn't visible at all, so the Emissary reference outweighs it. An interesting point is that, since the "USS" prefix and "NCC-62043" registry belong to the Excelsior ship, it might be speculated that the Nebula was the "SS" Melbourne and had an "NAR" registry, explaining how one fleet could have two ships of the same name -- it was operated under different authority. but in terms of canon, that is neither here nor there. -- Captain M.K.B. 15:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * But there was no Excelsior-class wreakage in "The Best of Both Worlds: Part II". The only ship that Shelby could have been refering to was the Nebula-class ship.  And it is possible there was two of them at the same battle: the excelsior one was a retiring ship, temoparily recommsioned for the battle, and the nebula class one was it's replacement. user: Ensign q


 * I'm a little dubious about that. A ship in mothballs would undoubtedly be stripped of major components, including the weapons systems.  Bringing the ship out of mothballs, reinstalling weapons and other stripped components, fuelling her, embarking even the barest of supplies needed, and bringing her up to even the barest of operational readiness, and then actually making the trip to Wolf 359, would take ALOT longer than the period of time in which the operational vessels were converged at Wolf 359.


 * Also, Starfleet wouldn't have a ship "retiring" when another of the same name was already in service. It'd already be long retired before the next vessel of the same name was christened.  Otherwise, command-control-communications and logistics would get to be pretty confusing, for both of the vessels and for Starfleet Command. Roundeyesamurai 02:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * But it explains why there were two USS Melbournes, and also why they both had the same regitry. Perhaps the Nebula's registry was NCC-62043-A.

Also, its possible that the Excelsior-class ship was coincidently just retired just prior to the borg attack. Remeber, the Nebula melbourne was a prototype, so it probably took longer to make than usual. 64.230.37.96 01:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC) (aka Ensign Q)

Still doesn't jive- having a "USS Melbourne" under construction and another in service would cause most of the same logistical and C3 problems as having two in service- and it would also be the same breach of naval tradition. If there were extenuating circumstances to explain the presence of two "Melbourne"s, that might be different.

I'm still chalking it up to one of the thousands of behind-the-scenes screwups. Just because it appears "on-screen" doesn't necessarily mean that is how it was intended. When the tight schedule for production and post-production, severe bugetary constraints, and all other realities of television producing are taken into account, a multitude of screwups like that are bound to occur. Roundeyesamurai 06:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Can't we just except that there were two Melbournes at the battle. The Nebula model labeled "Melbourne" was also seen in "Emissary" (the second pic). 64.230.103.13 14:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC) (aka Ensign q)

No, we can't. That would be conjecture. Unless someone has screenshots of both vessels AT Wolf 359- with their registries visible and legible, and with enough of the hull present in both shots to establish that there were two vessels by that name- or can provide dialogue, or production notes that establish that that was the intention of the production staff, then the presence of two Melbournes is conjecture- and it is conjecture which is only supported by a discrepancy in post-production. Roundeyesamurai 16:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Nebula Melbourne at Depot Z15
I think we need to talk about this. What evidence do we have that the Melbourne was moved here? Yes, they reused the model of the wreckage, but they reuse models all of the time to represent different ships of the same class, even different classes. I am not sure that using the same model is enough evidence to say that they moved the Melbourne from Wolf 359 to this depot. --OuroborosCobra 23:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, the model did have "USS Melbourne" on it, and it wasn't mentioned to be any other ship. Besides, the in the footage of the Venture at DS9 (File:Uss_venture_docked%2C_ds9.jpg) which was reused for three episodes, the ship was always the Venture. Plusm the Melbourne was a one of a kind one off Nebula-class, so in all likelihood it was the same ship.

Ensign q 15:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * How do we know the Melbourne was the only Nebula class ship of that configuration? True, we have never seen any others, but that does not mean it is the only one. I do not know of any dialogue that says the Melbourne subtype was a one off design, so we cannot assume either way. As has been said by others on the talk pages for the other ships that have been placed in Z15, we need more evidence then just using the same model. A model can be reused (even without altering identification markings) to represent a different ship of the same class. Unless there is dialogue putting them there, or you can see identifying markings ON SCREEN, we need to put this into speculation. With the Venture, there was more evidence than just being a galaxy class ship using the same model. In many cases it was eitheir identified in dialogue, or the registry number can be seen. --OuroborosCobra 08:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Riker Command?
Wasn't this the ship that he was offered command of before Best of Both Worlds? If so, that certainly deserves mention. - 66.93.144.171 06:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No, that was the USS Melbourne (Nebula class). --OuroborosCobra talk 06:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Merging?
I think the idea that there were two different Melbournes is pure speculation. I'm in favour of merging the two articles. It's a rather clumsy approach just so we can keep a barely seen piece of background detail in.--211.26.178.83 04:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This is also being discussed on "Talk:USS Melbourne (Nebula class)". Please continue the discussion there. -- Cid Highwind 11:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Merge Suggestion (2008)
As I've said before, can we get a concensus on this? I hope this isn't going to be the standard way of dealing with such an issue, discussing it for a bit and then ignoring it and hoping it goes away.--Tiberius 02:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've glanced through stuff above and give a very short recap to see what the problems are:
 * There are 3 appearances of this thing, in chronological order.
 * There is a prototype Nebula with no clearly visible labelling in BoBW (the model reads USS Melbourne).
 * There is an Excelsior-class USS Melbourne in DS9.
 * There is a desktop model of the prototype ''Melbourne later in DS9.
 * The problem is that these ships are the same. Evidently, it's beyond the scope of Memory Alpha to form a concensus on this, since it's simply impossible. So why not just make one USS Melbournce (NCC-62043) page and explain the controversy there, in a central place. The ships are already called exactly the same, so no need to split them up, I'd say ;) Memory Alpha does not need take sides, or present some sort of consensus version of canon. Simply take the core points of this discussion to the article background section, and leave it up to the interested reader to figure out. Although I admit the exact layout of that page will introduce some more headaches. --  Harry  talk 23:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Given that the only time we saw a ship on screen that was identifiable as the Melbourne was the excelsior class in the DS9 pilot, I think we should go with that, and then explain the controversy in the background notes. This is the best solution in my opinion. it avoids speculation, and it avoids using behind the scenes information to dictate canon when there is contradicting information visible on screen.--Tiberius 23:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I support the idea of a merge(as I said earlier) based on the clearest information available, which seems to be the Excelsior class reference, while also giving all details about this issue.  It is not our job to come up with any sort of canon explanation for a simple production decision about a minor issue, especially when there is no general agreement.  Provide the information in one article and let readers decide for themselves.--31dot 23:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

We're not doing the "Ignore it and it doesn't matter" thing are we? Can we either merge the articles or have an explanation of why speculation and background information have a place in the articles as though they are canon?--Tiberius 07:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, what you are suggesting isn't really a compromise. What we have right now is a compromise.  We have three choices:


 * The Nebula-Melbourne is the only one;
 * The Excelsior-Melbourne is the only one; or
 * Both exist (compromise).


 * Saying one exists over the other isn't really giving the reader a choice. It pretty much says to the reader "only one exists". 70.51.231.79 15:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I am suggesting that we have one page saying that the Melbourne is an Excelsior class vessel, because the Excelsior class version is the only one that we saw to be labelled "Melbourne" on the screen in a finished episode (The Nebula class version is only supported by background information, and is thus ranked lower in the source hierarchy). And we include in a note the background information, saying something like, "While the Melbourne was seen onscreen to be an Excelsior class vessel in the DS9 Pilot, study models of the Nebula class ship were used to represent the ship in BoBW etc." This will keep the onscreen evidence canon (as it should be) and keeps the background information as background information (again, as it should be).--Tiberius 10:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with what has been said by Harry Doddema, 31dot, and Tiberius. Merge the pages and then explain the discrepancy in background notes. Easiest for the reader, and places canon info above what a model was labeled. Sure, when we have nothing else go with the model's label, but here we have canon info to the contrary.– Cleanse 11:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If we take it as accepted that the Melbourne was destroyed at Wolf359, and that there was later an Excelsior Class Melbourne at DS9 (during Emissary), then either this second Melbourne was brought out of retirement, or they're still making new Excelsior class ships. That we saw Excelsior class ships during the Dominion War means absolutely nothing regarding the expected regular life of the class.  Its possible the Excelsior Melbourne was brought out of mothballs, its possible the Excelsiors in the war were brought out of mothballs.  So Memory Alpha simply must do what Memory Alpha does.  Establish that there was a USS Melbourne (of possibly indeterminate classification) at Wolf359, and that there was a different USS Melbourne at DS9 when the Cardassians handed over the station.  Saying anything else, without canonical evidence would be improper.  There is no reason to say more then we know, or assume anything more then was shown.  Our mission isn't to pad every article until it becomes a complete history of the ship (or whatever).  Our mission is to record all canonical information presented during the run of the six different series, and ten movies.  Its as simple as that, and any attempt to over-reach that goal *WILL* be to the detriment of the mission.  Hossrex 11:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * What happened was that a model labeled as the Melbourne was in the graveyard shots of BoBW. But when new shots of the battle were filmed for DS9's flashbacks, an excelsior model labeled as the Melbourne (with the same registry) was used instead. So the merge suggestion here is that the clearer-established excelsior model (whose registry could be seen) trumps the nebula model (whose registry couldn't be seen on screen).– Cleanse 23:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Than I genuinely apologize, as I misunderstood the nature of the discussion. In this new light, I agree 100% with Cleanse.  I would agree that seeing a registry on screen is a greater source of canonical information than a production model (even if the production model could be canon, if there is a contradiction, it should be clear which trumps).  My bad.  Hossrex 00:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Why would it matter that the reason for adding an Excelsior Melbourne in one scene of one episode with the same name and registry as another ship would need to be interpreted as an inconsistancy. Regardless of the intent "to replace the other one" by the production. They can clearly co-exist given the history of starships with the same name serving at the same time and others with at least the same registry serving at the same time. I strongly disagree with merging the articles as some odd background reason is not enough in my opinion. --Pseudohuman 01:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

When has there been two ships with the same name and the same registry serving at exactly the same time?--Tiberius 03:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, the names of the two Antares-type starships weren't shown in "More Tribbles, More Troubles" but they had the same registry. You can always argue that because they were used as "cargo drones" on that particular mission, they don't count as "real starships", but I think the fact that the Woden had a name and a registry of "a real starship" and was used as a cargo drone on it's final mission as well points to the fact that starfleet considers these ships as commishioned starships none the less. It is NOT that big of a leap that two ships have the same name and registry too in my opinion. Considering that they even used the Nebula-Melbourne in the "Emissary" battle scenes. It might have been intended as a replacement, but ended up just as an addition. --Pseudohuman 10:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ouch. I guess this is why TAS was non-canon for so long.  Its my understanding that Memory Alpha allows for different levels of canon.  What I mean is, that something could be considered canon (i.e. background information from a script, production models, etc), but at the same time considered less canon than other sources (directly stated/seen on screen).  If the only time we ever saw that name and registry number of the Melbourne was on the Excelsior class ship, then in my opinion thats what we go with.  While I think its important that we catalog TAS as canon (which it is), that perhaps it'd be best to not necessarily use TAS to determine a pattern of logic. Hossrex 18:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I rather think this one falls down to the policy of Memory Alpha concerning conficts in valid sources. I quote: "The presumption should be that a conflict does not exist unless no other explanation is reasonable under the circumstances." and the reasonable explanation here is that the assumption that "two starfleet ships cannot exist at the same time with the same name and registry" is wrong as it is just that - an assumption. When you erase this assumption there is no conflict and no level of canon needs to be ignored. --Pseudohuman 19:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * But the very next paragraph after the one you've quoted says the following


 * In writing articles archivists should be guided by the principle that a valid resource with a higher precedence can (but does not have to) be given slightly greater evidentiary weight for purposes of writing the article from a Trek universe standpoint than the valid resource with a lower precedence. The conflict still needs to be noted in the article, though.


 * Seeing it on screen holds greater evidentiary weight then a production model, or script note. It was the very next paragraph.  I have no problem noting the inconsistency, as per Memory Alpha policy, but clearly it need not be two articles.  Unless you purpose to change the policy, but this wouldn't be the correct avenue for that action.  Besides...  if they were two different ships, with the same name, and the same registry number...  for your assumption to be valid, wouldn't that mean both of those Melbournes were at Wolf359?  Wouldn't that be confusing in battle?  Policy genuinely demands the pages be merged, and the inconsistency noted.  Hossrex 21:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That bit of policy only aplies when there is an inconsistency. In the case of the two Melbournes there is not one. A "fan theory" is not enough to make an inconsistency real. Fan theories belong in the lowest of categories on what to build articles on. Both Melbournes were at Wolf 359 as seen in "Emissary" and I'm sure the starfleet people found a way to tell them apart lol. --Pseudohuman 23:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Alright, I'm going to bring a bit of a spin on things using my own imagination. What I am about to write is purely speculation, but seems much more logical than anything else.


 * First, re-cap: In BoBW2, we see a Nebula-class variant apparently named the Melbourne, but in Emissary we see an EXCELSIOR-class Melbourne with a much more legible name and registry. The only evidence of the Nebula being named Melbourne is from off-screen evidence and a model displayed in DS9.


 * Now, everyone is arguing whether or not there were 2 Melbourne's, but I have a new idea:


 * What of the Nebula-class variant seen in BoBW is, in reality, not Melbourne, but a differently named ship, and the model seen in DS9 is actually a NEW Melbourne that was being/was built to replace the Excelsior-Melbourne after it was destroyed? Keep in mind that DS9 began at least one month after Wolf 359, so it is certainly plausible that a new Melbourne of the same variant as the 4-nacelle Nebula destroyed at Wolf 359 was at least being built, and that models of it had already been built by entrepreneurs and sold to people. How do we know that no other Nebula's were of "Melbourne" configuration or "Phoenix" configuration? How do we know that all Nebula's had the new configuration?


 * Again, all of this is purely speculation, but it seems quite logical and very plausible to me. TimberWolf 23:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Pseudohuman said: "That bit of policy only aplies when there is an inconsistency. In the case of the two Melbournes there is not one. A "fan theory" is not enough to make an inconsistency real."


 * But thats what you're doing. Presenting a "fan theory" that there were two Melbournes at the same time.  The production model (an allowed, but not preferred source) showed the Melbourne as a Nebula class ship, while the visible on screen evidence (a preferred, iron clad source) showed the Melbourne as an Excelsior.  Memory Alphas policy in this situation, based on the quotation I provided above, is to use the evidence with "slightly greater evidentiary weight".  Thats Memory Alpha policy.  The only logic you have to show that its possible for two ships to have the same registry number, and commissioned name is the Animated Series, and I find that a dubious logic train to follow.  You have to know full well that the producers of Star Trek didn't intend there to be two Melbournes at the same time, and you have to know full that the only reason there were two ships with the same registry number on the Animated Series was the constraints on the animators/budget.  So since it was clearly not the intention of the people responsible for producing the show to have two Melbournes, it was in fact an "inconsistency".  I've quoted the Memory Alpha policy regarding inconsistencies above, and the matter seems rather cut, and dry, unless you're suggesting that it was the intention of Rick Berman, or Michael Piller (or whomever) to have two different ships with the same name, and Registry.  Your position, even from a STRICT canonical interpretation perspective, is tenuous at best.  Hossrex 00:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Read my idea again. Yes, it is a "fan theory", but I am suggesting that the model appearing in DS9 is a new, read that: NEW, Melbourne built/being built AFTER the first one was destroyed. Nor did I EVER cite ANYTHING from TAS, since MANY fans (including myself) believe it, or at least certain parts of it, to be un-canon. TimberWolf 00:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Re: Timberwolf:


 * A. Hossrex wasn't talking to you. He was talking to Pseudohuman. Note how he said "P said..." and then continued on from there.
 * B. You're misunderstanding the situation. As I said to Hossrex above, the situation here is that we had a nebula Melbourne in the wreckage of BoBW, then an excelsior Melbourne in FLASHBACKS of the Battle of Wolf 359 presented in Emissary. So at the SAME TIME, there were 2 different versions of the Melbourne. There was NOT a Melbourne at DS9 during the (non-flashback) events of Emissary. – Cleanse 04:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I've purposely avoided this conversation for the last 8 months because it is just the same old song, over and over. Now, to cut this short, I don't know how many times we've played the "producers intent" card when it best suits us, this certainly the first time I can recall use ever turning a blind eye to it in favor of a year and a half old, 69 kilobyte long, 18 person orgy of death..


 * So let's look at the facts, again, there were three distinct Melbourne references: (1), (2) / and (3) . The first is an unknown ship-type, the second a Nebula (with a model thrown in for good measure), and the third an Excelsior – the last two were supposedly in the same place at the same time, which is entirely possible, because nothing really contradicts it except our refusal to believe two ships could possibly share the same registry, and without scoffing at the source of that link.
 * So in terms of justifying the Wolf 359 case, we could get all complicated and state that there were two Melbourne's present – both with (all together now) 'the same registry!' – and then continue to fight over how it goes against some fan-made registry system that doesn't exist and/or deciding which Melbourne was mentioned in "11001001" and/or which one was part of Riker's stock option.
 * Or we could do the 'quick and dirty' and simply follow suit with the Star Trek Encyclopedia, and say that there was only one Melbourne (which would quickly solve where the "11001001" reference goes, by the way), followed with a regurgitation what essentially came off of Mike Okuda's keyboard:
 * "There were actually two Starships Melbourne used in these episodes. The first was a model, barely glimpsed as a wrecked hulk in the spaceship graveyard from "The Best of Both Worlds, Part II" (TNG). When the scene was redone three years later for "Emissary" (DS9), a decision was made to instead use the more detailed USS Excelsior model originally built for Star Trek III. Both models were given the same Starfleet registry number, but since the Excelsior version was seen fairly clearly on screen, and the Nebula version was not seen well, we now assume that the Melbourne "really" was an  ship."
 * So with that said, that leaves us with one simple question, do we do the 'quick and dirty', or do we shoot for 100Kb and another year and half discussion? Remember, background notes our are friends, and they've helped us in the past. :) --Alan 06:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Alan breaks it down very well, but allow me to add one thing to what he said (I think he's on the same page as I am). We have three Melbourne references to deal with.  One entirely unseen, unexplained reference (11001001)...  one reference where we don't have any on screen evidence (BoBW)...  and one reference where we see everything on screen, and can make a decision on that basis (Emissary).  The only reason to think we should mention the Melbourne as anything besides an Excelsior (keep in mind all I'm asking for is a merge, and a background note) is that a model was at one time constructed.  Should every constructed model have a Memory Alpha page?  Should ever proposed model have a memory Alpha page?  Where do we draw the line if we're not drawing it at what was seen on screen?  What was seen on screen.  Thats what Memory Alpha is about.  Thats what Memory Alpha has to be about, or else we'll start seeing the return of "Spock was the first Vulcan in Star Fleet", or "Kirk and Spock were gay for each other" stuff.  That isn't a joke.  Thats one of the things we can expect if we start allowing suppositions on Memory Alpha.  Hossrex 07:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There have been so many of these types of decisions by the producers to just replace something seen previously with something new "because it looks cooler". A huge number of props have been replaced, sets, uniforms, phaser rifles, effects, outlooks of shuttles, outlook of ships, the klingon forehead for christ sake, the makeup for the trill, ktarians, the borg, bajoran nose ridges, the romulans, name your pick. Of course the official reason has just been at the time "we replaced it, because it looks better" and mr. Okuda can go on assuming anything he wants, but if there is room for both versions seen on-screen to coexist (as I believe I have pointed out in this one case there to be), I don't think the right course of action should be to replace one with the other. I don't think that is what Memory Alpha is about. And the Nebula-Melbourne has been seen on-screen (just not that well, but there are presidents for that as well). --Pseudohuman 14:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You're recent update, Pseudohuman, doesn't mesh nor can it be justified without making an assumption. As I pointed out, we don't know which Melbourne was referenced in "11001001", and to make matters worse (a reference I didnt consider before) the reference. 'Lieutenant Gregory Bergan was among the Melbourne's crew at Wolf 359' – which Melbourne? Remember, there were two there. This all goes back to the quandry of three references (now four), two ships – who decides where the the unknown variables go? You can't just arbitrarily throw references around when we have no proof to support which reference goes with which ship, when there were two ships in the same place. Additionally, Okuda wasn't just some random guy writing a fan book, his inside information should be treated as such, seeing as he worked with the people who made the decisions, and as well, those people who made the decisions took part in contributing to it as well...just look at the list of production staff in the acknowledgements who contributed to the Encyclopedia. --Alan 19:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Apologies for not explaining the reasons. All references to "the Melbourne" after "Emissary" propably do refer to the Excelsior-Melbourne due to the rationalizations of Okuda. As he was not just a random guy as you say. The "Riker command"-issue at least refers to the Nebula-Melbourne on the basis of the model added to his desktop. As for the 11001001-issue, it was at the time of BOBW propably the source for the Nebula-Melbournes name, but as it was not seen, it belongs to the Excelsior-Nebula article as the evidentiary value Hossrex has quoted comes into play here. But this is a matter open for discussion of course. (that's why I opened the separate thread on it) --Pseudohuman 20:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Pseudohuman said: if there is room for both versions seen on-screen to coexist (as I believe I have pointed out in this one case there to be), I don't think the right course of action should be to replace one with the other.  But only one version of the Melbourne was seen on screen.  The ship in BoBW didn't have a registry that could be seen on screen.  We saw both versions of the Klingons.  We saw both versions of the Trill.  We only saw one ship with the name Melbourne, and all the "maybes", "probablys", and "inferences" in the world doesn't make it more canon than that.  Pseudohuman also said:  The "Riker command"-issue at least refers to the Nebula-Melbourne on the basis of the model added to his desktop.  Thats another inference.  How could you be so constrictively demanding for evidence about Ancient Origins, without even entertaining the proposition for inference, and implication (and in that episode there is even dialog to back up the claim), and yet here you take Riker having a model on his desk as canonical proof that the Melbourne was a Nebula.  I propose that Riker had the Melbourne on his desk because he enjoyed doing models, and thought the design "looked cool".  You're constantly deflecting the issue that we didn't see a registry on screen for the BoBW Nebula class ship.  You're suggesting we retroactively go back and purposely use a source with less evidentiary weight than a source we already have.  One name/registry was seen on screen.  One was not.  I really think to focus on anything else is to deflect, divert, or entirely miss the point.  Hossrex 21:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Memory alpha policy is that if there is a name for a ship available from a valid background source, then it should be used instead of an "unnamed ship" article. Only exception is when that background information contradicts with the canonical information. My whole point has been that here in this case it doesn't. The Nebula-Melbourne should not be added to the "Unnamed Nebula class starships"-page or a merged page when it can have a name and a registry and a page of it's own. Which ship Riker was offered command of is open for debate of course. If we can close this whole merge debate, we can move on to that one. --Pseudohuman 22:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Can we please have one discussion on this page at once. Clearly, solving this issue will make solving the ones listed below much easier, rather than beating 4 dead horses at once.
 * Anyway, bringing back the 'quick and dirty', here are some simple questions, that cannot be answered without some degree of speculation: Which Melbourne was at Starbase 74? We don't know. Which Melbourne was Riker offered? The one destroyed at Wolf 359. Which Melbourne did Gregory Bergan serve on? The one destroyed at Wolf 359. Is the one Riker was offered and the one Bergan served on the same ship? By name yes, but class, we don't know. Okay, so which one was destroyed at Wolf 359? Both of them.
 * So now that we can't make any sort of conclusion from that, why again is it an issue to follow the creative liberties that the production staff took when they changed the ship from a Nebula to an Excelsior and slap it on one page per my original "follow suit with the Encyclopedia" suggestion (and a majority of the suggestions by those commenting above)? All the redundancies have pretty much turned the two pages into one anyway, they both have almost identical content or references, which all the more supports a necessity to merge.
 * Otherwise, this certainly isn't an issue in the dozens of other cases where the production staff changed the designs and classes of numerous other ships in a little something called "TOS-Remastered", where we simply accept the updated, and note the differences from the original. While this isn't word-for-word the same situation, the intentions of replacing poor quality with high(er) quality still applies. --Alan 23:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I vote current edit is the best possible compromise for this matter. It has the behind-the-scenes reasons in the background, it has Memory Alpha policy written all around it. Every bit (dead horse) is where policy demans it to be. It comes at the issue from the position that no inconsistancy exists, and it leaves the reader free to figure out if he wants to dismiss or not dismiss what he sees written there. --Pseudohuman 23:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well it's obvious you didn't read what I wrote above or you wouldn't have ignored the obvious, per my statements, but as Hossrex has so kindly pointed out already, the "readers" technically would not be aware of there being two Melbournes just from sitting in front of their TV because they can't read the model, and not knowing any of the background information (which we are essentially providing), the only Melbourne they know of, for certain, is the Excelsior. The only reason they would have to decide is because we are making them decide.--Alan 23:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * But they can see that oddly shaped wreckage in all those scenes, and that little study model on all those desks too and I bet someone wonders in their mind: what ship might that be. And they come here to get the full story on it. --Pseudohuman 23:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised this debate has gone on for so long, I'm beyond tired of it. One side says one thing, stressing what they feel is important, and ignoring the rest...  then the other side says another thing, stressing what they feel is important, and ignoring the rest...  then repeat ad naseum.  Isn't there a mechanism where we can like vote on whether to merge or not, similar to voting for deletion?  It seems like if there were a vote it'd be pretty one sided.  At the very least it'd allow a venue for each position to give one last succinct summation to their position.  In my opinion the problem is that I can genuinely understand the position of both sides.  I simply fall on the side I have because its my opinion that only one ship can have the same registry/name, and the *ONLY* bit of evidence I've seen to show this isn't true is from the 70's cartoon (which I admit is canon), which was only even true in that instance because of time/budgetary constrictions on the animators.  In my final opinion, seeing one thing once shouldn't *BY NATURE* eliminate it from being the norm...  but nor should it be automatically taken as regular.  If I was into that sort of thing (or thought it had any place on Memory Alpha), I could think of a dozen reasons why those two stupid grain transport ships had the same registry...  all of them just as much a retcon/rationalization/non-canon as most of what Pseudomuman has said.  Lets just take the next step to ending this.  No consensus will be reached, so lets vote.  Hossrex 02:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright, obviously nobody took the time to actually READ THROUGH my entire speculatory idea...


 * Again, my idea: Since a dedication model was shown in Sisko's office on DS9, in Maxwell's office in TNG: The Wounded and shown in TNG: Future Imperfect, all of which happened well after TBoBW, it is VERY possible that it WAS NOT THE A MODEL OF THE SAME SHIP DESTROYED IN THE BATTLE OF WOLF 359. A Nebula-class VARIANT appeared in BoBW,P2, and was only cited as being called "Melbourne" by production staff. Yet, in the actual episode, the name and registry do not appear. The registry is partially gone and the name is completely gone. Now, in "Emissary", we see the more detailed Excelsior-class appears with a legible name and registry, and is apparently the Melbourne. So, tell me, which of these is more likely:
 * 1. There were 2 Melbourne's of different class, yet with the same registry.
 * 2. The Excelsior is the actual Melbourne, and the Nebula variant seen is NOT a Melbourne, but a different ship, and the model seen AFTERWARDS is in actuality a model of a ship being constructed/been built to replace the lost Excelsior-Melbourne, which just happens to be of the same class and variant as the Nebula-"Melbourne" lost at 359.
 * 3. Neither are Melbourne's and you're all a bunch of faggots for thinking they are.*
 * 4. Shelby has an low IQ, despite being in a command position, and thus made an English mistake, and there were 2 or 3 or OVER NINE THOUSAAAAAAAAAAAAAAND Melbourne's there.


 * Seriously consider those options, and then answer. TimberWolf 02:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * PS: *don't take this seriously, please. It's meant as a joke. TimberWolf 02:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think a vote is necessary when one side reaches a position that supports all canon, all of Memory Alpha policy, merges all apparent inconsistencies into text that allows them all to co-exist, and instead of making assumptions without canon basis, actually dissolves those types of assumptions. I understand your side of the argument as well, the underlying need to have everything neat and straightforward, making generalizations from what is presented in most of the material at hand, and wanting to hold on to those generalizations like paradigmas. Dismissing everything that doesn't fit. I find it too rigid of an approach, it creates too much unnecessary inconsistancy where such inconsistancy doesn't need to exist. --Pseudohuman 03:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * To Timberwolf: we all read what you wrote, you just aren't saying anything of any relevance.  Also, please don't use insultingly offensive words (if it was a joke, it was quite an ignorant one, and inappropriate for this, or any discussion on Memory Alpha).  To PseudoHuman:  Of course you don't think a vote is necessary, because you would likely lose.  We've all made our points, and we disagree about what is canon.  The fact that this discussion has continues unabated for almost two years fairly well proves there will be no pure consensus.  This isn't a matter where one side has failed to properly communicate its position.  Both sides are well informed, and make persuasive arguments.  The problem is that we don't agree what constitutes canon in this situation.  You've decided that this doesn't constitute an inconsistency, simply because if it were, a specific Memory Alpha policy would kick in, and yield a result you find unfavorable.  This is an inconsistency.  If this isn't an inconsistency, literally nothing is.  Simply because you weave a complicated tapestry of fan rationalizations, doesn't mean this wasn't an inconsistency.  I saw we vote on this, and be done.  The debate will never end.  Hossrex 06:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think a lot of things are inconsistent even if this one isn't, a lot of things should be ignored for the sake of consistency. I think we even agree on what is canon here. But your argument here in favor of naming one ship as an unnamed and cluttering another article with any more information on it than is absolutely necessary, simply because at one time for one instant it had the same name and registry of another ship is beyond me. Current edit doesn't claim the Nebula-Melbourne to be the Melbourne discussed in any of the episodes from "11001001" to "Infinite Regress", it simply gives it a name and a number and tells the tale of where it has been seen and as a bgnote how it has come to be. It doesn't make the claim that the general rule of names and registries doesn't apply anywhere ever, in fact it notes the matter as a "highly unusual" occurance. What would a so called "merge" really change here for the better. We would still end up with having two separate pages, one about the wreck and it's model (only now moved to the Unnamed Nebula Class Starships-page), and another article of the Excelsior-Melbourne ship. Does the Excelsior-Melbourne article really absolutely need to be cluttered with information and images of another ship that was used portray it before "Emissary" other than a simple note in the background section to that effect, the way it currently is? --Pseudohuman 09:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Pseudohuman said: a lot of things should be ignored for the sake of consistency.  I'll bite.  Name one thing you consider an ignorable inconsistency, if not this.  Pseudohuman said:  I think we even agree on what is canon here.  Than why don't we agree?  Pseudohuman said:  -why you want to merge the articles- simply because at one time for one instant it had the same name and registry of another ship is beyond me.  Because there was no on screen evidence for one being the Melbourne, and there was on screen evidence for the other.  Memory Alpha has a very strict interpretation of what it is to be canon, and that is what is seen on screen.  There is a limited allowance for notes made in script, or on production models, but these sources are not allowed to trump on screen references.  Pseudohuman said:  What would a so called "merge" really change here for the better.  It would follow prescribed Memory Alpha policies by presenting on screen canon information, with limited background notes.  Sometimes I think memory Alphas policies suck, but it isn't for you or I to make that decision.  If you have a problem with policy, arguing the matter here is pointless.  Get the policy changed, then come back and start the debate again.  Pseudohuman said:  We would still end up with having two separate pages, one about the wreck and it's model (only now moved to the Unnamed Nebula Class Starships-page), and another article of the Excelsior-Melbourne ship.  Exactly.  We would still end up having two separate pages, the only difference is that they would be organized in a manner in which the community as a whole has agreed upon.  Pseudohuman said:  Does the Excelsior-Melbourne article really absolutely need to be cluttered with information and images of another ship that was used portray it before "Emissary" other than a simple note in the background section to that effect.  That was a quote from you from April 29th 2008 at 9:51am.  Pseudohuman said:  I understand your side of the argument as well, the underlying need to have everything neat and straightforward, making generalizations from what is presented in most of the material at hand, and wanting to hold on to those generalizations like paradigmas. Dismissing everything that doesn't fit. I find it too rigid of an approach, it creates too much unnecessary inconsistancy.  That quote was from the same day, 3:38am.  When it suits your point you say "why do you want to clutter everything up?  The pages should be neat, and clean".  Then another time you say "your problem is that you're too concerned with things being neat, and clean.  Sometimes you can't be afraid to clutter everything up."  Specifically that You "find it too rigid of an approach".  Is it more important that articles be tidy, or that they be complete?  Because you've made an argument for each of those two mutually exclusive ideas in the last 7 hours.  Why can't we just have a vote on the subject?  Isn't that how wiki's work?  Hossrex 10:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Summary
Just commenting on the suggestion to have a vote on this topic (because I just can't bring myself to read all of the above - might do later, though):

No, wikis don't generally run on "votes" - they run on consensus (or whatever the plural of that happens to be ;)). Furthermore, having a vote on this specific topic would not only be "not a consensus", it would also undermine the existance of content policies and guidelines. We're having those to achieve at least some consistency throughout our article database, so this article should either adhere to these guidelines, or (if the guidelines currently aren't precise enough for this problem) the guidelines need to be adjusted. So, to see if our current guidelines can help here... could someone sum up the above discussion in some short and precise paragraphs? -- Cid Highwind 11:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * From IRC this morning:


 * [08:16] I think the jist is that Pseudohuman wants it the way both pages currently are, as he pretty much changed them to suit his desires during the discussion, and Hossrex it the polar opposite. I've tried to meet in the middle, (probably more in favor of Hossrex, but the Nebula should still be acknowledged) by stating that the Excelsior is the real version, and trying to follow suit with how we treat remastered TOS, that the revision trumps and the former goes to the background, which was the case here.
 * [08:19]  The way the articles are laid out know is really strange.
 * [08:24] Well, basically, there are four overall references (five if you reference the desk study model), two were "seen", two were "unseen"...with the two that were unseen you can only assume which class it goes with (or as it is now, speculate that it is one or the other)..for as redundant as both articles are, you might as well make it one.
 * [08:26]  are any of these references made _after_ BOBW?
 * [08:28] well, Emissary, where the revised Excelsior version appeared...there was one from VOY:Survial Instinct, where there was a reference to some guy having been aboard the Melbourne at Wolf 359...well there were supposedly two Melbournes there, so which was he on?
 * [08:31]  ok... but there are no references to a Melbourne existing AFTER Wolf 359? that's something, at least ;)
 * [08:31] well both melbournes were destroyed at Wolf 359
 * [08:32]  then i agree... make it one page about the (visible) excelsior-melbourne, and add a note about the (invisible) Nebula counterpart
 * [08:34] Pseudohuman argues in favor of the current versions "I vote current edit is the best possible compromise for this matter. It has the behind-the-scenes reasons in the background, it has Memory Alpha policy written all around it. Every bit (dead horse) is where policy demans it to be. It comes at the issue from the position that no inconsistancy exists, and it leaves the reader free to figure out if he wants to..."
 * [08:35] ...Except that it is redundant, and speculative, because the "10011001" and "Survival Instinct" references didnt specify which class.
 * [08:36]  that's true... IF we have two pages, we'd need to make note about those references on both and state that "this might have been the ship that..."
 * [08:36]  i think one very basic common sense guideline should be: "DON'T CONFUSE READERS", which the current articles achieve pretty nicely ;)
 * [08:39]  I had been preparing a possible compromise version last night, before I got fed up with the whole thing...basically not mentioning class in the main 'in-universe' section at all
 * [08:40]  in any case, the merge still seems to be the best solution
 * [08:42] well the thing with not mentioning class is the painfully and blatantly obvious Excelsior version of it we see in Emissary, registry and all. If we had no access to the Encyclopedia or any production information, it would be irrefutable.
 * [08:44]  well, I'll pop it onto the wiki for you to see what I had in mind: User:DarkHorizon/madness


 * [08:57] The Survival Instinct ref could be expanded some, but it still think the same "revisionism" that drives TOS-R was the motivation behind all this..and we didn't have a tenth of the issues with TOS-R that we have with this
 * [08:59] Remastered "The Enterprise Incident" two or three weeks ago changed the class of a Romulan ship from a D7 to a Bird-of-Prey and we updated accordingly and no one even blinked.
 * [09:03]  what about the Medusan vessel/Medusan homeworld issue?


 * [09:04] well, one is a ship, the other a planet...not quite apples to apples, but DH, yeah, you kind of have a point...


 * Just thought I would add that from this morning, because we really don't need 50 summaries to the 50 comments. --Alan


 * I'll take a stab at this.... As I see the dispute,(which is hard to do, given the volume of info), it boils down to: one faction believes there to be two Starships Melbourne at Wolf 359 (a Nebula class and an Excelsior class) and thinks that two articles are the best way to deal with it, regardless of whether you accept that or not. Another faction essentially agrees with the ST Encyclopedia which says that the Melbourne "really" was an Excelsior class ship and the Nebula class ship initially identified as the Melbourne is another starship entirely.
 * The latter(which, to be fair, I will say I agree with) says that the fact that the Excelsior Melbourne was clearly marked as such and the Nebula one was not should result in one article about the Excelsior class, with a major Background note stating the change in model, why it happened, and other interpretations.  They don't think there should be two seperate articles because the evidence supporting their argument is more clear and does not require the use of background information.
 * The former (as I understand it) says that their argument has no more and no less weight than the other side, and as such should not be reduced to background information. If it was at all possible that there were two Starships Melbourne at Wolf 359, then there should be two articles, each stating the dispute and its interpretations.
 * I think the key issues here are what canon evidence outweighs what, and how to deal with it. Please do not take my briefness as ignorance of other points of view, but I think this is the essential dispute.--31dot 22:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Is it allowed to remove the offensive language written above?--31dot 22:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I sure don't have a problem with someone removing the word Timberwolf used. Regarding what Cid said:  No, wikis don't generally run on "votes" - they run on consensus...  (~snip~)...  having a vote on this specific topic would not only be "not a consensus", it would also undermine the existance of content policies and guidelines.  I apologize for using the wrong word.  It would seem you understood perfectly what I *meant*, and were simply dwelling on the language, instead of the intent, which is strange...  but I do apologize.  Notice however that the "pages for deletion" section of Memory Alpha uses the word "vote".  Does that page also undermine Memory Alpha?  How about this.  I vote we do whatever it is we do when all but one person agree to do something, and no consensus has been reached in over a year.  I've laid out all the Memory Alpha policy reasons for merging, and noting...  and Pseudohuman can do is say he doesn't want it that way, meaning he has a problem with the policy more than anything else.  Hossrex 22:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Cid Highwind: As I understand it, Hossrex thinks it warrants a conflict that can have no reasonable explanation from the in-universe point-of-view, that two ships existed simultaneously with the same name and same registry. Therefore he wants the ship that was seen legible on-screen to be the only ship with the name and registry and the other to be referred to as an "unnamed". I think there is a reasonable in-universe explanation possible for them to have the same name and registry, and therefore think the preferred approach should be followed here and both resources remain valid, as there is available legible visual material of the other ship from a verifiable production source.


 * The "no reasonable explanation" argument relies on the fact that the general guideline has been that starships have different names and different registries. If one ship has the same name as another, it generally means the previous ship was either retired from service or destroyed. The on-screen legible ship was specifically introduced by production to represent the ship previously portrayed by the other model and therefore got the same name and registry. It is also not conclusively established on-screen that the other model ever represented the same ship, therefore it should remain as an "unknown" and have no article of it's own.


 * The "reasonable explanation" argument relies on the fact that the general guideline has not been established to be totally absolute. Ships have been seen with same registries before on-screen simultaneously, even though these occurances can also be attributed to production mistakes. This case does not have to be interpreted as an inconsistancy when it can be interpreted as a rare occurance. The legible ship should be accepted to be "the real ship" referenced in dialogue of several episodes as it was specifically introduced by production to represent this ship. The other one should be treated as only having its own appearances, but still having the same name and registry as the other one and an article of it's own. --Pseudohuman 22:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Pseudohuman said: As I understand it, Hossrex thinks it warrants a conflict that can have no reasonable explanation from the in-universe point-of-view, that two ships existed simultaneously with the same name and same registry. Thats not my position even in the slightest. It isn't *ABOUT* what you, or I can explain. Its about what was seen on screen, and how much evidentiary weight our source for canon carries. Statements made in script notes, and production models do not carry the same evidentiary weight as on screen sources. That statement is taken directly from Memory Alpha policy. I'm not even the slightest bit concerned with "explanations". Not reasonable, or otherwise. I'm concerned with canon, and Memory Alpha policy. If something is supported by canon, but is the stupidest thing in the world, I'll stand behind it. If something isn't supported by canon, but its the most awesome thing in the world, it has no place on Memory Alpha. Hossrex 22:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * To Hossrex: Evidentiary weight of valid sources only matters when there is a conflict. As you say "If something is supported by canon, but is the stupidest thing in the world, I'll stand behind it." So will I. Perhaps you are not familiar with the fact that a legible image of a model seen on-screen from a production source is considered a valid source aka canon, by Memory Alpha policy. I by the way do not support the recent changes made by 70.51.233.196 --Pseudohuman 23:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Pseudoman said: Perhaps you are not familiar with the fact that a legible image of a model seen on-screen from a production source is considered a valid source aka canon, by Memory Alpha policy.  Perhaps you are not familiar with the fact that production sources are considered canon, but not considered as canon as information seen on screen.  That you would even phrase that barb the way you just did was insulting.  I've said ten times at least in this discussion that script notes, and production models are considered canon...  but they are *NOT* considered canon equal to that of what is seen on screen.  You knew that I knew that, you're simply trying to make it look like I don't know what I'm talking about, which is utterly pointless because I guarantee you that any changes being made have nothing to do with me.  I didn't convince Cid, or anyone else of anything.  My position just happens to be the position supported by Memory Alpha policy.  Hossrex 23:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * To Hossrex: My appologies. I really meant no insult, also I should have placed the statement on a different paragraph concerning 70.51.233.196, I did not mean to imply it was connected to you. So, to summarize, both our positions are supported by Memory Alpha policy, mine if there is no conflict, yours if there is one. I don't know how to accurately phrase your position in relation to mine with the words you would use. But perhapes it is clear now for everyone what our positions are. --Pseudohuman 00:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * For what its worth, I do understand how Memory Alpha policy could be interpreted to support both positions. Hossrex 00:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * In case anyone cares, there IS evidence of a Melbourne existing after Wolf 359, or are we now ignoring the dedication models seen in TNG, in two episodes after BoBW,P2, and DS9? TimberWolf 02:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * We're talking about starships here, not models. --Alan 02:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Unless I'm mistaken, aren't dedication models, in-universe, made to resemble actual starships? And aren't they made when a starship has been built and distributed to anyone that wants one?


 * You can't just ignore one thing and embrace another. There is evidence that a different Melbourne was made after the Excelsior one was destroyed, and that it just happened to have been of the same class variant as a Nebula destroyed at Wolf 359. TimberWolf 14:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * PS: The only exception to the first paragraph is that Constellation model Picard has. But, even then, it could've been a ship that was built and registered but not named.


 * TimberWolf: you are right, it is also completely possible to dismiss the Excelsior-Melbourne as a ship that was retired before The Battle of Wolf 359 and due to the crisis pulled out of retirement to serve along with it's successor. This too is a rationalization, even though it proves there doesn't need to be a conflict, and all canon sources can remain valid. We can create similar theories perfectly in line with established canon to justify every inconsistancy in Star Trek. And we as fans propably do, but Memory Alpha needs to keep it simple to a point.


 * This discussion is about where that point is. When should a starship have a page of its own and when should it exist only as a background note. Where that line is. As it has become apparent we desperately need a written policy that CANNOT be interpreted to support both positions in any similar cases as CidHighwind has suggested.


 * As of now starships in similar circumstances that have retained a page of their own and not been merged include Bonaventure (C1-21) - Phoenix, The USS Enterprise (XCV 330) - Enterprise NX-01. Then there are the cases like Klothos (D5-class) - Klothos (D7-class) and USS Ahwahnee (NCC-73620) - USS Ahwahnee (NCC-71620) where there has been a merge.


 * Literary interpretation of the current policy on conflicts reads to the effect: It should always be the presumption that a conflict does not exist when it is possible to interpret it doesn't and preserve both sources without dismissing either. That on it's own would not support merges at all when it's possible to interpret there were two Klothoses and two Ahwahnees as that would preserve the integrity of both sources. It supports the extension of interpretation to rationalization in every conflict and does not draw the line when such a conflict is conflict enough to be taken as an actual conflict and when it is not.


 * What then is the difference between the cases of Bonaventure and XCV 330 compared to Klothos and Ahwahnee. I can see two.
 * 1. The fact that Bonaventure was seen as a display-model and as a computer screen, XCV 330 was seen as several paintings and a display graphic (= multiple references in conflict with multiple references) D5-Klothos was spoken of once, D7-Klothos seen once and Ahwahnee was seen once, then named once (= single references in conflict)
 * 2. The names in essence are the same for Klothoses and Ahwahnees. Any difference can be attributed to a typo or a mistake "5 is 7" or "3 is 1". NX-01 can't be a typo of XCV 330, Phoenix cant be a typo of Bonaventure.


 * According to the 1st difference Nebula-Melbourne deserves a page of it's own, according to the 2nd it doesn't. So, a line should be clearly drawn in the policy page somehow to justify the times when a conflict should be presumed to exist (regardles of the rationalization that points out it doesn't) and when we should presume a conflict doesn't exist. Then we can write consistantly articles that follow that policy as a princible. --Pseudohuman 17:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Its impossible to put too much weight on models seen on desks, or shelves, as all that indicates is that likely that class of ship exists, or existed. It puts no inherently implied name to the ship, without a person making an assumption.  As far as I can see, regarding Pseudohumans newest findings, is that it isn't quite as analogous as it appears.  We know what happened here.  We know why it happened.  Its illogical to say "we must accept what the production designers have said regarding which ship was supposed to be the Melbourne in BoBW, but we must ignore what the production designers have said regarding which ship was supposed to be *THE* Melbourne in Emissary."  Either we accept what the producers say, or we don't.  If we accept what they say, the Excelsior Melbourne was the only Melbourne, because they changed their mind.  If we don't accept what they say, the Excelsior Melbourne was the only Melbourne, because it was the only Melbourne identifiable on screen.  There is 100% as much logic for having an in universe article for the Millennium Falcon, as there is for the Nebula Melbourne.  Hossrex 21:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * As you know, Hossrex, information from production staff, even if it's Okuda, is considered reference material only. It is on the same level as all background information. We know of the producers intent in this case only from the background material. We know of the name on the starship and the dedication model from a source considered canon. Producers intent doesn't carry as much weight as that canon and under current policy should be ignored when that canon contradicts it.


 * As for the Millennium Falcon. If the Falcon-model would of had any kind of text on it, even an in-joke name, when it was used in First Contact, I'm sure it would have a page of its own in Memory Alpha instead of being listed as the Cylindrical Ship at the Battle of Sector 001 in the Unnamed Federation starships-page as has been demonstrated by the likes of USS Alka-Selsior. --Pseudohuman 23:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Why does it matter if the Falcon has a name printed on the ship? We have ships listed on Memory Alpha where we never saw the name on a production model, and the name was never said on screen, but only mentioned as background notes by the production staff (several alien ship fits this qualification).  We know what the name of the ship is from the production artist who created it.


 * As for all the rest of the stuff you said where you were talking about some things being canon, but different things being more canon than others, and contradictions should weigh the level of canon to determine we go with almost entirely debases your previous comments. You literally go as far as to say "Producers intent doesn't carry as much weight as that canon".  You're right.  That the producers originally wanted an unidentifiable ship to be the Melbourne is meaningless, since we have canonical evidence that the Melbourne was an Excelsior.  You can't have that train of logic run a direction that favors you, but not in the direction that you find unfavorable.  Hossrex 02:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

the Melbourne in the Voyager episode
Some mentioned earlier about this earlier, but just to make it clear, the Melbourne in "Unity was the Excelsior-Melbourne, since the "Emissary" footage of the ship was reused. So there is no confusion which Melbourne it was.

Just to make that clear.

64.230.123.15 20:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that's pretty self explanatory, it was seen, what's not self explanatory is the reference in, which was a verbal.. --Alan 20:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Precedence
From what I can tell, the registry and name for the Nebula version isn't seen onscreen. So why don't we follow the example from Unnamed Constitution class starships and Unnamed Oberth class starships and move this info to Unnamed Nebula class starships? Otherwise we would need "USS Valiant (Oberth class)" and "USS Enterprise (Wolf 359 ship)" pages.--Tim Thomason 04:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If we do, then I suggest a clear policy that No ship, person or item should be named in Memory Alpha that isn't clearly named on-screen or clearly referred to in dialogue. An unnamed entry should be preferred if a name is derrived from a more legible image, background source or a script, that name should be noted only as a background note in an entry. That way we would avoid this type of situation in other cases too. --Pseudohuman 05:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the sarcastic remark there. I feel we only get sidetracked over and over from the main problem. That is = policy doesn't clearly enough specify where the line should be drawn. We can go on forever with you saying why not draw it before this ship, and I will say why not behind it. And then throw around examples of ships that have an article of their own and those that haven't. But we end up going in circles. As there is no clear statement in the policy about when a conflict should be presumed to be a conflict and when it should be presumed not to be. What the specific criteria is. And we really really really need that policy change to break the tie in this case and all cases like it. Otherwise we continue the fruitless debate ad infinitum. And since apparently there is a line in use that just isn't specified in writing in the policy - can we add it there so we can put these kinds of debates to rest once and for all? We have plenty of examples to follow, but as this article is right there in the middle, it requires a clear general rule that can be applied to all similar cases. --Pseudohuman 05:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * We're just going around in circles. If the way Memory Alpha find consensus is through attrition, waiting for all but one person to lose interest, then consider it over.  Pseudohuman wins.  I officially tired of saying the same things over, and over again, just slightly re-worded.  Hossrex 05:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "The line must be drawn here! This far, and no further!"


 * Star Trek: First Contact quotes don't belong here.


 * =P TimberWolf 17:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

If policy truly needs to be changed, then it should be suggested on the policy's talk page (and/or if clearly acceptable, anyone can change the page itself). I've always felt that too much policy is a bad thing and common sense and "precedence" should for the most part dictate actions here.

The Melbourne situation appears to be an oddity, but kinda has been done before. As I've mentioned, the USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) was also at Wolf 359, but we don't cover that, because other sources seem to show it as an impossibility. Using my sarcasm above, I suggested we either move this to Unnamed Nebula class or make a USS Enterprise (Wolf 359) page.

Although this may appear to be a "one person versus the storm" situation, the Faux-person is not alone. This page has been around since Ensign q separated the info from a background note on the old USS Melbourne page (before it was disambiguated). People like Pseudohuman and Ensign q have argued for the inclusion or exclusion before, so this isn't an argument of attrition fighting against a lone soldier.

Producers have changed their minds, and Memory Alpha has come to accept this, through precedent, by "updating" the necessary articles after the special edition, director's cut, or remastered episode. Conflicting info is moved to background, while non-conflicting info should, ideally, have a note that it's from the non-remastered/special/director.

Of course, what I'm saying implies that having two Melbournes (NCC-62043) is a mistake, but that's not really the case. Background sources, the same kind that prove the Melbourne was a Nebula, also point out that the producers decided to re-make it as an Excelsior. Nothing I've seen, suggests anyone intended to make *another* Melbourne, other than incidentally re-using/re-shooting some footage.--Tim Thomason 02:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Tim Thomason said: this isn't an argument of attrition fighting against a lone soldier.  But in practice what will happen here if there isn't some sort of vote, or moderator coming in and making a decision, is that the page will just stay the same as it currently is (with separate articles) until everyone gets tired of repeating themselves, and forget about this problem.  Either that, or someone decides to change the page, and another person reverts it (because no consensus has been reached), and we have an edit war.  Its still just a matter of attrition.  If there isn't an official way to deal with problems where no consensus can be reached, the last person who still gives a crap after everyone else is bored and gone, gets his way.  Especially since its already (for some reason) structured in the manner in which the clear minority prefer it.  All he has to do is continue to maintain a lack of consensus, and he wins.  Thats garbage.  Hossrex 04:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that too much policy is a bad thing and "precedence" should preferably dictate actions here. But which precedence. Common sense is a great term you can throw around too, but it's just a way of trying to appeal people to accept one valid logic over another valid logic, or one valid interpretation over another in these types of cases.


 * Nothing I've seen suggests anyone intended to make the USS Horizon and Horizon (starship) as two different ships, or Horizon-type and Daedalus-class as two different ship classes. But they are. Nothing suggests anyone intended the Bonaventure (C1-21) to be anything more than an early design of the Phoenix, or USS Enterprise (XCV 330) as anything but an early design of the Enterprise (NX-01), in both cases abandoned at the point where the ship was needed for a more prominent appearance. Sure the XCV 330 was there as a painting but it wasn't mentioned to be an Enterprise after the NX-01 was introduced. Wouldn't Archer have had a drawing of it on his ready room wall if it was? Or maybe we just rationalize that there wasn't room for one anywhere on the ship. Sure Decker said "all these ships were called the Enterprise" but so did Shelby say "the Melbourne" at a screen that had no Excelsior wrecks in it and a Nebula-wreck with the name Melbourne on it. Similarily as in the precedences above Nebula-Melbourne is analogous to an "early design" for Excelsior-Melbourne. So why not therefore give it a page of it's own too.


 * USS Enterprise (Wolf 359 ship) was on the other hand a clear case of a reuse of a prop that was not relabeled. It was not specifically created for that scene with that name on it. It follows the precedence of reused footage and props. But the Nebula-Melbourne is not a reused prop in it's first appearance as a ship or it's first appearance as a dedication model. And it has multiple appearances/sources like did the XCV 330 and C1-21 so it's not that clear which precedence to go with. As I said before, this one is right there in the middle of it all. Both sides can present equally impressive precedences to support their sides in this case. Hossex said its not as analogous as those cases, but no case is totally analogous with another. --Pseudohuman 10:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I just really think what was seen on screen should be what we focus on. If someone wants to post something that wasn't on screen, but it comes from a Memory Alpha "accepted" source, and doesn't contradict anything seen on screen, then why not.  If any source not seen on screen confuses any subject which is fairly well documented on screen, then it really is harmful to Memory Alpha.  Having multiple pages for the same ship (it *WAS* the same ship, and you *KNOW* it was the same ship) confuses people who come to Memory Alpha for information.  The only possible purpose to have this information presented the way it currently is presented is simply to satiate the five people who *ALREADY KNOW THE INFORMATION*.  There isn't a single person who would *EVER* come to Memory Alpha who would look up the Melbourne, and find our information lacking if everything was succinctly posted into one article with background notes explaining the interesting production discrepancies.  On the other hand, the way the articles are organized now, they're very friendly towards the hardcore fanbase who already know all the information presented within them.  They're perfectly suited to a website who's goal is to cater to people who already know everything.  Need information on the Melbourne?  Which Melbourne?  If you know why there are two Melbournes, you probably aren't bothering to look up the Melbourne.  If you don't know why there are two Melbournes, you're going to be very confused about which Melbourne article you need to click on.  So you click on both.  Now you see half the information repeated on both pages, and find yourself confused even worse.


 * Being in favor of two different Melbourne pages very clearly means you don't really care about people who aren't as knowledgeable as you are. I didn't know any of this information until I came here for this debate.  If I'd watched an episode, and decided to see which ship was the Melbourne, I'd either be confused about what was posted here twice, or give up in frustration as I try to figure out which ship was mentioned in the episode I watched.


 * Its confusing. You know its confusing.  You just think the people who already know all this stuff are more important than the people who don't (which frankly should be the audience an encyclopedia should cater to).  Its only not confusing if you already know which ship has done what, which ship is which class, and which article covers which ship.  Which means, its only not confusing to people who wouldn't bother ever searching.  WHICH MEANS...  it *IS* confusing to anyone who might ever actually search for our information.


 * Why would we structure our articles to be confusing to the people who need the information held within? Hossrex 10:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That is not my purpose at all, if you think it is, you are totally mistaken. I think the whole point of article divides like Horizon-type - Daedalus-class, Horizon (starship) - USS Horizon, XCV 330 - NX-01, C1-21 - Phoenix is to acknowledge and illustrate that everything the Encyclopedias are telling us isn't necessarely canonically true. That Memory Alpha is the source of information that looks at Trek from a more objective point-of-view, free of those assumptions. You may personally find it confusing and frustrating but I'm sure others will find it enlightening. As for the way the main text contents are divided currently between articles, that is another discussion yet to be had. --Pseudohuman 11:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Nobody thinks your purpose is to be confusing. YOU are "totally mistaken" for taking it that way. Jeezum. MA has a purpose, though, and it's not to cater to the most pedantic contributors, it's to be useable to the people who are trying to use MA as a reference source to find facts. OK, that's not name-calling, that's an illustration of the issue. TribbleFurSuit 19:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you Tribble. I'm simply suggesting that we look at what would be better in practice, instead of what would be better in theory.  In practice, it would be difficult for people who didn't already have knowledge about the Melbourne to find all the information available about the Melbourne (or even if they could find it all, it would be difficult to understand why we've organized the pages the way they currently are).  The only people who would be comfortable with the system (as is currently in place) would be people who don't need the information, because they already know everything about it.  Thats a mistake.  Theres every bit as much reason to have two pages for Saavik, and say that since she was obviously a different actress, that she must obviously be a different character.  That there were actually two Saavik's in the battle against Khan, and we just didn't see one of them.  There is no specific canonical law saying that one ship can't have two Lieutenants named Saavik (one half vulcan, the other full vulcan).  Its the exact same argument, but being on the outside of the debate, doesn't it sound absurd to even suggest?  What would your opinion of that debate be, if someone else had brought it up, and used every argument you're (Pseudohuman) using to defend the Melbourne schism?  It would overly complicate things for no tangible gain.  Hossrex 21:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The tolerance in valid resources policy specifically denies a Saavik schism, so its not remotely comparable here. I do understand that the current discussion foreshadows the next problem in line you wish to avoid all together. "Which Melbourne does all the dialogue refer to?" If we merge a page, we can say "this one" and be done with it. If not, we pick and choose using policy and leave the little note behind: "all references might refer to the other Melbourne" and be done with it. If there weren't these dialogue references I suspect we would have gone the way of the XCV 330 - NX-01 a long time ago. I know your core issue is with those three instances of ambiguity. And my core issue is with the idea that a little ambiguity can cause a perfectly canonical starship featured in several episodes to be dismissed away as some obscure inconsistency when it doesn't need to be one. When other ships before it in similar circumstaces have been treated with objectivity. You may call it pedantic, I don't. --Pseudohuman 22:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Pseudohuman said: my core issue is with the idea that a little ambiguity can cause a perfectly canonical starship featured in several episodes to be dismissed away as some obscure inconsistency when it doesn't need to be one.  Yet an obscure inconsistency is precisely what it was.  That there is a policy against a Saavik Schism is a *GOOD* thing.  That doesn't change the fact that these two situations are identical, and a similar policy either should be in place, or in my opinion already is in place.  There is a very large difference between pedantic, and pointlessly confusing.  Hossrex 23:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hossrex: That is actually the best damn suggestion yet - Really treat the ships like actors. Instead of bickering over which ship should be "the real Melbourne", and which do we ignore, we avoid the inconsistency alltogether. We say both were. All scenes of the wreck, the dedication model and the reused Excelsior-model are of the same ship. Sure the model was changed from one scene to the next in "Emissary", so what. Instead of arguing which class of ship it was, we say it was both. We take into play the "suspension of disbelief"-factor like with actors playing the same part. Instead of beginning with a sidebar of "actor: something" and "actor: something" we just put "class: Nebula" "class: Excelsior". In order of appearance, as demonstrated there. We avoid the issue of claiming the ship has a "real class" at all. The entire time my point has been that all canon needs to be respected in this case. I had the problem with the current system of placing ships into categories by class and therefore forcing us and our readers to basicly ignore canon by naming the nebula-Melbourne as an "unnamed Nebula-class ship", which I have a real problem with. This solution would ignore no canon. It wouldn't blindly go the Encyclopedia path of claiming "Melbourne was ever an Excelsior-class ship". Neither ship would only be mentioned in the background. It wouldn't claim either way. We then add the ship into both classes categories in all pages. Like we would add a character played by two actors to both actors pages. This could actually be a great precedence on how Memory Alpha deals with inconsistency. When it happens we don't weigh which instance has more evidentiary weight, we just stay neutral. If Klothos was a D7 in one episode and a D5 in another, we say it was both, for example. List it as a D5 and a D7 ship. We remove the mention of class from the main text and state them in the background. What do you think? Thats the only way to make an objective article even though it goes against policy when it substains from weighing evidentiary values. It really leaves it up to the reader to decide as freely and objectively as is possible what to make of it. --Pseudohuman 02:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I have *ABSOLUTELY* no idea how badly that might contradict Memory Alpha policy, but frankly... its at least a fair compromise.  I'm curious why you're opposed to background notes explaining the discrepancy though.  My position has been solidly on the side of there being only one page for "both" ships, but how that one page is executed I'm very open to debate, and compromise.  Can we get a Memory Alpha expert in here to act like a lawyer (errr...  I actually mean that in a good, respectful way), and give us the ramifications of this idea, in regards to how it effects policy, and if possible, how it could be modified to fit into that context?  Good job Pseudohuman.  We're actually getting somewhere.  Hossrex 02:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Point of order: I move to call the question and proceed immediately to voting on the Merge proposal, without any further discussion. TribbleFurSuit 03:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hossrex: There can be a bgnote to explain the discrepancy in a few sentences. I'm not opposed to that. For example "The Melbourne was portrayed by the more detailed Excelsior-model built for ST III in a scene of the "Emissary". Therefore it is not clear which class of ship she was." or something to that effect, and the appearences appendix can show which appearences were by what model so that people know what they can expect to see in what episode. --Pseudohuman 04:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I am 100% on board with this. Hell...  I'm so on board with it, that I'd be willing to give more in the compromise.  I'm still curious for someone to come in and tell us whether this violates some policy or not.  Hossrex 08:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * As am I. I also realized this is the perfect way to start dealing with all the remastered issues. For example the Starbase 6 and Woden retcons of "The Ultimate Computer". We could list Woden as being both a DY-100 ship and an Antares-type. At the same time. SB6 to be a K7-type station (or I suppose the correct designation would be "deep space-type" after Sisko's line: "one of the old deep space stations" from "Trials and Tribble-ations") and a SB6-type station. Even though evidentiary weight would be in favor of treating the remastered versions as "the real ones". I'm sure a lot of people have become accustomed after some 40 years to the idea of thinking there are more DY-100-ships out there and more of the "K7-type" stations and consider remastered and original versions as just as valid canon. If we start this we could add it into the "Tolerance in valid resources"-policy as "Different models portraying the same ship (e.g. Melbourne, Woden)" right under the actor bit as one of the things that will not affect the validity of a resource so we can avoid these controversies in the future. (as I'm afraid they replaced the old NCC-1701 in that new film with something thats just a little bit too different from what the ship was in "The Cage") :) --Pseudohuman 09:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I was always silently uncomfortable with the remastered episodes being treated as "new" canon anyway. I wasn't a part of the discussion for policy, so I sorta just assumed *someone* had to have argued my beliefs, and there were good reasons to do it the way Memory Alpha has decided to do it.  In the end though, I think what we're hitting on here is the better way to go...  just my opinion...  for whatever thats worth.  I can't help but think that if one of us had decided to just make the changes to pages (instead of requesting policy clarification), someone would have been here in a heartbeat to make sure we were following policy.  I guess its not as fun to quote policy if someone asks for help, instead of just going around acting like a big man.  Hossrex 12:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Pseudo stated: That is actually the best damn suggestion yet - Really treat the ships like actors. Instead of bickering over which ship should be "the real Melbourne", and which do we ignore, we avoid the inconsistency altogether.
 * So... in other words... the suggestion that came up ~60k ago and then again from a different source near the top of this page weren't good enough? Oh wait... that's what they both suggested.
 * This discussion has gone on far too long, gone in far too many circles, resulted in far too many stupid edits to the page. And it really hasn't solved anything when it's now veered off course into discussions about TOS-R.
 * As such, it's time to resolve this issue. Since everyone involved seems to agree on the fact that both ships are really the same, I'm taking care of that right now.  Any further policy-related discussions on TOS-R should not be held here. -- Sulfur 13:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * 1: Isn't what TOS-R is doing relevant to this discussion?  We can't make a decision on what to do about the Melbourne without taking into account how the Remaster decision fits into this one.  They're interrelated.
 * 2: We continued to discuss the subject because there was no consensus.  Yes we eventually reached a conclusion that was proposed much earlier, but there was no consensus at that point.  This wasn't a case where someone didn't agree with the policy, it was a case where we couldn't agree on what was policy.  What should have been done before consensus was reached?  Isn't a protracted discussion better than an edit war?
 * 3: I don't understand your angry tone suggesting we shouldn't have discussed this.  Would you prefer a decision be made before consensus?  Would you prefer a non-optimal resolution?Hossrex 22:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Finally
Congrats to User:Pseudohuman for finally finding a compromise that is acceptable to everyone, including myself. Also congrats to User:Sulfur for implementing the compromise.

I am glad that in the end, I pretty much accomplished what I wanted: to end the theory that the Melbourne was only a.

The question now though, is how we modify the other articles in Memory Alpha to match this one, especially, the Excelsior-class, , and the articles.

It looks like we a lot more work to do, but since when do we not? :)

Ambassador/Ensign_Q 19:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you. And thanks to everyone who I have had the privilege to argue with here, especially User:Hossrex. I feel this was an important discussion regarding the inherent danger of retcons and the way MA deals with them by disregarding objectivity. I hope all ships and stations that suffer from retcons to the extent of being of two classes or types at the same time will one day find their way to the lists and categories of both, for the people who browse throught those categories to find all the relevant articles. It would be better than being treated as an undetermined, or one or the other. But still. It's mission accomplished on this one. Mostly. :) --Pseudohuman 04:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I mostly chalk this one up as a success because we were allowed an open forum of discussion. A couple times everyone concerned said things that perhaps we regret (I know I did, and I know I do), but we were allowed to work through it, which doesn't always happen.  Both sides fought for what they considered important, and compromised on what wasn't, and damn it, thats exactly how it should be.  When passionate people get together, at times it can seem like a junior high school slumber party hissyfit, but its amazing how often that hissyfit can work itself into something great for everyone concerned.  Because we were allowed to disagree, we agreed on a solution that everyone seems happy with.  Thank you Pseudohuman.  Out of our discord, I hope you'll agree we've forged a friendship.  Ironically, if a moderator/administrator had stepped in before things worked themselves out, this probably wouldn't have been true.  I applaud Pseudohuman, the mods/admins of Memory Alpha, and everyone else concerned with this discussion (especially whomever originally came up with the compromise we eventually agreed upon.  So everyone involved, it may have took longer than would have been preferable, but a seemingly impossible consensus was reached.  Damn it, but thats worth celebrating.  I hereby raise a metaphorical glass of Tranya (or Romulan Ale, whichever you prefer), and propose a toast to the community.  Even when it seems like the community has failed, sometimes we can surprise you.  Congratulations to everyone who reads this.  Hossrex 07:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hossrex, is that really you? I can't believe you're the same person who wrote this, but... OK. Make some friends, lose some friends, I guess TribbleFurSuit 02:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Why are you going around trolling Memory Alpha? Are you trying to make me look bad, or are you trying to start a fight?  I can't figure out any other answer for your actions here.  Please stop.  Hossrex 04:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Melbourne-related articles status
As I stated before, there are still articles in Memory Alpha relating to the Melbourne that still must be edited to reflect the new changes. To make this easier, I have made the following list. Entries will be crossed off once they had been edited, unless I am convince otherwise.


 * Melbourne-related Articles Needing Attention: Cutting beam, Nebula class , ,  , Borg cube ,  , Wolf 359 , Starbase 74 ,  , Starships at Wolf 359 , Battle of Wolf 359 ,  ,  ,   ,  , Australia , 2366 , USS Horizon , J.P. Hanson , Seven of Nine , Shelby , Tractor beam ,  Emissary (novel) , Gregory Bergan , Thomas Halloway , Star Trek Fact Files , Ghosts (Marvel) ,  , Model , Starfleet Operations Manual , William T. Riker , Unnamed Excelsior class starships , Jean-Luc Picard , Starfleet Operational Support Services , Federation starship registries , The Sky's the Limit , Federation starships , CCG: To Boldly Go , File:USS Melbourne-dedication model.jpg , File:Borg cube destroys the Melbourne.jpg , File:USS Melbourne attacked.jpg , File:Excelsior port of Galaxy.jpg , File:Ussmelbournewreakagebobw.jpg , File:Ussmelbournewreakageemissary.jpg , File:Ussmelbournewreakagebobw1.jpg , File:Uss saratoga 2367 aft.jpg.

If you have any to add, feel free to do so. Ambassador/Ensign_Q 21:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I understand what exactly you are trying to do here. If you are trying to remove any reference to the class of the Melbourne, then by all means. However, that is not what you did with cutting beam. There, you removed the fact that the Melbourne was there. It was seen in . Willie LLAP 19:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Since we don't know what class the Melbourne is, we can't say that it was "seen" in Emissary. All we can say is that we witnessed an Excelsior-class that has been destroyed by a cutting beam. That doesn't mean the Melbourne was hit by a cutting beam necessarily. Which is why I changed to the way it was. My purpose is to remove any specific mention of any class choice of the Melbourne. Verbal references are fine, but visual references must be presented with a grain of salt. Ambassador/Ensign_Q 17:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * But it was "seen" in "Emissary" and it was an Excelsior. Stating otherwise would simply be a lie. I'd hardly call something that can be read at VCR quality as something to be taken with a grain of salt.. you can't even tell the Nebula bares this name at HD quality. --Alan 17:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, we are having another issue here, so I will clarify:

We, as the Memory Alpha community, could not conclude whether or not the Melbourne was either an Excelsior-class or a Nebula-class or both, so we therefore compromised and said that the class of the Melbourne is unknown, and that it could be either or both. Everybody was happy with this solution.

Just because we modified this article, however, doesn't mean we can leave the rest of MA the way it is. This is why the Melbourne is listed as "uncertain" in both the Nebula-class and Excelsior-class articles. The rest of the related Melbourne articles must be modified to follow suit with this collective view.

This is why we can't have an article cutting beam saying the Melbourne's saucer was destroyed by a cutting beam, because it is refering to the Excelsior-Melbourne and only to the Excelsior-Melbourne. We don't know if the Nebula-Melbourne was damaged by cutting beams, so the statement is therefore not neutral. Thus, we are forced to call it "an Excelsior-class starship", with a footnote, so we can maintain neutrality, and allow the reader to come up with his own conclusions.

Obviously, people are not understanding this.

70.48.69.142 17:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Everybody was happy with this solution" my ass. The only thing that can be agreed upon by "we, the Memory Alpha community" is that "background sources" mucked this whole situation up by providing information that conflicts with what can be seen on screen. To simply ignore the blatant obvious references in favor of long winded ignorance is plan silly. "We, the Memory Alpha community" are hardly the ones to be enforcing canon, much less with something that the average viewer cannot even begin to see, as I stated above. --Alan 18:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I like how you are starting to complain about this now, "Alan", when before when we came about this mutual solution (mutual solution in that all present seemed okay with it), you kept silent. And only after I edit an unremarkable and fairly unimportant article do you start voicing your objections. And instead of introducing any new evidence, you are simply repeating yourself. Look how far we came with that approach. You really want to open this can of worms again? Ambassador/Ensign_Q 19:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, Alan is my "real"name, no need for the quotes, "Ensign q". Otherwise, "all present" = all in favor, not "we, the Memory Alpha community". Nevertheless, the validity of my argument is to certify the authenticity of the given facts. The Borg cutting beam was cutting into the hull of the Excelsior class USS Melbourne, versus any one random Excelsior class. To state otherwise is simply an ignorant lie. Don't believe me? Read the name on the hull. Pretty irrefutable, eh? Can't say the same about the Nebbie, can "we"? --Alan 19:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah whatever Alan. I already made my arguements long before, so if you wish to save another one, just go look at the previous entries if you wish to save another arguement.

As for this issue, I am frankly tired of it. I thought we had all reached a nice solution, but of course, you decide to wait when were tired and pounce on us, instead of arguing at the right time. And I'm tired.

I'm fine with how the page is now, but then again, I'm not really in control now am I? Any mod could just come in here now and remove the article we had worked so hard to develop and make it acceptable to all, and replacement with his view. This place is a real democracy now is it?

Frankly, I'm tired Alan. If you want to go ahead and troll, go ahead and do so. Rewrite the article in your minority view, because obviously you can't compromise. In the end, it doesn't really matter, because people will just start an edit war, until a mod steps in and decides on the view he/she wants, not what the majority thinks is right.

Ambassador/Ensign_Q 19:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, as far as the "can of worms", the cutting beam article is pretty much cut and dry. This image (here) shows an starship bearing the name of USS Melbourne with a registry number of NCC-62043. It was seen. Now, I fully understand the discussion above. I understand the need to list the Melbourne on both the Excelsior and Nebula class pages. I understand that the Melbournes page itself does not open with either class. What I was asking was, why remove what was clearly seen on television. The way it was before, and is now, does not make a reference to the class. It does mention a saucer section, but both ship classes have those. It does not have a picture. Like I said, removing reference to the ship's class is all well and good. Removing the fact (and a salient fact in the big huge above discussion) from an articale doesn't make sense. Willie' LLAP 01:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that the issue of the Melbourne's class is not germaine to the issue of the cutting beam article. It is quite clear that the Melbourne was destroyed by such a beam.  It must be in that article.--31dot 01:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, so this new problem is about the way we eliminate MA self-contradiction without creating more contradiction. I agree that sentences to the effect of "an unknown Excelsior-class ship hit with a cutting beam" and "Model of an unknown Nebula-class ship on a desktop" don't fit with the solution reached here, as we know and state here on this page what the name of those ships were. Also sentences to the effect of "the Excelsior-class USS Melbourne was hit with a cutting beam" or "model of the Nebula-class USS Melbourne on a desktop" don't fit with the solution either as they suggest there were definitively two different ships. Ultimately having the class contradiction thuroughly explained on one page alone is the best way to go, so I would suggest the approach that when it is relevant to note the class in an image or an article we use sentences to the effect of "USS Melbourne, depicted as an Excelsior-class ship, hit with a cutting beam" and "Model of the USS Melbourne, depicted as a Nebula-class ship, on a desktop." I would think that is enough grain of salt as Ensign Q wants here, and not contradicting any visual evidence as Alan wants. --Pseudohuman 06:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that would absolutely fine, P-man. I have no problem with your suggestion. Ambassador/Ensign_Q 13:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * But why mention the class at all. In my opinion, that will just open up more of the Excelsior vs. Nebula stuff which should be contained on the Melbournes page. To take an example in the huge discussion above, we don't have statements like "Saavik, played by Kirstie Alley, takes the Kobyashi Maru test" or "Saavik, played by Robin Curtis, served aboard the USS Grissom". We just state the character's name and get on with it. So why don't we just state the name of the ship and get on with it? Willie' LLAP 14:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, especially in the in-universe part of an article. In fact, this is what we HAD in cutting beam before the latest clusterjob. There was no statement of the Melbourne's class. What needed to be fixed there? Nothing. At any rate, we can't talk about "depictions" in an in-universe context no matter what. --TribbleFurSuit 02:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * As I suggested, only relevant pages to use this, such are image descriptions. I should have been more specific, as I too do not think it is relevant to note the class in the cutting beam article. As to what the actual text reads, it makes very little difference if it is:
 * USS Melbourne attacked by a Borg cutting beam.
 * The Melbourne was depicted as an Excelsior-class ship in this scene.
 * or
 * USS Melbourne, depicted as an Excelsior-class ship, attacked by a Borg cutting beam.
 * Point is not to have statements that suggest a picture is of an unknown class, when it is clearly of a known class. --Pseudohuman 05:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds absolutely fine to me! Ambassador/Ensign_Q 12:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Without trying to beat some poor dead horse - if all of this is happening because of some past consensus, then it is obvious to me that the implications of that consensus haven't been properly thought through in the first place. While not mentioning the ship's class may very well work in some articles (like in the cutting beam article - it's not really relevant there what class the Melbourne is), it sounds like a stupid idea to pretend we don't know the ships class in all articles. We still have pretty good evidence of a connection between the name, an Excelsior-configuration and a matching registry - and, producer's intent aside, we still have no on-screen connection to a Nebula-configuration. -- Cid Highwind 12:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The "no-onscreen connection" argument has already been argued and lost in the discussion above. As long as clearer visuals of on-screen objects are accepted as canon, the connection is solid. --Pseudohuman 09:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, as I already stated, Shelby must have magic powers to know that that specific (generic) Excelsior-class wreakage with no visible registry was in fact the Melbourne. Ambassador/Ensign_Q 13:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Pseudohuman: In case you're referring to some clause of the canon policy, allowing "clearer visuals of on-screen objects" - while this is correct, of course, I ask to to read the policy again, and completely. Relegating the Nebula-Melbourne to a background section would be well within the confines of the "letter of that law" - and the much better solution when talking about the "spirit of the law".
 * The intention of that policy is not to terribly confuse readers - the intention is to allow us to add as much information as possible to the articles, while at the same time keeping the endless "canon" debate in check by eventually adding said information as "background info" only. -- Cid Highwind 13:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Ensign q: I have to wonder about Shelby's magic powers to know that this specific Nebula-class wreakage with no visible registry or name is the Melbourne. There was at least one other Nebula-class starship at the Battle of Wolf 359. As for your argument, the picture you cite comes from . Correct me if I'm wrong, but Shelby wasn't in that episode. Also, this image comes directly before the image you provided, chronologically in the episode. Willie LLAP 13:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

That is absolutely stupid what you just said.


 * I have to wonder about Shelby's magic powers to know that this specific Nebula-class wreakage with no visible registry or name is the Melbourne. There was at least one other Nebula-class starship at the Battle of Wolf 359.

Firstly, you mistake my meaning of the word "visible registry". The Nebula-Melbourne does have a visible intact name and registry, as can be seen by observing the pictures of the actual model at Ex Astris. The fact we the viewer couldn't make it out is irrelevant. Shelby, on the other hand, could read it, and there is no reason why she couldn't read it. The Excelsior-Melbourne, however, as we clearly saw on the screen as can be clearly seen with the pic I provided, shows that both of the regitries on the top and lower parts of the saucer were blown away, as well as the name "USS Melbourne". Therefore, there is virtually no way that Shelby could have known that that Excelsior-wreakage (if that is really what she is looking at) was the Melbourne.


 * As for your argument, the picture you cite comes from . Correct me if I'm wrong, but Shelby wasn't in that episode.

She wasn't, but it was referenced in BBoBw that she saw the Melbourne, therefore if we go with theory that the Melbourne is only an Excelsior, then she would be seeing the wreakage we saw in "Emissary". And my arguement shows the problems with accepting that position.


 * Also, this image comes directly before the image you provided, chronologically in the episode.

Your point?

Ambassador/Ensign_Q 14:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Cid: Spirit of the law is to be objective. To do what you want is to suppress valid noncontradictory canon. As was argued, it is completely possible there might have been two Melbournes. To suppress one or the other unnecessarely is wrong. Also to state there were definitively two is wrong as we know the producers intent was to represent one ship with two models in the same way as one charecter is portrayed sometimes by stunt doubles. For these reason we reached this consensus. --Pseudohuman 14:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah... and then it turned out the "consensus" isn't really a workable solution - which is why we're still having this discussion. Do you not understand that part? -- Cid Highwind 14:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The thing is though, that we didn't start having this discussion until at least three months after the implementation was proposed and implemented. And as I said before several times now, there was no indication of any objection at that time, therefore, all involved assumed that a consensus had been reached.. If anyone is at fault here, it isn't Pseudohuman but rather the people who kept their mouths shut instead of properly voicing their objection in this open forum setting. The fact that you decide to suddenly start screaming and yelling now shows a clear lack of responsibility on your part. Ambassador/Ensign_Q 14:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Look, we basically have two options at this point. Either, "we" could continue to point out why that past "consensus" doesn't really work while "you" continue to place the blame for whatever happened on whoever you like. Or, we could "both" work on finding a better solution for the problem.
 * What exactly is it that you want? Just asking, because if you want to continue with the former, then you might as well do it alone while "we" find a working solution without you. You decide... -- Cid Highwind 16:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

What I want is that article to remain as is, since a bulk of users agreed. Had I been inflexable, I would have argued my version, but instead I was open to a comprimise. What you want isn't a comprimise, because really there is no way to further comprimise. Pseudohuman's/Sulfur's version of the article is as close as we are going to get, since the alternative is to revert the article back to the way it was, and thus have it support one view, which isn't a comprimise but a forced submission. Ambassador/Ensign_Q 16:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Ensign q: in response to you wondering why there was no indication of any objection at that time, therefore, all involved assumed that a consensus had been reached: I didn't come to this untill after the big huge discussion took place, and therefore wasn't able to voice my opinion. Why shouldn't people be able to voice their opinion, even though they might not have taken part in the original discussion? Willie LLAP 17:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't refering to you Willie. I was refering to the comment made by Alan, who definitely took part in the discussion. He and others involved decided to keep their mouth shut. You have been caught in the middle of a bigger problem, and I'm sorry about that. Ambassador/Ensign_Q 17:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't see your reply above concerning the whole "magic" thing, so here is my response to that:
 * First off, I take offence at this comment: That is absolutely stupid what you just said. Calling what I said stupid is pretty much the same as calling me stupid.
 * Second: Even though the Excelsior-class Melbourne's saucer section (with the registry and name) was destroyed, the name and registry could be seen on other places on the hull. Several other starships have their name and registry on various locations on their hulls.
 * Also, as far as the "visible registry" thing is concerned, the area where the registry and name would be on a Nebula-class ship in both of these images (here and here) looks to be burned and damaged. Looking at the model here, we can see the name and registry below the "platform" thing that the bridge module sits on. In the images for the wreackage, that area has been damaged. So how could Shelby have "seen" the registry and name of the ship? Willie LLAP 17:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "First off, I take offence at this comment: That is absolutely stupid what you just said. Calling what I said stupid is pretty much the same as calling me stupid."

I fully apologize for that. That is completely inexcusable.


 * "Second: Even though the Excelsior-class Melbourne's saucer section (with the registry and name) was destroyed, the name and registry could be seen on other places on the hull. Several other starships have their name and registry on various locations on their hulls. "

I've looked at the Excelsior studio model (original, non-1701-B) and it is only labelled on section of the saucer for whatever reason.


 * "Also, as far as the "visible registry" thing is concerned, the area where the registry and name would be on a Nebula-class ship in both of these images (here and here) looks to be burned and damaged. Looking at the model here, we can see the name and registry below the "platform" thing that the bridge module sits on. In the images for the wreackage, that area has been damaged. So how could Shelby have "seen" the registry and name of the ship?"

Please open this page. As you can see, the pictures of the damaged Nebula-Melbourne model show that that section of the hull is intact, as is the bottom registry. Ambassador/Ensign_Q 18:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I for one don't understand what the problem is with the way things are right now with this article. Everything is very objective and all information and possibilities are provided to the reader. I can understand that every fan of star trek likes to fanedit the continuity, rationalize what the actual truth is behind everything, nitpick any and all mistakes and inconsistancies and so on. But that is not the purpose of MA. We should just present the facts and let the reader do all the other stuff. Any change to the way things are now to me seems to make things worse. So nothing should be changed. If anyone has a better alternative that is as objective or more objective please write a suggestion and lets discuss it. :) --Pseudohuman 18:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I personally don't see any other way without given in to one side or the other. The current approach is pretty much as neutral as you can get. Considering that it took 3 years just to get to this compromise shows that there isn't likely to be a further compromise any time soon.Ambassador/Ensign_Q 19:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm starting to think the problem isn't the current article format, but rather how we handle the other MA articles that mention the Melbourne. So perhaps we should focus on that for now.Ambassador/Ensign_Q 19:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That's what I thought I was talking about in the first place, but I guess it was easier to respond to that by blowing everything wide open again. Also:
 * "Please open this page. As you can see, the pictures of the damaged Nebula-Melbourne model show that that section of the hull is intact, as is the bottom registry."
 * Shouldn't the point be that if you have to refer to such an article/source of information, then you ultimately end up deviating from what can be seen on screen: the true and ultimate A-number-1 goto source when contributing to MA, especially in the case of a conflict, and especially in the case that one was both more predominantly featured and legibly identified than the other? Clearly if there was a case of conflict in the date of someone's birth based on dialog (or available facts) and a computer readout, the readout gets second billing to the dialog... --Alan 20:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the whole "visible registry" sub-discussion is a straw man argument that might as well be dropped now (regarding both ships, mind you). We know that starships have identification transponders and whatnot, so I guess it is safe to assume that our Starfleet heroes do not have to rely on "Eyeball Mk1" technology to identify another vessel belonging to the same organization. -- Cid Highwind 20:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Clarification: To avoid possible misunderstanding - "visible registry" here means "visible to the characters", not "visible to the audience"! -- Cid Highwind 22:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed, also the so-called "conflict" here was caused by fan rationalization based over-simplification, so it doesn't warrant any weighing of what canon is better than another canon. As was argued in great detail in the previous discussion. --Pseudohuman 21:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, if we're talking about "Canon", then you have to understand that the Nebula-Melbourne really isn't "Canon". "Canon" is defined by the studio (in a rather arbitrary way, excluding TAS, for example) as, to paraphrase, "everything that can be gathered from the live-action shows". If I'm not mistaken, the Melbourne (or, for that matter, any Melbourne) being Nebula-class can not be gathered from any show.
 * ...which is why our "canon policy" (which should have been renamed "content policy" a long time ago, IMO) makes a point of clearly deviating from that official definition of "Canon" - to remove some of that arbitrariness - while at the same time trying to avoid "creating canon".
 * If we used background information telling us of a Nebula-class model with a Melbourne sticker on it, while at the same time also using the clearly visible Excelsior reference, then we would be creating canon - because, instead of one Melbourne as has always been the intention, we'd now end up with two ships, sharing the same name, being in service at the same time, for no good reason.
 * Alternatively, if we dropped both class references, as is being done currently, then we'd not be using all information we have access to. The Melbourne is visibly an Excelsior-class ship in one scene, and there's no other scene directly contradicting that (not counting background information).
 * Which is why I still believe that, in this specific case, the only workable solution would be to use the Excelsior reference in the in-universe part of the article, and add the Nebula reference to the background part. Everything's visible for everyone who might be interested, but without any conflict in or unneccessary removal of information from the in-universe part. -- Cid Highwind 21:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That is not workable. If you want a single page to refer to two ships, fine. You have to prove it is an impossibility for the dual-name-reg to exist to say it is a conflict. It is not an impossibility, therefore you cannot suppress content on the basis you don't like what it states. A workable solution, if the goal is to bring the images back to the in-universe side of the page, is to make this page look like the M-4 or the Copernicus (2269) that accept two items have the same designation and divides the page accordingly. To suppress content on the basis of a fan rationalization based over-simplification is wrong, to suppress content on the basis of producers intent is wrong. If there is no conflict in content, there is no conflict at all. --Pseudohuman 04:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You managed to avoid addressing the issue of one of the ships being "not canon". What I want is this one Melbourne article to talk about the "canon" Melbourne starship (which happens to be Excelsior-class). This is the version with the least amount of "canon creation" or, as you call it, "fan rationalization". It is simply stating that a starship that was seen, in detail, as being Excelsior-class is, in fact, Excelsior-class. What happens then, with the Nebula-class starship, would still be open for discussion - my preference would be for it to be a background information in the same article.
 * To be honest, I'm more than a little surprised by the double-talk going on here. On the one hand, you're talking about trying to avoid "fan rationalization" and "weighing one canon against another" - while, on the other hand, you're bringing up facts that are not exactly canon in the first place and trying to "fan-rationalize" them by saying that those two ships may indeed have the same designation at the same time. -- Cid Highwind 10:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think i've adressed that issue over and over and over again with "there is no conflict". For something to be a conflict it would have to conflict with something that is clearly and definitively established. This is not the case here. --Pseudohuman 12:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * And if "no conflict" did equal "not canon", you'd eventually have a point. Since it doesn't, I'm not sure where this tangent is supposed to lead us. -- Cid Highwind 14:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Look, here is how it is. We all agree that there is supposed to be only one Melbourne. When the Nebula models were designed and built it was supposed to be the one, then they used the Excelsior model for the same reasons you use a stunt double or a stand-in for a shot, after that they kept using the Nebula models again. The thing we disagreed with is how do you enter that to an in-universe database that cannot accept contradiction and achieve a reasonable level of objective presentation. Me and Ensign Q demand equal representation for the designs, you and the others dont. What's worse is you want to say either that it was an "unnamed Nebula-class ship" and spill this matter to other pages or alternatively even worse you want to say there was no Nebula ship anywhere because the Excelsior-model retconed all it's appearances out of continuity. That is simply unacceptable, because using in-universe logic it is perfectly possible there were two ships with the same name and reg. And we dont accept it when producers say they think something should be ignored anywhere in MA. Now if your goal is to bring the images back to the in-universe side of the page, as I said I am perfectly happy with some sort of a dual-article compromise here (the likes of M-4) that would represent both ships as two different ships with the same name and reg, and then a bg-note on the reality of the situation that one of them was meant to be a stand-in for the other. The problem with that is that it again falsely suggests there was meant to be two ships elsewhere in our database, just as your solution falsely represents there was really only meant to be the Excelsior. The only workable solution has been to predominately write this article from the real-world point-of-view so that all the facts are laid out there. If the recent suggestion comes through that has been outlined in the Retcon forum, we may get our better workable solution here too i hope. Until then I think this is how this page should remain because there are no major problems with it as it is now. --Pseudohuman 01:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, okay... without following the pages and pages of comments, and more than likely covering ground that's been stated before, why don't we go back to having a USS Melbourne (Nebula class) and USS Melbourne (Excelsior class) page, maintain that they both had the same name and registry (as is in-universe canon), and note any glaring inconsistencies/incongruities with this status in background notes? This really is a separate and unique situation from the TOS-R retcons argued elsewhere.--Tim Thomason 03:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed. That was the exact situation before this merge. The main reason why that was rejected as a workable solution was that we have a bunch of references to the Melbourne. If we have two pages we would need to separate those references but again maintain the possibility the references describe the other ship and not the one on which ever page. In essence make things more complicated than they are. We might weigh canon and say Excelsior-model was more prominent so all references should refer to it and the Nebula-ship was just some ship with the same name that had a bunch of on-screen appearances, or we might go with production intent and say the Nebula-Melbourne was the ship that was designed for the BoBW-references so based on that all references in that episode should refer to it and not the other. But again that draws the issue into a territory it shouldn't go as we all agree there was meant to be just one ship.
 * My dual-page suggestion would work like this. We have an article divided into three in-universe sections. The first main section has all the non-specific verbal references noted in it. Then we have the ==USS Melbourne (Excelsior class)== subsection with all the visual references to that ship, cutting beam sequence and Hansen's order to attack the cube and then we have a ==USS Melbourne (Nebula class)== subsection that has all the Nebula-specific visual references such as the desktop models and its appearances in the debrie field of both episodes, and then basically the same background section as we have right now. That way we could contain this mess on one page and admit all the visual references did happen just the way we saw them and know of them. --Pseudohuman 09:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * All the references are now fixed in a way that at least I and Alan seem to agree on. That we simply mention the class when it is appropriate regardless of this page keeping the class ambiguous. Federation starships page uses the Starships at Wolf 359 as a precedent. I hesitate to declare case closed if someone has a problem with the way things were done. --Pseudohuman 09:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, me. I still have a problem with perfectly valid information removed from articles in the name of "consistency", if that "consistency" makes no difference between something clearly visible on-screen and something we only know of because some production guy told us... But, I added that line of thought to this discussion several times already, without it being recognized. -- Cid Highwind 09:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with Cid... in fact, the agrees with Cid, too. Things that are clearly visible on-screen take precedence over behind-the-scenes production info. Production stuff should only be canon (and therefore allowed to take precedence) if nothing on-screen contradicts it... which, in this case, it clearly does. Basically, as per policy, visual evidence is not equal with background info; it is superior to it. What is clearly seen takes precedence over what wasn't seen or wasn't clearly seen. So let it be written, so let it be done. Oh, wait, it's already written. Gotta love that canon policy. :) --From Andoria with Love 10:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It almost seems like you never read my counter argument that I also posted a million plus times. But as you seem to be incapable of recognizing it is a valid counter argument. It seems like we shouldn't continue this circle of restating statements as it is not productive. I agree you two would have a valid argument there if this was a clear case of inconsistancy. It is not, so you dont. I suggested a solution, but you seem to be incapable of commenting on it... --Pseudohuman 10:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I say we delete the whole thing. Whiz-bang-gone. Been too long of a headache anyways :P --OuroborosCobra talk 10:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That's funny, because for me it looks as if you're evading the arguments, not countering them. -- Cid Highwind 10:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I dont know how that is possible when I have so clearly countered them so many times. --Pseudohuman 13:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but to simply state "that is not workable" followed by a rant about why it should be two things is hardly a valid acknowledgment of the cold-hard facts of what Cid described as "canon", which is indeed "workable" – it's canon! If no production staff member or encyclopedia ever revealed any background information to the fans, then the only page MA would ever have on this subject is an Excelsior class Melbourne.
 * Seeing as the inclusion of the background information creates a conflict with canon (which really cant be applied to any other examples on MA), said background information should be treated just as that, "background information". So as this is a very unique situation where it would seem that "canon" would need to "trump all" for a successful outcome, we: 1) address the Excelsior ("canon"), 3) address the Nebula (since a Nebula that still needs to be addressed exists in "canon") on the Unnamed Nebula class starships page.
 * Quite frankly, that is how it would be if no production staff member or encyclopedia ever revealed any background information to the fans. To address the conflict (background information), we: 2) acknowledge the Nebula ("background") in the background of the Melbourne page, and 4) acknowledge on the Unnamed Nebula page in italics that the ship was labeled as the Melbourne, and refer back to the previous point. --Alan 16:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, here we go again for the thousandth time. A conflict must be a conflict to be a conflict. A non-conflict is not a conflict. You can quote policy all you want but at the end of the day there is no conflict here. That is the ultimate cold hard fact. Inclusion of valid content information does not create a conflict with canon in this case. Because nowhere in canon is it established as an impossibility for two starships to exist and be labeled with the same name and same registry. We dont need to establish it as a possibility as the canon and valid content shows this to be the case. So it logically cannot be a conflict. We know only from reference material that these ships were intended to one and the same, so we should rather ignore this reference material and not let it influence the objective portrayal of canon and valid content. So, I am all for option 5) still having both ships on the same page as in-universe subsections to not have this matter drawn out to other pages and avoid this "trump all" solution we now have. --Pseudohuman 17:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Fact is, that solution, too, would "draw the matter out to other pages". currently has the Melbourne listed as an "uncertain" member of the class - which is wrong in any case: it's either one Excelsior class ship, or an Excelsior class ship and another one. Wolf 359 states that the Melbourne that had previously been offered to Riker was the Melbourne that was destroyed at Wolf 359 - wrong if we assume that two ships exist, according to "your" solution. Starships at Wolf 359 states that the one and only Melbourne that participated in the battle is of "ambiguous" class - which, again, is wrong no matter what. It is either one Excelsior class ship, or two ships (Excelsior, Nebula), but never one ship with unknown/unsure class. Similar examples could probably be found on every page from the list posted at the top of this section.
 * Again: No matter what we decide here, it will necessarily be drawn out to other pages, as the encyclopedia should be internally consistent - even deliberately removing very valid information from parts of the encyclopedia (which should not be attempted in the first place, of course) would lead to that part being influenced by the decision here.
 * That said, I only see two possible solutions to that dilemma - either do as Alan described above (and others, including myself, suggested before), and have one page about the Excelsior-Melbourne. Or, go the full way, and split the available information to two pages, one about the Excelsior ship, another about the Nebula ship. Trying something in-between, like your suggestion to accept both classes as equally valid information while pretending that only one ship exists on all other pages, will only lead to more confusion.
 * If those are the available solutions, I much prefer the first. Keep in mind that, as Alan correctly pointed out, this is a very unique and singular case, which might just need a unique and singular solution. -- Cid Highwind 23:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I could say quite a bit about this, but as it would only regurgitate what has been said and not convince those who feel differently, I will only say that I agree with what Alan has said above and I support Cid's first suggestion.--31dot 00:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, one other solution has been posted to the Retcons forum, to which people seem to be unwilling to comment on. Perhaps you guys like these fan rationalization edit discussions too much to give them up =)? In the solution I proposed here we would in fact start treating them as two separate ships again on every page. So no more uncertains or ambiguouses. The problem that would get solved is that we have all the non-specific references at the top of a single page. so we dont have two pages saying "these references might refer to the other ship with the same name". or "see also this other page". This was an issue that bothered your side in our last discussion, where we eventually agreed on this merge. Riker would still be offered the Melbourne that was destroyed at Wolf 359 though, as that reference does not comment on the class of the ship in any way. But that link would get you on a page that has everything on the Melbourne you ever wanted to know. --Pseudohuman 01:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Please go ahead and implement this solution, Pseudohuman. The only way we will know if it works is if you try. Ambassador/Ensign_Q 13:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Or, well... don't. It seems obvious that that solution doesn't have any form of consensus right now. -- Cid Highwind 13:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't worry Cid, I wont. I think someone once said the wait period should be about a week with these "periods of silence" on these long discussions. To give all interested parties a chance to read the situation and comment on it if they disagree. --Pseudohuman 21:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it comes down to what is canon, and as far as Star Trek is concerned the only thing that matters is what appears on the screen.
 * Even the Animated series is canon when compared to even the best written novels. The Nebula-Melbourne has never been clearly shown on screen. The Excelsior-Melbourne was exceptionally well shown.


 * I mean according to the logic some people are exhibiting, the Oberth-class USS Pegasus should be written up as a Cheyenne or Constellation-class simply because the screens on the Engineering set display four warp nacelles. Filmsatyr 20:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Filmsatyr: There are hundreds of articles in MA about things that are not clearly shown on screen. If one article removes valid content without a valid reason, then all articles should ignore similar valid content. Also, as far as I know there is no impossibility with a single nacelle housing two sets of warp coils, or an engineering computer to be used to display another starship classes warp propulsion system. --Pseudohuman 22:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In the case of the Melbourne we also have statements from the producers that their intention was for it to always have been an Excelsior class. I'm not sure why this must be dismissed in favor of assumptions and conjecture on our part. But it would seem that what "valid content" is depends.--31dot 22:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Any objections to 86ing "contentious" from the article?
"The question of which Federation starship class the Melbourne belonged to is contentious." Any objections to changing this to something a little more encyclopedic, like "There is a question of which Federation starship class the Melbourne belonged to."? --TribbleFurSuit 01:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe the point/resolution/etc of the above section really removes a lot of the "doubt" as to which class it belonged to...at least in terms of canon. The focus of the background now should really focus more on the history and controversy of the Nebbie. --02:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * My suggestion would be to replace "contentious" with "is a matter of debate." Either way, I support changing it.--31dot 19:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

End of Line
OK. We've all run in circles for the last several 100KB of text - let's put an end to that. The majority seems to believe that the change towards two equally "canon" Melbournes is not a good idea - and, this is in agreement with our. Let me quote:


 * In the event that any of this information [production or reference material] contradicts on-screen information, however, then the information stated on-screen will take precedence.

The only thing that this still hinges on - and basically, what this whole discussion boils down to, is the simple question: "Is it a contradiction, or is it not?". In the light of another part of the same policy, which reads:


 * [...] archivists should be guided by the principle that a valid resource with a higher precedence can (but does not have to) be given slightly greater evidentiary weight for purposes of writing the article from a Trek universe standpoint than the valid resource with a lower precedence.

, the majority of contributors to this discussion believes that the above suggestion would be contradictory - and as such, should be avoided. Especially in light of the fact that, after all, this is still an encyclopedia about a TV franchise, and as such should not outright contradict reader expectation about what can be found here. As AHolland, a past contributor to this site, put it (and thanks, Alan, for finding that):


 * If the goal of Memory-Alpha is to be an encyclopedia of Trek material looked at as authoritative, trustworthy, and accurate we *have* to treat the material in Trek consistent with the intention of the production staff.

The audience, after viewing the two Wolf 359 battle depictions, expects one Melbourne to have been destroyed in that battle, not two. This expectation should not be contradicted if we don't have to - and in fact, no valuable information is completely lost if we don't have two articles instead of one.

Long story short - I'd call the above discussion(s) a consensus for now, and ask you not to intervene if that decision gets put to article space.

Personally, I'm not going to reply here again, unless something really new gets brought up - until then, silence doesn't mean I'm no longer convinced of the decision described above. If this article is no longer the way you'd liked it to be, I'm sorry... -- Cid Highwind 23:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I support Cid's point of view.--31dot 23:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support &mdash; Morder 23:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support, and if there is a 4k+ response to this, I'm boycotting that user (whoever does it) :P --OuroborosCobra talk 23:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support– Cleanse 01:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Violently support. --TribbleFurSuit 02:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed this boils down to "Is it a contradiction, or is it not?"


 * I agree with Cid that we should be guided by our policy when deciding our answer on this. Our basic POV-policy states: "If there are subjects that have conflicting references in the stories, simply add all the given information, and optionally add a background note explaining that there is a conflict." But we have stopped simply adding all the information.


 * Among the invalid resources we have listed Fan fiction of any kind. There are two types of fan fiction, the expanded universe type and the "compacted" universe type. Both are just as misleading. MA currently filled with the latter. To still achieve the maximum ammount of objectivity, our canon policy has the guideline statement: "The presumption should be that a conflict does not exist unless no other explanation is reasonable under the circumstances." It is there to allow the maximum ammount of diversity possible to reflect canon and valid content objectively.


 * To weed out some of the distorted claims thrown around here. The only reference to the so called "production staffs original intentions" comes from reference material where a scenic art supervisor and a graphic designer state: "There were actually two Starships Melbourne used in these episodes..." and give out their personal opinion: "...we now assume that the Melbourne "really" was an Excelsior class ship".


 * This note has absolutely nothing to do with the production staffs original intentions. We cannot allow sidenote speculations from reference material determine the possibilities in the Star Trek Universe. Star Trek canon is intentionally vague on what is possible in the in-universe, to allow a maximum ammount of flexibility. Opinions of some production staff members to simplify everything down should not be taken into account when creating an encyclopedia about canon and valid content.


 * "Is it a contradiction, or is it not?" Yes is utter fan fiction and to be honest here people, audience expectation gets contradicted by almost every episode of Star Trek. No is an objective fact, follows our presumption policy, and if implemented in the way I have suggested also manages to produce an article that our POV-policy calls for. --Pseudohuman 05:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * For the love of Surak and all that is holy, I support Cid. --From Andoria with Love 05:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Umm.. so am I to understand you guys want an edit war? I dont see any resolution reached here. --Pseudohuman 09:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that is really out of line for you to threaten. The majority of users here seem happy with this solution. You're going to have to learn in life that not everything is going to go your way, and even in wikis unanimity is not required. In addition, some things need to be dealt with on a case by case basis. I'm sorry we don't buy your point of view that this is fan fiction run awry, but we just don't. You're going to have to live with that, and if you carry out your "suggestion" of an edit war, you are not going to get your position into the article, and will probably only get yourself blocked. I don't want to see that, I don't think anyone else does, we all value your contributions as an editor, but we do not agree with you in this case. This article has been a contentious issue for literally more than a year now, and we have a solution that an overwhelming majority agrees with. Whether you personally feel this is a violation of our policy (though most of us do not share this belief), or fanon, or whatever, you can't keep pushing this when the rest of us don't share your belief. --OuroborosCobra talk 09:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, not only is this "background rewrite" / "content shift" limited to just the "facts" (...both onscreen and off...), it explains the "contradiction" (...content that is not "purely" verifyable onscreen...) without getting into "fan rationalizations" (...original research...) as to why various scenarios are possible, as supported (...almost entirely...) by "verifyable sources" (...permitted resources...) which essentially explains the "situation" in its entirety. For those who feel the need delve into the world of contradiction (...which I understand is the "resolution" we've decided to avoid...), they can visit the external link to the EAS analyses... --Alan 12:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If seven votes to one isn't a consensus, I don't know what is. Sounds like a resolution to me.--31dot 18:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, for one, voting doesn't apply here, so it doesn't mean anything. There have been several people who do not support this representation. Secondly, you already started the edit war. So i'm not thretening to start one that has already been started. Any admin who misuses his power to create and protect vandalism should loose his admin rights. The edits you have made are basically vandalism and anyone should feel free to undo them. --Pseudohuman 22:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Calling what was done to this page "vandalism" is a big stretch, even for you, Pseudo. No admin has misused his "power" here. What was done to the article was agreed upon by everyone except for one person, then that one person threatened (or appeared to threaten) to revert said changes and begin an edit war. Hence, why the page was protected, in order to prevent the disruption to the community and site. Also, Memory Alpha operates on a general consensus, which is defined as the "majority of opinion". This is really the only way to operate since there is obviously no pleasing everyone, especially in cases like this. --From Andoria with Love 22:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, calling this an "edit war" and "vandalism" is utter bullshit Pseudo and you know it. This discussion was clearly in support avoiding the "conflict" by addressing it as background information over treating it in-universe. So simply put, that is exactly what was accomplished. The rewrite was clean and concise, and since this has been ignored multiple times, I will stated it again: the rewrite SUPPORTS ON-SCREEN CANON, while still addressing the contradiction that the production staff created entirely themselves, in the background section. If they NEVER admitted it, we would have NEVER known about it, based purely on on-screen evidence, therefore meaning that this entire waste of time discussion would have never happened. --Alan 23:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Wow umm... I clicked on the archive to read the fun discussion stuff, I should've looked to see how long it would be... it's been like an hour of reading... ... I came here from Federation Starships just for fun. I wanted you guys to know that the effect you were going for worked well.  I read a little bit on the ship, what happened to it.  Then I read background, and I mean background as nothing was conclusively shown on screen, on production changes. No speculation, no fandom, no off-screen explanations.  After all this is memory-ALPHA. – Saphsaph 09:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Day late and a dollar short there. This discussion was essentially over two months ago. But thanks anyway. --Alan 15:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I figured so. But seeing as the discussion was started in 2007... I figured it wouldn't hurt just in case someone down the line decides to pick it up! – Saphsaph 05:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Nebula class Melbourne
In the German edition this ship has a separate article. I am in favor of separating the article here as well. It is obvious that the spacecraft is canonical, because the wreck is so clearly identified. --Mark McWire 21:44, May 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * Please don't reopen that discussion(see the archive).--31dot 21:58, May 8, 2011 (UTC)

Actually I do not want to read pages of old discussion. That should be just a neutral comment. I also do not think independently of the old debate that the current article reflects the Canon properly. --Mark McWire 22:26, May 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * I really don't want new pages of discussion written on this, so I'm going to oppose splitting the article in perpetuity. Also, it's obvious the Germans are crazy. ;) - 22:35, May 8, 2011 (UTC)

No we are not crazy. We ignore only the non-canonical statement of the encyclopedia, because we have no rule requiring the inclusion of production information. Both objects exist in the Canon, so both have an article. The Nebula-variant, so for us as canonical as the Excelsior variant. --Mark McWire 22:49, May 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * My point is that unless you have some sort of new argument, this comment only serves to restate what was said before.--31dot 00:13, May 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * Mark McWire, the in-universe sections in MA shouldn't be considered as "pure-canon" to start with. We are trying to create an internally consistent in-universe database out of all the canonical material which isn't internally consistent, as it is full of small errors, retcons, new versions of episodes with replaced effects and a variety of anomalies. Everything less prominent which is deemed not compatible is thrown into bg when it is a self evident inconsistency or when producers give a statement on it being one. This is what the majority of editors here want MA to be like, so it is the way it is. --Pseudohuman 01:33, May 9, 2011 (UTC)

My problem is: What speaks for the other hand, there are two spacecraft of the same name? It is, indeed, that the spacecraft was labeled at all, even if you can not read in the episode. On the other hand, we know from the model of what was written right there. So I see it like that of the Nebula-class USS Melbourne is canonical. I find it contradictory that you accept on the one hand, statements by the production staff, on the other hand, doubts the labeling of the models used in the Canon. The USS Bellerophon (NCC-62048) will be accepted from you, too, though you can not read the name in the episode. Where then is the qualitative difference? --87.182.50.112 12:23, May 9, 2011 (UTC) --Mark McWire 13:26, May 9, 2011 (UTC) Edit: In my opinion it does here is a judgmental, without giving the reader the freedom to choose. Those who only look at the episodes will probably not come to the conclusion that one of the two spacecraft should be preferred. Although one other, the marking of the wreck without background information also can not know... difficult case. But your one-sided preference bothers me. --Mark McWire 13:26, May 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * Mark, I made the same arguments. But as you can see, MA has the policy I noted above, which as you can see is a mandate to reach this kind of one-sided preference on everything. --Pseudohuman 16:53, May 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * Readers can believe whatever they wish to believe; they don't need our help to do that, and that's not our job. Our job is, as stated above, is to be consistent with the following: "If the goal of Memory-Alpha is to be an encyclopedia of Trek material looked at as authoritative, trustworthy, and accurate we *have* to treat the material in Trek consistent with the intention of the production staff."
 * I will second Archduk and oppose any effort to split up this page.--31dot 19:12, May 9, 2011 (UTC)

I can not understand how the Nebula-variant against the "intention" of his production crew. It is as canonical as the other, even if the authors are subsequently believe that it is not there should be. That does not do that undone that we could see it. And, moreover, at least the appearance as Rikers table model is canonical. The performance is even sense because he should be given command of this ship, but he refused. This is indirectly also clear that he should be given command of the Nebula-variant, otherwise his memory would not even remember;) --Mark McWire 23:04, May 9, 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but your responses here are really hard to read - are you using some translation tool? Perhaps it would be better to continue this discussion on MA/de. For what it's worth, the answers to all of your questions, as far as I can understand them, are already in the discussion archive that you were asked to read. -- Cid Highwind 09:02, May 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * Mark, production crew intention was for there to be only one Melbourne, both models were used to represent the same ship, so that is why it would be against the intent for us to state there were two. Canonicity of the models is not the question. --Pseudohuman 12:31, May 10, 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Yes I have used a translation program (Online Google Translation tool) ... Although I can read English but not really speak or write. Discussions of which I am not involved, not help me much. I'm not about to ask questions but to defend my position. The background is to indicate that in some "Star Trek" forums, some users, the English MA as the source. As a result, they deny the existence of the Nebula-variant, because it is supposedly written here. I have nothing against it if someone by itself has such an opinion, but I have a problem with the fact that they are influenced by the English article in this direction. I do say so openly and without any intention of becoming a personal insult: I think your spread a false representation of this canonical fact. Otherwise, I find your work here just fine. --87.182.48.197 12:40, May 10, 2011 (UTC) In my view, be due to the TNG episode "Future Imperfect" verify the existence of the Nebula-Melbourne because Riker recalls and has built this ship in his memory. He apparently was offered the command of this ship, why he can imagine it as a souvenir in its future ready room. --87.182.48.197 12:45, May 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * Mark, you are correct. Our in-universe database is not intendet to be "pure-canon". It is what you might call an inconsistency-sensored version of canon. In our view the desktop model was retconed out by the Excelsior-models appearance based on our canon-policies. --Pseudohuman 13:15, May 10, 2011 (UTC)

For me it is only relevant thing I can actually see. So I can understand this view, but did not share. Already in Rikers room was a model of a Nebula-class ... Point. --87.182.48.197 13:22, May 10, 2011 (UTC) I have now entered the canon appearance in Unnamed Nebula class starships so at least this is entered correctly. You should at least mention the canonical appearances of the wreck and the table model. Let's just ignore for the moment that they were labeled. --Mark McWire 13:37, May 10, 2011 (UTC)


 * So the can of worms opened up again. I argued a while back that adding the Nebula-Melbourne as an unnamed ship is for us a bad compromise. It means we are half-ignoring the producers intent for this to be a retcon and the intent for this to be a single ship represented by two different models, which is okay by itself, if we want to do that. But we are then treating the name and registry of the other ship as a problem and censoring it out even though there is no valid reason for it to be a problem. A reason for the double names is being pointed out in apocrypha. Which isn't canon of course, but the apocryphal account proves that there is no conceptual problem with the double naming situation. It is in fact a perfectly plausible scenario. So I say go with one article or split all the way. Not this rationalized "half-split". --Pseudohuman 15:25, May 10, 2011 (UTC)


 * ...and this is what we get by lending credence to a user who can't even be bothered to review the previous discussions on this. We treat this the same way we treat other retcons, like the remastered TOS episodes, and I haven't seen a new reason to change that, so I'm reverting the changes to the Unnamed Nebula class starships page. If there's some change in the previous consensus here, it can be readded, but personally I'm going to oppose treating it as another starship. - 16:39, May 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * I oppose that as well. Mark, following your reasoning, we would need two different articles for Saavik, who was played by two different actresses.  We would need three for Tora Ziyal.  This is a similar situation- one ship played by two different models.  I will probably not have any further comment at this time unless some new issue comes up.--31dot 17:16, May 10, 2011 (UTC)

The fact that there has been only one spaceship, according to producers under the name "Melbourne" does, indeed not that this wreck has been. Following your reasoning, you can not read the name in the Canon. Then there are no canonical evidence that the wreck should be the same ship. It can be an arbitrary Nebula-class starship, which was destroyed near Wolf 359. With a little inspiration, you can even argue that it could be the destroyed USS Bellerophon. Of course I know that this is far-fetched. This should serve as an example. For me, the appearance of this wreck is canonical, after all, it is clearly visible. It was even shown in DS9, and thus is even shown that it can not be the Melbourne, because we had the damaged Excelsior-class have seen, which apparently does not agree with it. And mind you in the same episode, even within a short time. --Mark McWire 22:10, May 10, 2011 (UTC)

neutral Question
I will now come from the defense of my position on a completely neutral question: Why do the producers in the DS9 pilot, the Nebula-wreck reused and not previously shown Excelsior-wreck? We have seen in the first few seconds as the Excelsior-Melbourne were damaged and is subsequently drifted. At the end of the battle they have reused the Nebula model. Is there even any evidence? Why have they used this model from TNG again, if they really wanted to replace it? Does anyone out a coherent response? --87.182.43.41 12:13, May 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * Cost. The footage existed, no reason to re-film it all. -- sulfur 12:16, May 11, 2011 (UTC)


 * Apart of that, it was "some ship damaged at Wolf 359" before (TNG) and it is "some ship damaged at Wolf 359" now (DS9). Just because the producers didn't use it as the Melbourne doesn't mean they're no longer allowed to use it as some anonymous other ship. In fact, it is a nice touch to see the same unnamed ship wreck in both depictions of the battle. -- Cid Highwind 12:41, May 11, 2011 (UTC)

Ok. If definitely the spaceship in the window is not Melbourne, it has some other nameless ship to be or not? Hey, it's even almost the same screenshot as in the episode "Unification", which is registered as nameless spaceship. --87.182.43.41 13:41, May 11, 2011 (UTC)


 * You will have to take that up with the people that reverted you... -- Cid Highwind 14:23, May 11, 2011 (UTC)

I'm quite simple: I just wait until the debate here is forgotten. Then I just start a new attempt. If necessary, I can sit out this debate all the rest of my life. I will never give up my membership. "Good things take time", my grandma always says. ;-) --87.182.43.41 15:06, May 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * No one has asked you to "give up your membership", but the conversation discussing your question is not going anywhere, much like the previous discussion, which you refused to read. People aren't going to "forget".--31dot 15:15, May 11, 2011 (UTC)

I have now reads, at least until the half. English reads to me, unfortunately, a bit exhausting. I agree that there is only one Melbourne might have been. And I also agree that the evidence for the Excelsior-class predominate by far. The nebula wreck should at least be taken as unnamed starship. There are, in my view, no reason to ignore this wreck because it was used even later. Moreover, in the DS9 episode both ships to see in such a way that you can see that they are not identical. Why do you not agree with me? Even the authors after the class change the old model for another wreck on battlefield reused. --87.182.43.41 15:32, May 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand your point, but it isn't a different ship if it was labeled as the Melbourne. We ignore the fact that it appeared as a Nebula class vessel and instead think that it is an Excelsior class ship since that was the intention of the production staff.  You can believe whatever you wish personally, but that it how we treat it here.--31dot 15:43, May 11, 2011 (UTC)

But the Nebula model in DS9, which could be seen in the window, was not the Melbourne. The Melbourne we have seen some scenes before and that was definitely not the same ship. It is clear that the authors of this model in other contexts have used. That makes it, in my view, to its own independent space ship. --87.182.43.41 15:53, May 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * I explained in the above discussion which you were part of Mark, the logic of why it is a bad compromise. --Pseudohuman 16:35, May 11, 2011 (UTC)

I'd rather find a compromise at all, but I do not share your views on what it is. For me, the restraint of these canonical information is not acceptable. And as long as I'm here, I will (if only because I forgot this discussion in a few months back anyway) probably try it again and again. For me this is an information gap that should be completed. My hope is that the user composition be so in a few years is that one can agree on a compromise that is not based on censorship. --Mark McWire 17:18, May 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * Nothing is being censored, and even if it was, it is not us doing the censoring, but Trek producers who have ultimate control over the canon universe. This conversation will remain here so there is no need to repeatedly bring up the same issue over and over.--31dot 18:54, May 11, 2011 (UTC)

The fact that this controversy will never come to an end, should actually be evidence enough that the whole thing something is not optimal. Your solution may be legitimate, but it is not final We are (based on a compromise) agreed that it should have been only a space ship with the name "Melbourne". We also agree that more speaks for the Excelsior variant. However, we are probably not agree to deal with the Nebula-variant, which is a canonical spaceship. My basic problem is that you refuse a canonical occurrence in the database record. And because only a non-canonical subjective statement. Memory Alpha suppresses canonical facts just because they do not fit the opinion of the producers. According to the scheme you can also delete the episode "Threshold" because some producers do not see them as canonical. --Mark McWire 19:36, May 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * "sigh" No one has made a new "Threshold" episode and claimed that it replaces the original one.  That is what happened with the Melbourne.  --31dot 19:51, May 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * The controversy had also been over for three years, which sounds like an end to me.--31dot 20:00, May 11, 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, I could tag a post-it to my screen, reminding me to ask for a Melbourne merge on MA/de every Wednesday evening from now until eternity. Does that suddenly make your solution "not optimal", too? -- Cid Highwind 20:53, May 11, 2011 (UTC)

@ Cid: I respect people who support their views. I would have no problem with it. Rules are created by people and as the composition of the users of this wiki in the course of time changes, so does the majority opinion. There will come a day where the majority opinion is on my side .. I have to wait long enough. If I've learned as a child in school: Nothing lasts forever. And certainly no man-made rules. --Mark McWire 22:25, May 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't believe I just read that. You would tolerate the disruption of your wiki?  Your statement "nothing lasts forever" would also apply there, so I guess eventually the pages there will be merged, huh?--31dot 22:35, May 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * I will have no further comment, as it is clear we will just go around in circles.--31dot 22:36, May 11, 2011 (UTC)

Change has nothing to do with destruction. This was just an observation. Hey, I grew up in a village that belongs in the past 100 years to five different countries or societies. The rules of Memory Alpha are subject to changes and developments. I'm really not started to challenge your rules, but I wanted to record only a canonical fact in this collection of facts. But your narrow-mindedness on this issue leaves me no choice well as your principle into question. --Mark McWire 23:48, May 11, 2011 (UTC)


 * Fun fact: According to the huge discussion archive, considering the Melbourne to be "one starship, 'played' by two models" is not what we currently do, because that led to more problems than it solved back in 2008. Adding information about the Nebula wreckage to some "unnamed starships" page was among the suggestions to fix this mess back then, and was met with support even by people who now seem to oppose it. To save others the fun of having to read everything in the archive - all relevant bits seem to be located in the final thread, "Melbourne-related_articles_status". -- Cid Highwind 07:52, May 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * I assumed that since the change to the Unnamed Nebula page hadn't been done in three years, that we were treating it as a retcon(as Archduk said above). I take your word that some support for it is on that section of the archive somewhere but I seem to be missing it.--31dot 11:03, May 12, 2011 (UTC)


 * Search for the comment with this timestamp and read to the end of the section: "Alan 16:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)". -- Cid Highwind 12:38, May 12, 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I have read the entire archive before, but I'd be lying if I said I did more then skim it when this came back up. That said, I think the lack of a addition to the Unnamed Nebula article in all that time kinda spoke for itself. As I said before, if the consensus decided here is to re-add the Nebula hulk there, I'm fine with it, even though I think containing all Melbourne relevant information on one page is a cleaner and more manageable solution. - 13:47, May 12, 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, me neither - but I got curious when Pseudohuman's comment sounded as if there had been some explicit consensus not to add an "unnamed Nebula" to the list. There is no such explicit consensus, just an implicit one by, as you correctly pointed out, lack of addition. At the moment, it seems to me to be more sensible to actually have that hulk listed as unnamed than not having it - because, as I think has been pointed out before, someone looking for it should find it somewhere, if only on a list with a link to the background info on the Melbourne article. -- Cid Highwind 17:09, May 12, 2011 (UTC)


 * There was no consensus on calling it or not calling it unnamed. I only ask why would we then call it unnamed when we know what name it had? Since there is no problem with it being another USS Melbourne as such other than producers retcon intents. And why not then split all the nebula-bginfo on the Nebula ship to the other article be it unnamed or named where it would belong and split the article? I think we should put it in the unnameds only if we had a statement from Okuda along the lines of that he wanted it to still be another ship but just didn't come up with a name for it. etc. But it is clear he didnt want there to be a new nebula class ship as he didnt list one in Encyclopedia where he put all the other wrecks they built for the ep. --Pseudohuman 18:47, May 12, 2011 (UTC)


 * The circles we're running in are getting smaller again. We're not using the model name because, as has been stated a million times already, that name is already in use and the production intention was to not use it twice. Also, what Okuda does or doesn't do while he's writing secondary literature isn't exactly the same as some intent during the production process. The fact that you're now asking for this lesser form of intent, when before you didn't even want to accept the higher form, makes me wonder what this is all about, really. -- Cid Highwind 19:10, May 12, 2011 (UTC)

Summary
I have decided now to talk me out of the retreat. Until the possibility of a compromise to agree, this controversy will remain, because no party can convince the other of their position. I concentrate better now that the German Memory Alpha does not follow your example and organize the same nonsense. Thus, the Nebula-Melbourne is at least in one language version received as canonical fact. Who is the German language is powerful, can read the sequel in de:Forum:USS Melbourne - Excelsior- oder Nebula-Klasse?‎‎. --Mark McWire 00:49, May 12, 2011 (UTC)

In the German "Memory Alpha" is emerging as a possible consensus following solution: Both spacecraftwill remain as canonical entries exist, but in naming the starship Excelsior-class is regarded as the rightful owner of the name. The means that we are probably the Nebula-class minimum as a nameless wreck list on. --Mark McWire 11:28, May 14, 2011 (UTC)


 * It's amazing that my decision here so long ago still has repercussions. My life is complete. :)  Ambassador/Ensign_Q 18:33, June 22, 2011 (UTC)