Talk:Akira class starship (Star Trek)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on January 22, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep. An archived record of this discussion can be found on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akira_class_starship.

Contents 1 Misc 2 Canon? 3 18th Oct RV 4 Specs & Canon 5 Article Deleted 6 Research and Verifyability 7 Further Discussion 8 Fact Files ship 9 RFC 10 Dialogues vs Visuals 11 Armada

[edit] Misc

Hi. It would be nice to have a picture of an Akira class starship, preferably a good screenshot or magazine picture, for this page. Thanks.

blue

Done. -- Djinn112 08:16, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

http://www.lcarscom.net/fsd/art/akira.html Read it and weap Alistair. Stop screwing around with the pages. Alyeska 03:38, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Silly me. I didn't realise lcarscom.net was a canon source of information. And as for Alex, you do realise that the actual CGI models do not necessarily match the designers sketches, right? AlistairMcMillan 14:32, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Check out this lovely screen shot Alistair. http://photobucket.com/albums/v177/Alyeska/Star%20Trek/?action=view&current=rela01d.jpg Thats an Akira class being built at Utopia Planitia, its from a episode of Voyager. Alyeska 13:26, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is there dialogue in the episode that clearly explains the Akira class is being built there? Is there a chance it was being repaired? Is there further dialogue that explains ALL Akira class starships are built there? AlistairMcMillan 14:30, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Way to go dodging canon. We see an multiple Akira class starships at Utopia Planitia. Logical conclussion bassed on visual canon, they are built there. They can be built elsewhere, but we have canon evidence they are built there. BTW, that previous page I linked too shows you the weapon counts on the Akira as well. Half the specifications you deleted comes purely from canon sources. Alyeska 18:18, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We see Akira class starships at Utopia Planitia. No one is disagreeing. Is there anything that proves the ships in the screencap were built there? Is there anything that proves that all Akira class starships were built there? You can't just make assumptions based on a few screencaptures.

Is that page you linked to canon? NO. Is everything Alex says canon? NO. Show us a canon source. AlistairMcMillan 20:22, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Utopia Planitia is the biggest shipyard we have ever seen onscreen. Why call it a shipyard if it can not build ships? If it can service ships such as the Akira, logic tells us it can build them as well. This is not speculation, but observation bassed on facts in evidence.

BTW, that Akira page link isn't canon, but the CGI model is. I counted every single torpedo launcher on that model. Its the same model used in series. Hence its canon and information derived from it is canon. Alyeska 22:30, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So about Utopia Planitia, then you are admitting that nothing actually identified it as the place where Akira class starships are built? Cool, progress.

What happens if someone else studies the same images as you and comes up with a different number of torpedo tubes? A long drawn out argument on this Talk page? Pistols at dawn? The screen-captures may be canon, but the information drawn from them may not be. AlistairMcMillan 00:31, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Don't be an ass. We know Utopia Planitia is a shipyard. We see several Akira class ships there. Logical conclussion bassed on canon evidence, Akira class ships are built there. As for weapon counts, I am not even using the TM because of how absurdly wrong it is. The creator of the ship, the person who created the actual CGI model stated there are 15 torpedo launchers on the model. These can be physicaly counted on the wire frame version of the model. These aren't screenshots that can have lighting effects get in the way, its the actual model. The phaser count is also quite concrete because there are only three. Enough appealing to ignorance. You are providing nothing to the discussion here. Alyeska 02:11, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Canon?

Has the name "Akira" class ever been confirmed in on-screen canon? Likewise, I don't recall ever hearing of the existence of a USS Akira, much less its NCC registry number. If this comes from a non-canon source, it should be cited accordingly. 23skidoo 20:36, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The class has never been identified as "Akira class" onscreen, however given that this is the name the production crew recognises the vessel by (not to mention Jaeger himself), the designation is as close to canon as you can get without the name appearing or being mentioned onscreen. It is not 'fanon' as some would say, because the name was not coined by fans, but production staff. Given the working class designation, we can assume the pathfinder of the class was called Akira, but there is no direct canon evidence to support this. It is extrapolation. - Hayter 23:05, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 18th Oct RV

I removed the specifications posted. As far as I could tell, the vast majority of them (if not all of them) were unverifiable as far as canon data goes. Even simple stats such as the length of the class are heavily disputed so how we can work out how many workbees the thing carries, what type of war core it has, etc. is beyond me and the Utopia topic has been adressed before. There is nothing to suggest all Akira vessels are built there. The edit indicated that some specs came from a technical manual (heavily disputed things themselves) and other sources, some non-canon. It smelt an awful lot like an RPG's interpretation to me, and given the conjectural nature, I didn't think it warranted inclusion in the article. - Hayter 15:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

---

Leading on from this, I reverted the edit here. Much as I like the specs box up the side, it still looks like conjecture. I reiterate - when we can't agree on the length of a starship, how can we work out the maximum crew and other details? I haven't checked but I assume this was lifted at least in part from Memory Alpha - good as that site is, it does include conjecture. The Wikipedia article should not, unless it is clearly marked as such, preferably at the bottom of an article. --Hayter 09:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Specs & Canon

The Tech Manuals might not be canon, but that is irrelevent. They are authorized sources from the producers of the show and indicate a level of backstage information. They are offical published sources and relevant to this article. Furthermore, not all the information is derived from the TMs. The weapon counts themselves are from on screen information. Alyeska 19:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The Technical Manuals were not authorized by the producers of the show. They were authorized by people at Paramount who had nothing to do with the show. That is why the shows contradicted the Technical Manuals without hesitation while the shows were still on the air. That is why they are irrelevant. And staring at screenshots to determine weapon counts is original research. We've discussed this all before, do you really want to go over it all again? AlistairMcMillan 15:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Regarding viewing film to determine weapon counts, it's interesting to note that in Nemesis, the Enterprise was only seen to fire around twenty (I forget the exact number) torpedoes, and then Data claims they have run out. This clearly doesn't mean the Enterprise only carries twenty-odd torpedes so given that this method doesn't work for a class with as much information and screentime as the Sovereign, how you can use it to determine stats for the Akira is lost on me. And as Alistair says, the manuals are not canon. They have been contradicted many times onscreen, and likely will be again at some point in the future. - Hayter 16:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll go you one better. The Galaxy class models used throughout TNG clearly have eleven phaser banks. But in Conundrum Worf says the ship has ten. What do you do in this situation? The series contradicts itself. AlistairMcMillan 16:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

That the some of the specs are not-canon is irrelevent. There is nothing that states we can't post specs which are un-canon. Furthermore, Paramount owns Trek and is allowed to make some statements about the series. That the TMs are created by people who infact worked heavily with the series gives us an insight into what they were thinking. Finaly, several of the specs are very canon. You can clearly count weapon systems and the numbers of engines. I dare you to call the warp engine count non-canon. BTW AM, the Galaxy class has 12 phaser banks, not 11. Of course in Conundrum Worf was suffering from an alien influence. Either way, specifications are acceptable. And I don't want to see you claim Verifiability or Original Research AM. I've looked over the rules and its nothing more then a bullshit copout on your part. Specifications don't violate verifyability, and if onscreen weapon counts are considered Original Research, then sourcing onscreen dialogue (which is what these articles are entirely from) also violates original research. Just because you don't like some of the information doesn't give you the right to delete it. The information can be pointed out to be from non-canon sources. You can even question the methods used to get some information (counting). But you don't get to remove information. You do that and I am going to remind you of the NPOV policy that so many Wiki admins flaunt. Alyeska 17:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

If I'm wrong on this issue, then why do other editors revert your changes for exactly the same reasons. I've seen you having exactly the same arguments with other editors on your Stargate pages, which I haven't even touched (yet)? AlistairMcMillan 17:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

And other editors revert those other editors changes as well. Some of the people on the stargate pages don't listen to the informatation presented and post what they thought they heard. That doesn't make their information correct.Alyeska 18:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

So you are in favour of using the Technical Manuals and visual inspection as sources. The DS9 Technical Manual clearly states eleven phaser banks and visual inspection shows twelve. Which do you suggest? BTW I'm asking hypothetically since I have no intention of supporting spec lists on these pages. I state that for the record so you don't misunderstand me and accuse me of lying for the next six months.  :) AlistairMcMillan 18:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

When two sources contradict each other, you use the source of higher authority. Onscreen information would clearly trump TMs. BTW, the DS9 TM could be both right and wrong on the Galaxy. It has 11 exposed phaser arrays with a 12th hidden on the "Cobra head" of the battle section. Your lack of support on specifications is irrelevent. Their is no rational or logical reason to withold specs on these pages. These pages are dedicated to information on the fictional ships of Trek. There are essentialy 3 sources of information regarding these ships. The first source is canon. This is onscreen information. Either dialogue or visual. The second source is backstage information. The third is published material. The onscreen information is the highest order of canon, infact its the only canon. However, the other two sources of material are produced by those who worked on the show. When the published and backstage info does not contradict the canon material, there is no logical reason to withold the information (clearly mark it as non-canon if so desired). Wikipedia is supposed to be about truth and knowledge. How can Wikipedia do that when its arbitrarily witholding information? Alyeska 18:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems to be that if the STAR TREK ENCYCLOPEDIA has references to the Akira Class starship, wouldn't it be considered cannon. There are graphics, pictures, etc. At least one of the Akira Class is seen at the battle of WOLF 359. And others are seen in Star Trek First Contact.

Just being in the STE doesn't make it canon. And FYI, no Akira class ships showed up at Wolf 359. They have been seen in First Contact, the Dominion War, and two episodes of Voyager (Message in a Bottle & Endgame).Alyeska 20:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article Deleted

If "And staring at screenshots to determine weapon counts is original research", then the entire article is original research. I've seen some of AllisM's arguments, and conceding the point to him, I have followed his argument to its logical end. If staring at screenshots to determine ship statistics and specifications is original research, then any and all evidence obtained observing the show is original research, and thus the entire article is inadmissable. Neocapitalist 19:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

What you just did is vandalism. If you do that again you will be blocking from editing. AlistairMcMillan 19:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

However if you sincerely believe the page should be deleted please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. AlistairMcMillan 19:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

My apologies; I took the wrong approach to this original research. I will very shortly nominate the Akira Class article for VFD. Neocapitalist 23:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

And when you delete specifications that others have put into the article, you have also comitted Vandalism and should therefor block yourself. Alyeska 19:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference between sourced information and unsourced information. If there was dialogue in the series that explicitly listed the width, height, length, number of phasers, number of photon torpedoes, number of shuttles, number of whatever, then it would be fine to add it. But even when we do have dialogue that covers that, you dispute it. You even dispute the non-canon sources that other people might find acceptable. And last time we were discussing this, I studied some of your screenshots and came up with different numbers than you, which just goes even further in proving that your sources (screenshots) are not verifiable.[1] Please either learn to follow the rules here (they aren't that complex) or go find somewhere else where speculation and guesswork are accepted. Discussing this around and around and around for months is just going to waste both of our time. AlistairMcMillan 19:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Distorting the truth in order to prove your point of view eh? If there is a conflict between canon sources, let the editors discuss it and come up with a valid solution. Saying that a conflict will exist is not a valid reason to remove the information outright. Might as well delete the Evolution article because all the Creationists are going to be up in arms over it. Last of all, you did not even attempt to rationaly look at the screenshots I posted. Even more, you deleted very clear canon information. How about the warp engine counts? How about the stated crew numbers. Don't try and push your sophistry BS on us AM. Alyeska 19:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

We aren't supposed to debate things and come up with best guess numbers. Everything on Wikipedia is supposed to be sourced. It is that simple. The point is that the people who produced the series didn't even have even a tiny passing interest in establishing the specification for starships. So the places that do cover them are wildly inconsistent (Technical Manuals, websites, whatever). That is why we have entire websites dedicated to figuring this stuff out (ex-astris-scientia, etc) and trying to come up with numbers that make sense. However Wikipedia is not the place for that kind of work. Please stop wasting our time trying to force your personal specification lists on this website. AlistairMcMillan 20:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

And under your reasoning, because the producers didn't really care, all information is suspect. Therefor the entire article should be removed. Alyeska 20:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Cool. Please go list the page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. You'll fnd the instructions at the bottom of the page. AlistairMcMillan 20:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. Thats what you need to be doing. Since your the one who doesn't want information and these are your aguments that is the logical conclussion. Since you aren't doing that, you don't actualy believe the conviction of your arguments and are just making excuses to support your dislike of this information. Alyeska 20:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Blah de blah de blah. Information on Wikipedia has to be sourced. If you can't provide sources it is going to be removed (and by sourced I don't mean, "I've studied some screenshots and I conclude..."). I'm not going to waste more time arguing with you. The rules here are clear. AlistairMcMillan 20:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I can easily provide sources. TM or onscreen evidence itself. Of course we both know the majority of information in these Trek articles hasn't been sourced. Its been put up by people in good faith, but its not been sourced. Your precious rules and rational has failed you every time AM. Alyeska 20:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

And since you now claim you will no longer talk to me, you have conceded the discussion which means I can now repost the specs. If you remove the specs, it will prove you are making unilateral decisions without discussing the changes and refusing to see viewpoints other then your own, a NPOV violation. Alyeska 20:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

When you study screenshots and come up with statistics that is original research. Especially when other people study the same screenshots and come up with different numbers. We don't allow original research. There is nothing to discuss here. Please read the single line of text under the "Edit this page" edit box. "Content must not violate any copyright and must be verifiable." MUST BE VERIFIABLE. Not guess-work, not supposition, not "discuss it and come up with a valid solution". AlistairMcMillan 21:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

And when we discussed this previously the only people supporting your edits were your forum buddies. No other editor here supports the addition of specification lists. Please either follow the rules here or find somewhere else to host your speculation. AlistairMcMillan 21:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

If studying onscreen visuals is original research, then so is studying onscreen dialogue. It is the exact same form of data. My information is verifyable and does not constitute original research. That you claim it does proves you have no understanding of the concepts you claim to be enforcing. Now you need to actualy bother to enforce your own rules and stop cherry picking what you like and don't like. Your an admin, so act like one. Alyeska 21:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

If two people listen to Worf in Conundrum saying "We are equipped with 10 phaser banks...", is there any chance that people might come up with different numbers for the ship's phasers? That is why series dialogue is not original research. AlistairMcMillan 21:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Research and Verifyability

Original research is a term used on Wikipedia to refer to material added to articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been published already by a reputable source. In this context it means unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments that, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation"

Lets see. The information I am using is already published by a reputable source (TMs or was shown onscreen). Since thats the the only qualifer, the information I have does not violate the no original research clause. Of course using your reasoning, if the TMs and even the visual information violates the original research clause, then ANY information taken from the series (dialogue) also violates the no original research. Instead your cherry picking rules here. The Verifiability rules only state that the information must come from a valid source and be verifyable. The fact that one can count with ones own eyes is proof enough that its verifyable. In other words, your entire point of argumentation is FALSE. Stop throwing up red herring arguments which are patently false and irrelevent. Alyeska 21:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Different people look at exactly the same screenshots and come up with different numbers. What you are doing is analysis of screenshots to come up with unpublished data. If everyone looked at the screenshots and came up with the same numbers... if the technical manuals listed the same numbers... if the series dialogue listed the same numbers... then we wouldn't have anything to argue about. But they ALL DISAGREE. AlistairMcMillan 21:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Nice dodge. You ignored the implication on how TMs are accepted entirely since they have hard numbers. When you call what I do an analysis of the screenshots is still more of a smokescreen on your part. I'm taking the visual information and posting it in the articles. When people hear dialogue, they are analyzing it in their head and posting what they remember. Same concept. As it stands, just because people come up with different numbers from time to time does not invalidate the information as a whole. Some people are opperating under false information. Some people have superior screen shots or source information to work from. It does not invalidate the information. You on the other hand would write it off entirely because you simply don't like it. Now, I've quoted the important part of the no original research rule, and it doesn't exclude any of the information you've removed. So your violating Wiki rules and enforcing your own opinion here. Alyeska 22:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

If the Technical Manuals can be completely trusted, would mind telling us which is correct on the Ent-D saucer section. TNG Technical Manual says 388.36m and DS9 Technical Manual says 463.73m. Even the two technical manuals, one written by Sternbach and Okuda, the other written by Sternbach, Zimmerman and Drexler, can't even manage to be consistent with themselves.

About the comparison between dialogue and visuals... I'm not even going to bother. If you can't see the difference between someone saying "10" and someone else analysing a bunch of screenshots and coming up with a best guess of "12", then what is the point. At this point you really are bordering on being a troll. AlistairMcMillan 22:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I already pointed out how one avoids conflicts. When you have the TM disagreeing with onscreen information, the onscreen information supercedes it. The issue of saucer width can be deduced by simple math. Examine the stated size (the Galaxy length is given onscreen IIRC) and do a simple comparison to see what the saucer width would have to be. Number crunching, math, about as accurate as you get. And on the issue of dialogue vs visuals. You have to examine the situations at hand. You have a SINGLE quote from Worf. I have 2 dozen screenshots from 2 dozen episodes. Furthermore, the incident in question with Worf was from an episode where his memory was known to be tampered with. And 12 phaser arrays is not a guess. Its concrete fact. We know exactly what a phaser array looks like from observed examples of the phasers firing and we can therefor count how many are on the ship. Your attitude is unbecoming of an admin. Alyeska 22:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

If this issue is so clear cut, then why doesn't everyone have the same stats? Why do all the possible sources conflict? AlistairMcMillan 23:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Because some people are stupid. And I already covered the issue that some people are working with flawed sources. Alyeska 23:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

So you are saying, again, that we should go with your stats instead of other peoples. Your stats. Your original research. Why can you not see this is a problem? AlistairMcMillan 00:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Repeating the claim a hundred times doesn't make it true. My stats are bassed on visual observations of canon material. This does not constitute original research and claims to the contrary by you are red herrings. Get it through your thick skull. I'm begining to wonder how you got nominated as an admin when its clear you have a terrible understanding of logical reasoning and comprehension. Alyeska 00:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

BTW I haven't looked it up but what do you want to bet that the series dialogue that mentions the ship length, and the technical manuals that list length, all list different sizes? AlistairMcMillan 23:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Though I fear that such an addition to this lively debate will not change anyone's mind, I feel obliged to point out that Alistair is correct in what he says. Only what is shown onscreen is canon and thus only what is shown onscreen should be presented as canon. It contradicts itself too much to add in yet more sources and count them as canon. The Prometheus has two registry numbers, the phaser count of the Galaxy-class can't be agreed upon, the size of the Defiant is wildly different depending on which episode you watch. Tech manuals are nice for simms that want to fill in the gaps or fans that just want a bit more on that side, but they don't count as canon. Roddenberry himself said only what was shown onscreen was canon.

You make an interesting point about visual data onscreen Alyeska, but it's ultimately unsound, at least in the way you present it. If Sisko says Deep Space Nine' is five metres high whilst standing in front of an Okudagram that clearly shows a height of 5000m, then the anomoly should be included in a Wikipedia article about the station. But if Sisko says the station is 5000m tall and someone looking at a Galaxy'-class docked at one of the pylons estimates the scale and comes up with a figure of 6000m, that's original research and not allowed here. Your original standpoint is flawed as far as Wikipedia is concerned, and that's evidenced as much by the way your argument has veered off course above and now addresses other matters as anything else. On a Star Trek forum, I'd find your ideas interesting and I'd be happy to discuss it, but this is not the place and even if it were, and even if we came to a consensus, it would still not be canon and thus not for inclusion in the article. There are instances where the mention of non-canon information (provided it is marked as such) is warranted - Jaeger's comments on the Akira design are such a case. But to come up with your own stats via simplistic counts and non-canon tech manuals and then pass the lot off as the way it is is wrong. Even if you say on the article that the specs are partly conjecture, it's still wrong. Wikipedia is not the place for fan conjecture. - Hayter 23:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

And your position is fundamentaly flawed because it assumes that dialogue is accurate 100% of the time. Furthermore you still haven't given cause to discount the TMs. You claim the designers input on the ship is valid but authorized sources by the owners of the franchise are dialowed. Cherry picking is a logical fallacy. The validity of the sources might be in question, but by Wikipedia's own rules they are not disalowed. Every single argument AM has given that this information is against the rules has been false. Find me where Wiki rules state this information can not be posted. Alyeska 00:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be selectively picking points to argue against, ignoring those which you cannot correctly contradict (which by rare chance, also matter most here). But regardless, from Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Trek regarding non-canon works:

"While these works are beloved by fans and may commonly be regarded as fanon, they are not official, and it is not appropriate to portray them as fact." (emphasis theirs)

Let me phrase it in a more direct fashion. As far as Star Trek is concerned, what is not canon, is not fact. It's the same as the Bible, from which the term originally comes. Because Wikipedia deals in facts and not conjecture, what is not canon does not belong here, except in rare circumstances as demonstrated above. Your specs list is not canon, thus not fact, thus not to be included. - Hayter 00:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

And labeling the non-canon information as such is harmful to the article how? Every single specs page stated explicitly that the information was either from the TMs or the information was derived from what some consider questionable means. So the article was infact quite NPOV because it contained multiple points of information and clearly labeled what wasn't canon. Right now the article is itself biased with the refusal to allow secondary sources of one sort while allowing similar sources. Alyeska 00:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Alyeska, you're drifting here. Now you're saying (perhaps unintentionally) that the article is biased because it only shows information which has been confirmed to be accurate. I understand that you've dug in now, but your argument is beginning to lose its coherancy. - Hayter 00:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

No, I have a two pronged argument. The first is that the information you oppose is not against Wiki policy and removal of it violates Wiki policy. Especialy the issue of the TMs. The TMs do not violate ANY of the Wiki rules. Secondly, I am asking people to show me where in the Wiki policy that analysis of visual information is a violation whereas analysis of dialigue information is not. Alyeska 00:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

You have been shown the difference above and have refused to acknowledge it. If a character says "10 phaser banks" that's it, end of discussion until such time as the writers muck up and contradict it with more speech in which case the situation must be analysed individually. To attempt to discern a bank number by comparing screenshots is original research. In one case you are told, in the other you investigate. It's not a complex distinction. - Hayter 00:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

In one you are shown it and the other told it...what is the fundamental difference? They do after all say a picture is worth a thousand words dont they? If a reputable picture showed that a building was pink and someone who lived in it insisted it was green, does the testimony of the person in it carry more weight than the picture showing evidence to the contrary? --Fearghul 03:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Wrong Hayter. A picture is reliable and consistent. Worf stated 10 torpedoes ONCE. The model of the Galaxy class has 12 phaser arrays IN EVERY EPISODE. So weight of evidence does not support Worf. Furthermore you still refuse to acknowledge the issue that when Worf stated 10 phasers, he was not a reliable source seeing as his memory was faulty at the time. Alyeska 03:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Find me the Wiki policy that states dialogue is superior to visuals. Find me the Wiki policy that states non-canon TMs can not be posted. BTW, your example is horrid. First, Worf was suffering amnesia at the time. Secondly, I can find more visuals sources that disagree with that single piece of dialogue. Furthermore, what of examples where there is no dialogue and only visuals to go by?Alyeska 00:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Further Discussion

Funny how no-one has posted the requested information. As I've been saying all along, specifications as derived from visual information or TMs violate no Wikipedia rules. Alyeska 04:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Allistair, how stupid do you think people are? You can question the validity of visual analysis, but it is very clear to anyone with half a brain that such analysis does not violate the Wikipedia policy on Original Research.

Original research is a term used on Wikipedia to refer to material added to articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been published already by a reputable source.

Visual analysis comes directly from a reputable source, canon information. Therefor it can't violate the Original Research rule. Stop claiming it does. Your trolling this issue by intentionaly repeating a claim already disproved. Of course its par for the course. Last time we had this little discussion you actively lied about your position and actions. Alyeska 18:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

No I did not. AlistairMcMillan 19:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. At one point in the Prometheus discussion you agreed to a compromise. Then you renigged on that compromise. In a later discussion someone else asked both of us to compromise. I pointed out you already renigged on a previous compromise. You denied this even after being confronted with the evidence on more then one ocassion. Alyeska 19:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

What can I say, I was trying to make the point that once you remove the speculation from the specification lists there is not much left. Using the word "compromise" was obviously a mistake. For that you have my sincere apology. AlistairMcMillan 19:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

And need I remind you of the time you vandalized someone elses userpage accusing him of being a sockpuppet of me? Alyeska 19:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I remember that clearly. You getting one of your forum buddies to back up your edits.[2] I also remember him not responding when I asked him a simple question on his talk page.[3] AlistairMcMillan 19:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

One problem. I don't know the guy. So that blows your little theory out of the water. Alyeska 19:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

So what was he referring to in his very first Talk page posting? "...as you described..." Funny expression for someone who you don't know. AlistairMcMillan 19:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Why are you asking me? I don't know who the guy is. He messaged me out of the blue in regards to you. Alyeska 19:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fact Files ship

(Name unknown) (NCC-63646) - This starship is believed to exist according to the Star Trek Fact Files. Its name is unknown at this time.

There's a vessel listed in the fact files without a name? - Hayter 13:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFC

I'm withdrawing from this discussion. This discussion is becoming more about the editors involved than the actual dispute itself. I've posted a Wikipedia:Requests for comment on this issue. Have fun. AlistairMcMillan 19:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't resist making one final jab at me eh? You call my information vandalism on my personal talk page and I bite my tounge. But then after I've repeatedly explained how my information is not original research and gone into detail AND requested you actualy cite specific information to prove your claim of Original Research violation (which you never actualy bothered to do), you still make the original research claim. Your being very dishonest AM. If you make a claim, be prepared to back it up. You've claimed Original Research violation dozens of times but not once have you actualy cited any specific incident or rule. I on the other hand have quoted the Original Research rule and pointed out where it explicitly doesn't violate the rules and you don't even post a response disagreeing with me. Instead you keep repeating the same claims which have already been disproven. Very dishonest behiavor on your part AM. Alyeska 19:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I would assert that lists of specifications come under fancruft and don't belong in the article. They are only useful for die-hard Star Trek fans. Casual fans (like myself) would not find them useful or interesting at all. However, I fully sopport the inclusion of an external link that directs to a webpage which produces these specs. Hope my comment is useful!  -- Run!  14:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Your assertation would be wrong. Fancruft doesn't have to be authorized by Paramount and isn't written by people who took part in the series. Alyeska 00:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dialogues vs Visuals

Hayter, you claim that dialogue trumps visuals every time. This is itself questionable, but we can leave that to the side for the moment. The visuals themselves are canon data from a published medium. Counting information from the visuals itself might be research, but it is NOT Original Research. I've already pointed this out and you've not actualy defended the claim that it is original research. Now you can not deny that visuals provide clear evidence. You contend that when the visuals are in contradiction with dialogue, that the dialogue trumps. I question that, but again, I leave that alone for the moment. You've removed specification on EVERY Starfleet ship regardless of the fact that no such contradiction exists. The Akira class has very clear weapon counts which can be derived from visuals and no dialogue contradicts this. You needlessly reverted every page. At best you only had cause to revert the Galaxy class page. Alyeska 16:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

From Alyeska's talkpage:

You are analysing onscreen footage and comparing it with other onscreen footage and the Tech manuals. This is research. Because it is your own, it is original research. This is not allowed. Regarding the TMs, because they are not canon, information provided by them is not neccesarily accurate, and due to its unverifiability, cannot be added to a factual article. I fail to understand why you cannot accept this. - Hayter 09:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

You'll likely also notice that I've reverted your additions of the stats where I've seen them on other starship pages. Even if you disagree with their non-validity, surely you can see that the posting of controversial new data to an article without consensus is wrong, and borders on POV vandalism. Disrupting Wikipedia to make a point (as you did with the Akira afd) is not the path to a better article. - Hayter 13:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Then I fully expect you to revert all stats to DS9 TM values. Do not erase all data.Alyeska 16:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Alyeska, why do you continue to ignore what is posted for your own benefit? Why would I restore all the stats to the TM values when the TMs are not canon? Before you respond, take note that this isn't personal in any way. I've read past discussions you've been involved in and agree with you on some issues, specifically that the plaques, having appeared onscreen are canon (and yes, that means there's an old admiral kicking round Starfleet called Roddenberry), but on this issue you are wrongly passing off non-canon information as fact. If it was an interesting anecdote, "Jaeger once jokingly told co-workers the Akira was built with Breen technology" then fine, but all you've added is speculation. Granted, in some cases it is the speculation of respected Trek workers such as Okuda, but it's still speculation. As for onscreen evidence, it can clearly be used for some things. Describing the shape of the Enterprise, the design of Starfleet uniforms, the number of pylons at DS9. But when you begin to get into details such as phaser counts, you enter into a grey area where dispute can arise, because rather than simply being handed the answer, you've had to investigate it. Even if this wasn't original research, say you count the Galaxy's torpedo launchers and come up with two. But there's a hidden one where the ship seperates that you've missed. And then next year, a new movie shows that the Galaxy class has a hidden launcher on its ventral hull, as well as a retractable pulse phaser cannon. Such things have happened before, contradicting information already presented in released works such as Mr Scott's Guide to the Enterprise. This is because the writers take very little if any notice of the TMs and contradict them freely. So to avoid hassle, the released books were not considered canon by Roddenberry, they are not considered canon by Paramount, and that's that. You can debate their likelyhood ad naseum but they are not canon, thus possibly incorrect. Wikipedia users do not want incorrect information on article pages, and lest you propose a compromise of putting them up until they are contradicted, I would hazard the guess that they do not want "this information has not been confirmed to be accurate, but might be," either. - Hayter 18:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

And now your acting intentionaly dishonest. All specs are prefaced with the statement that they are either TM sources and hence non-canon, or they are derived from visual analysis and some question such analysis methods. I never claimed to pass off the TMs as canon. The fact that they are not canon is IRRELEVENT. Backstage information is also non-canon and yet you happily post such material in the articles in question. TM material clearly labeled as such qualifies the same way. Your acting contradictory within your own logic. And I've also repeatedly pointed out what I am doing IS NOT ORIGINAL RESEARCH. The rule specificaly states that original research is from

Original research is a term used on Wikipedia to refer to material added to articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been published already by a reputable source. In this context it means unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments

The description of original research clearly states that information must be published by a reputable source. THAT IS ALL. It says nothing about analysis of reputable sources. So what I have done is NOT a violation of the Original Research policy. And by your own logic, when visuals do not conflict with dialogue, said data is admissable. Alyeska 20:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Every point you have raised above has been explained to you before now. The fact that you have neglected to assimilate the information provided is your own failing. One last time: Information pertaining to something such as Star Trek ship specifications when not canon, is not verefiably accurate and thus according to WP rules not for inclusion within the article. "Reputable sources" was a rule created to ensure that articles don't get filled with biased information just because Joe Bloggs' website says something is true. In the case of this and similar articles, the only truly reputable source is the Star Trek canon, because it's all that has been verified. Say I want to include information and cite ditl.org as a source, but someone else says it's not a reputable source. They propose EAS which has different data on the subject but I disagree with that choice. The only place such conflicts will not arise is the canon, unless there is a continuity violation in which case the article will reflect that. As I have said, "As for onscreen evidence, it can clearly be used for some things. Describing the shape of the Enterprise, the design of Starfleet uniforms, the number of pylons at DS9. But when you begin to get into details such as phaser counts, you enter into a grey area where dispute can arise, because rather than simply being handed the answer, you've had to investigate it." You can see the shape of Voyager in the opening credits sequence, but you can't count the phasers or escape pods without comparing various shots/stills/production photos. This is research. Not advanced, I grant you, but still research, and still original. What happens if you count four torpedo launchers on the Steamrunner but looking at the same shots, I come up with five? You say my fifth is a thruster port. Either of us could be right so what to do? Even assuming we reach an agreement on it, our conclusion has not been verified and we, as mere editors are not reputable sources. Two rule breaks there. I've no problem with including verifiable data, such as "The Enterprise-D had a school onboard, (TNG: "When the bough breaks")" but you can't advance that to "Some Galaxy-class vessels were known to have schools aboard," because that's conjecture - how do we know the Enterprise wasn't unique in this regard? This is the nature of a deal of your edits, even when based upon the technical manuals because they themselves are the speculation of some of those involved with the show. You don't say "some ships had schools" until it's confirmed onscreen, so why would you say, "the Akira carries X shuttlecraft" when it hasn't been confirmed? I've covered backstage anecdotes directly above your response but to reiterate, published stories or interviews with the designers may be worthy of inclusion in the article. This isn't hypocracy because of the way it is presented. "Rick Berman once told TIME magazine he had considered the Akira class as the next Enterprise" would be an interesting addition, but it wouldn't open the door for "Starfleet considered the Akira design as a possible successor to the Galaxy but instead went with the Sovereign." - Hayter 10:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Anything from the TMs is clearly verifiable. That demolishes half of your argument. Just because a source is not canon does not mean it comes from a non reputable source. The ST TMs are clearly reputable given who works on them. One can even take and ignore the contradictions within the TMs by declaring the new TMs retconing the old TMs. As it stands, you just set an arbitrary line on visual evidence. Yours is not the place to make unilateral decisions. Alyeska 16:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes any information from the TMs can quite easily meet the verifiable standard by adding a reference. However since the TMs were quite happily ignored by the producers of the series and contradicted without hesitation, when they didn't consider the TMs a reputable source, why should we take them at all seriously? You have to admit, when new Trek episodes were being produced, TPTB quite happily ignored the TMs every hour of every day. AlistairMcMillan 19:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

That is in itself irrelevent. The TMs can be used to give us information and insights into what the producers and staff were thinking. Yes the TMs got ignored by the producers on many ocassions, but at times they also got paid attention to. The Nova class is a prime example. The TM material itself can quite easily be posted in the article when it does not contradict what we already know. Backstage information is already in the Akira article, and you have not removed it. The TMs qualify under the same exception. Alyeska 20:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Can something be a reputable source and a non-reputable source at the same time? Also there is a difference between backstage info (Alex Jaeger and the production staff used Akira for this classes name for instance) and stuff that was just made up for the TMs and never used or ever likely to be used in any series. AlistairMcMillan 21:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Is this going to be the beginning of another flame war over starship specifications? --Blue387 22:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

• What is the problem with including what information can be gleaned from the visuals in addition to other information? Is that not the very essence of the NPOV? --Fearghul 23:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I have a feeling I'm going to regret getting involved in this, but here goes. First, let me state that I'm responding to the request for comment, and have no interest whatsoever in the subject. I have no background in Star Trek, but I've read the discussion through and feel like I can comment intelligently.

First off, I do not agree that the specs constitute original research. The research was done by the author of the Tech Manual, and was repeated here. This seems pretty straightforward to me.

As for verifiability, it depends on the wording. If the specs are stated as definitive, then some consensus would be required, and if Roddenberry stated that they're not reliable, I don't see how there can be one. However, if it's stated that the specs came from the non-canon TMs, then verifiability means only that we can confirm the content of the manual was reported accurately.

The argument against inclusion is largely centered around the fact that the TMs are not canon. However, Wikipedia is not constrained by the show's producers' opinions of what is and is not accurate information. Think for a minute about the implications of a policy that allows a work's producer to dictate how it is interpreted. Refusing to inclued information from a book published by a major house (Simon and Schuster) because it's not canon sets a dangerous precedent.

In my opinion, a qualifying statement that the information comes from the TMs, which are not canon, is a sufficient compromise. Also, if one doesn't already exist, I think it would be a good idea to create an article describing how the Star Trek canon is determined and what is and is not in it. Wikilinking it to the word "canon" in Trek articles would provide the uninitiated with an easy way to decide for themselves how reliable a non-canon source is.--djrobgordon 08:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, I'd like to point out that the tone of the comments on this page can be sarcastic and confrontational, from the first discussion between Alistair and Alyeska on forward. See Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Etiquette, etc. The less civil we are, the less likely people are to agree to any sort of a meaningful compromise. --djrobgordon 18:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Armada

I would like to know whether the information provided for the Akira class vessels in the Star Trek: Armada games (more specifically, their manuals, which include brief histories of the classes) is canon, partial canon, etc? Definite dates and specs concerning the model are given, and considering the lack of information from other sources, it may be the only available source. Just a thought. 129.237.90.24 05:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The name its self isn't strictly canon - we have to live with it though, per Paramount anything not stated on screen (i.e. a book or a game) is non-canon (see Canon (Star Trek)) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 08:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)