Talk:USS Melbourne

From Memory Alpha, the free Star Trek reference

Previous discussions, and there are more than an earful, can be found here.

[edit] 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 canon policy. 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 — 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)