Talk:Nebula class starship

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Star Trek Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Star Trek, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to all Star Trek-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Hello, I'm a sort of newbie. I have a picture of a Nebula class starship, most likely the Sutherland, from a website and was curious as to how to upload it. How do I do it and do I have to ask permission from the person who owns the website or something?

blue

If the website owner was displaying it in an innovative way (i.e. a model of the Sutherland that he built, a picture he drew, &c.), you'd need to ask him, but if it was just a promotional picture or screen capture or the like, he wouldn't have any claim to it and you wouldn't have to ask him. You could just claim fair use of the image and state that claim along with note of Paramount Pictures' copyright over it on the image page. As for how to make an image page, first download the picture to your hard drive and then go to the Special:Upload page; it'll tell you how to go from there. Also, along the way, you'll need to click on a checkbox that says that the owner allows its use. That doesn't apply to fair use, but you need to check it to upload the file, so if the fair use claim is valid (for a screen capture of a starship, with credit to Paramount, it would be) it's okay to check it. -- Djinn112 08:55, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Updated the Nebula weapon count

Nebula was given incorrect weapon count. Updated the information to reflect the three main versions shown in the series.

-Alyeska

What's "AWACs"? -- Djinn112 20:55, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)


AWACs stands for Advanced Warning And Control IIRC. The Phoenix version of the Nebula has a pod unlike that on most Nebula's. This pod is very likely to be a sensor array, a very POWERFUL sensor array. Given the size of the ship that is using it that would make the Nebula an AWACs like ship that can see long range, cordinate allied ships, and potentialy even spot cloaked vesel. Very much like modern day E-2Cs or E-3Bs (airforce and navy radar planes).

-Alyeska

AWACS, in real life, stands for Airborne Warning and Control System. The "airborne" part makes its application to a starship a little odd, and the word "system" is part of the acronym, so the last "S" should also be capitalized. Would you folks mind if I capitalize the S in the article? --TomTheHand 23:37, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

And in Trek we can say that A stands for Advance. Though we could also go the Wing Commander route and call it the SWACS for Spaceborne. But I choose AWACS because people are more likely to reconize it. -Alyeska

  • Someone in Trek has to say that it was indeed called an AWACS and what AWACS stands for. Or it has to be shown to be something obvious. Can Alyeska (or someone else) verify his claim? It's not the most pressing matter. Thank you--ScotchWhisky 20:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
    • The claim in question is long since gone from the article, for the reasons you mentioned. TomTheHand 19:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I saw- I just didn't want it to creep up again as things tend to do on this site. --ScotchWhisky 11:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ship specifications

I actually tend to agree with AlistairMcMillan's logic here; I don't think these specifications belong here because I don't think they're canon. I'll be quiet if you can quote me the episodes where this info comes from; barring that, I'd like to see whatever source you have. Without canon sources, though, I'll remove the specs on the rest of the ship pages. TomTheHand 13:14, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Observation is not speculation. We have known facts about the Nebula class which are all observed from on screen. We know its built on the Galaxy design. We can count its weapon systems. This is not speculation, this is observation of canon fact. If you do not consider these facts canon, then nothing is canon. Alyeska 18:30, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No original research AlistairMcMillan 18:47, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm not saying that there's a problem with the whole article. Obviously, for example, the Nebula class is related to the Galaxy class. On the other hand, mass? Where on screen did you observe that? In which episode(s) does it state where the Nebulas were constructed? Number of decks? Accomodations? Speed? Give me information about how the ten torpedo tubes in the weapons module-equipped Nebula were counted on screen. Where did these dimensions come from? I imagine they came from "doing the math" based on a Galaxy. In which episode were the dimensions of a Galaxy stated? Cite your sources. If some of the information comes from official books, I would be fine with it remaining with a note that it's non-canon, if you can give the exact source. If it's stated or observed on screen, I'm fine with it. If it's just what "looks right," it has to go. TomTheHand 18:54, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

I don't see you erasing this data from the Galaxy class section. Funny, Alistair didn't touch those pages either. So TM material is used in some articles, but the less well known ships are prohibited? The weapon counts come directly from observed canon. I have counted the weapons on each version of the Nebula class. The size can be established through two means. One, take the known size of the Galaxy class and use the saucer as a known size for the Nebula and calculate its size. This is observation of canon. The other method is to take the DS9 TM at face value. Considering there are websites such as Ex Atris that loves to point out measurement errors and the Nebula class isn't mentioned as being incorrectly scaled between TMs and the series kinda points that the TMs correctly scale the size of the Nebula class. Deck counts can also be easily established. Look at how tall the Galaxy class is. Same basic setup for the Nebula, scale the decks to the height of the Galaxy, then do this to the Nebula. And that is purely canon observation. Alyeska 22:00, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Are you a broken record Alistair? I am making observations of known canon. The entire article should be deleted by your very reasoning. Is it in dialogue? Well you had to pop in the DVD to look that up, whoops thats original research and thus not usable. Its also a red herring. First you claim that much of this is fan speculation. When we prove that observations of canon is not speculation you then resort to just writing it off due to wiki rules. You have not proven me wrong on a single point Alistair. Alyeska 22:03, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I didn't erase this data from the Galaxy section because I don't want to get into a crazy revert war while we're still discussing the issue. If we reach a resolution that involves removing this information, I'll take it off of Galaxy as well. Now, you haven't actually addressed any of my concerns. Mass? Place of construction? The things you've tried to address, you've simply shouted "I saw it! I saw it! I saw it on the show!" I did a little research on the side, and according to ditl.org much of this information comes from the NG and DS9 tech manuals. This makes it obvious that your "observation is not speculation" claims are bald-faced lies; you didn't observe any of this, you copied a source that copied the tech manuals. You did not, for example, calculate the size of the Nebulas to within (literally) a centimeter of the sizes reported in the tech manuals.
Moreover, I believe Alistair has a point in reference to original research: if Captain Picard says the Enterprise has (x) crewmembers, and you report it, you're reporting a source (which is appropriate). If you use canon information to calculate things like the sizes of other ships, you're getting dangerously close to original research. Luckily, this isn't what you've done; this is just stuff out of the tech manual, not canon observations.
Now, on to the true issue: should information from technical manuals be used on these pages? I'm of the opinion that this information, because it's official (but non-canon), IS appropriate for inclusion here with a note about the source and its non-canon status. Alistair, would you be willing to accept this information on that basis? TomTheHand 14:04, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Alistair considers weapon counts to be fan speculation and non-canon. What do you think his answer is? Alyeska 18:16, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Real simple. Check Alyeska's Talk page (you may have to check the history after I post this), he and another editor discussing how many torpedo tubes the Sovereign class has. [1] If there were canon sources for this material, there would be no need for them to discuss it or compromise on it. Therefore it is speculation, therefore it doesn't belong here. AlistairMcMillan 20:31, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Alistair, be reasonable. While perhaps the number of torpedo tubes is speculation, and should therefore be removed, many of the specifications are lifted from the assorted Tech Manuals. How do you feel about that information? Note that I'm aware that it's not canon, but I believe it should be included with a note indicating its source and official but non-canon status. TomTheHand 20:42, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
I bought the Pocket Books TNG Technical Manual at one of the Glasgow Star Trek conventions. Previously I had a photocopied version of the TNG Technical Manual that was distributed to script writers and was distributed (I believe) through Majel Barret's company (I forgot the name, something Enterprises), which again I bought at a Star Trek convention in Glasgow. The DS9 Technical Manual was bought for me by my girlfriend as soon as it came out. I love the Technical Manuals (well maybe just the TNG ones). If one was available for Voyager or for Enterprise, I would not hesitate to buy them. However, the Technical Manuals are non-canon. And both have information in them that is contradicted by episodes that were released after they were published.
The problem I have with including non-canon sources is where do you then draw the line. If we include the almost canon stuff written by Okuda and Sternbach, do we then include definitely non-canon stuff from the novels? Do we then include stuff from starship analysis websites that are considered authoritative by fans (such as http://ex-astris-scientia.org/)? When we have two non-canon sources that contradict each other (which they frequently do) do we then say "well site A says it has 12 torpedo tubes but site B says it has 14".
How about we just draw the line between canon and non-canon stuff. If people want to link to non-canon information then cool, we can stick links to non-canon stuff at the end of each page as "External links". AlistairMcMillan 21:58, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I don't think this is as much of a "gray area" issue as you make it out to be. I think you can definitely draw a line at including the Tech Manuals but excluding the rest. Canon will supercede TMs when there's a contradiction. We don't have to include the novels, and we certainly don't have to include fan web sites. In addition, we should label the non-canon material clearly so that readers understand what they're dealing with. TomTheHand 00:28, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

I do agree that while torpedo tubes, phase strips, and other such information can be claimed from the episodes themselves, certain things are Technical Manual ONLY and justification of them is difficult at best. I realize there's a Trekkie fanon convention allowing the TMs, but often there are discrepencies. Take observed torpedo effects and yields to hypothetical maximums expressed in the TMs, for one. I agree that there ought to be a set of specifications that at the very least clarify which are from canon and which are taken from non-canon but popularly official or accepted sources. Consider, in method at least, Kennedy's Daystrom Technical Institute and the seperation of canon data from backstage information, etc. A similar approach is needed here, as while the TMs are officially non-canon, they are accepted by convention by much of the fanbase and are useful information by that context. For example, Alyeska, the number of torpedo tubes and their basic type (quantum, proton, burst proton) is canon, but they're classification and such is not. The phase strips are canon, their "Type X" designation is not - unless stated on-screen. Illuminatus Primus 28 Apr 2005

Um, I reverted your reversion because when I saw them, I didn't see your post here. I feel like kind of a jerk now ;-) but I guess the continual reverts will get more people to participate in this discussion. I'm really on the fence on the revert issue; on the one hand, the vast majority of the statistics are plainly not based on canon observation, and I'll revert back when edits are made based on that. Only the weapons count can possibly be claimed to be based on observation. On the other hand, if we reach a consensus here on including Tech Manuals, I've got no problem with that. TomTheHand 22:01, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

How about this? The canon data from optical scaling, weapons counts, etc. is presented in a simple list, and below TM data is stated as "non-canon TM specifications." It may be appropriate for one of us to create a topic on Star Trek canon addressing the conventions of ST fanon and canon, particularly with respect to interviews and magazines and the TMs, which while not officially canon, are accepted by popular convention. Illuminatus Primus 23:58, 28 Apr 2005

That sounds like a very reasonable solution to me, except for the matter of optical scaling. I consider that to be a pretty iffy way to come up with size measurements. There's a lot of room for error, sometimes the scale varies between shots (see ditl.org's discussion of the size of the Defiant), and it's probably original research. Besides, I could be wrong, but I think the very measurements you'd use for the scaling come from non-canon sources. I'm pretty much fine with weapon counts, since I think they can be reasonably reliably determined from on-screen information. I think it's a good idea to include TM data, with a note about where it comes from. And finally, I think the idea of writing a brief article on Star Trek canon is great. If we have a reasonable consensus, we should definitely start work on this. TomTheHand 00:28, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

What, something like this perhaps? Star Trek canon AlistairMcMillan 00:33, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And for those that think visual inspections of screen-captures is good enough for the weapon counts. What do we do when we have two different counts from two different fan sources? Such as when Mr. Visual Inspection is not Speculation insists the Prometheus class starship has 18 phasers and 3 torpedo tubes total [2], but the Daystrom Institute says 12 phasers and 5 torpedo tubes total [3]? AlistairMcMillan 00:55, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't know where Kennedy got his information, but its not from looking at the physical model. I could e-mail him a detailed analysis of the Prometheus weapon count and I suspect he would change his information. Its not the first time I e-mailed him a correction on his page and he changed his info. He used to claim no Galaxy class starships were destroyed in the Dominion war and I e-mailed him a screenshot of a dead GCS, he changed the article in less then 24 hours.

Actualy, I think I will e-mail him. I will also post the pictures showing the weapon counts.

Alyeska 02:17, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Better correct this site too. [4] It says 2 Phaser Bolt Cannons, 6 Phaser Arrays and 4 Torpedo Tubes. AlistairMcMillan 02:24, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Citing incorrect sources doesn't invalidate accurate measurements taken off of the studio shooting models, you realize. Iceberg3k 01:18, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Its not my job to correct others. However, I am trying to keep Wikipedia accurate on its portrayl of the ships.Alyeska 02:25, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And this one. [5] It says 18 phaser arrays like Alyeska but 5 torpedo launchers like the Daystrom Institute and then an unspecified number of pulse phaser cannons.
And this one. [6] It says 13 phaser strips and 6 torpedo tubes.
Holy consistency Batman!!! Do I have to keep going or can you guys see the emerging pattern here? AlistairMcMillan 02:32, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v177/Alyeska/Star%20Trek/PrometheusStandard.jpg These are just CGI reference shots of the Prometheus, the actual model as used in the show.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v177/Alyeska/Star%20Trek/PrometheusStandard-2.jpg Phaser arrays highlighted. As you can see there are 12 phaser arrays on the standard configuration of the Prometheus. Alyeska 02:27, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And here are the individual section phasers. A before and after shot so you can see for reference.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v177/Alyeska/Star%20Trek/519aea2e.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v177/Alyeska/Star%20Trek/PrometheusSections-2.jpg Alyeska 02:39, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cool. Now show us the location of the torpedo launchers. Keeping in mind that according to Rick Sternbach some (if not all) of them can be hidden. [7] AlistairMcMillan 02:45, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Retracting torpedo launchers, thats a new one by me. I can spot 2 definates and something that looks similar to a torpedo launcher, but in the episode a torpedo was launched from that exact location so it makes another launcher. Just a moment and I will have the screenshots up. Alyeska 03:00, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v177/Alyeska/Star%20Trek/PrometheusStandard-3.jpg With this you can see the two exterior launchers that are available when the ship is in standard configuration.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v177/Alyeska/Star%20Trek/prometheus-beta.jpg Reference shot

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v177/Alyeska/Star%20Trek/prometheus-beta-2.jpg 3rd torpedo launcher.

Now back to the reference shot. Would you say those two indentations beside the middle torpedo launcher also look like launchers? If thats the case, the proposed 4th and 5th launchers have been identified. Alyeska 03:06, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)


BTW, nice red herring back there. Bringing up other sites that have disagreeing weapon counts does not invalidate the work I have done. You have to examine my information and see that. Counting the phaser arrays is blindingly obvious. I can find a site that says the Sovereign class is 20km long while the Nebula is more then 1km long. Of course First Contact disproves this little theory since both ships are on the screen together. Alyeska 03:17, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've been reading through a number of the starship articles more carefully lately and I'm not sure how I feel about what I've seen. Most of these articles seem to be written from an in-character sense. This isn't a Star Trek fansite; Wikipedia should be usable as a reference for information directly from the show, but shouldn't have speculation like (in the Nebula article, in reference to a Nebula variant) "perhaps a prototype version of the class or an earlier, closely related class." I kind of took these things for granted when I first read them, but looking back I don't think they're appropriate. I'm also starting to get more and more uncomfortable with all the arguing that I see in reference to weapon counts. It's obviously not as clear-cut as I thought and closer to original research, if we're squinting at JPGs of the "original computer model" and trying to figure out what this or that indentation is. TomTheHand 13:42, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Exactly my point. Anyway we have tons of others websites that do go into great detail about all the different starship classes, websites that don't have such strict rules about their content as Wikipedia. There is nothing wrong with linking to them, instead of repeating their content here with slight modifications. AlistairMcMillan 16:04, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That makes no sense. By that logic any article on the Wiki can be addressed by simply linking elsewhere. I do not see where the a priori, catagorical "visual inspection is invalid" comes from. Visual content is always the most empirical method of deriving information. It is objective and it cannot be biased by perspective or individual point-of-view. Character dialog can. We're looking into an alien universe; we may miss all sorts of context, but the visuals are objective. Counting the weapons emplacements direct from the in-show model is a fine source for a lower limit on weapons complement. If character dialog analysis is a fine source for information, than the clear image of in-show visuals is a better one. Illuminatus Primus 22:04, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Weapons counts

If studying screen captures and images printed in magazines is good enough to determine weapon counts, then can someone explain why different fan sites have different weapon counts? Can someone also explain how we decide which fan-based weapon count we choose to repeat? AlistairMcMillan 00:34, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

False dilema. We can physicaly count things from these shots. Some have different weapon counts because they derive them from the TMs (which can be wrong) or they take from games OR they are just plain idiots. I saw one page that said the Sovereign class was 16km long while the Defiant was a mere 500m long. In effect you are making an appeal to ignorance. You have no proven ANY of my weapon counts wrong. Replace the information Alistair. Alyeska 02:08, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Give me one canon source for the weapon counts. One single canon source. I've asked repeatedly for weeks now and you haven't shown a single canon source. You personally weapons counts are not a canon source. Other people study the same images and come up with different numbers. AlistairMcMillan 02:39, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Alistair, fix what you have done to the Klingon ships. Replace every single one of those pages. Alyeska 02:13, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

What the hell is wrong with you Alistair? You remove the specifications on every ship EXCEPT the ships that were featured in a TV series as a primary ship. Why are they so special to keep their information? Well? Replace all the information you have removed and revert the Klingon pages ASAP. Alyeska 02:19, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

When a starship appears in approx 175 episodes of a 45 minute series, there is a pretty good chance we are going to know a lot about it. When a starship appears in a single 45 minute episode, there is a pretty good chance we are going to know very little about it. Do you see the difference?
* Galaxy class = 7975 minutes
* Prometheus class = 45 minutes
That is why I haven't touched the specs on pages like the Galaxy class one. Yet. Because there is at least a chance that there is canon information in there. AlistairMcMillan 02:39, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Red Herring. You haven't disproven my information. I derive much of the weapon counts from canon sources and use backstage info to back it up when necessary. And once again an appeal to ignorance. We have sufficent information on several of the ships to state exactly what weapon systems they have. And warp engines, and impulse engines. BTW, Nebula class got more then 45 minutes. Akira has had even more screen time. Its shown in up one movie and 2 different series. Alyeska 02:46, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I have disproved your information. You've come up with these numbers by studying photographs and screencaptures and whatever... other people have done the same things and come up with different numbers. Why should we include your information over theirs? AlistairMcMillan 03:00, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
Like I said before if we are going to include non-canon sources, what do we do when there is no definite source...
  • Alyeska says Prometheus has 18 phasers and 3 torpedo tubes total. [8]
  • Daystrom Institute says 18 phasers and 5 torpedo tubes total. (used to say 12 phasers) [9]
  • TrekMania says 2 Phaser Bolt Cannons, 6 Phaser Arrays and 4 Torpedo Tubes. [10]
  • Lcarscom says 18 phaser arrays like Alyeska but 5 torpedo launchers like the Daystrom Institute and then an unspecified number of pulse phaser cannons. [11]
  • usspanethercity says 13 phaser strips and 3 torpedo tubes. (down from 6 the last time I checked) [12]
Which one do we include? Do we mention all of them? Average them all out? What? AlistairMcMillan 03:00, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


Appeal to ignorance once again. You have not disproven me. I even posted the actual evidence. Are you going to try and shove the same BS time and time again and not actualy bother construct a logical argument? Alyeska 03:04, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

As you guys may have noticed, I added notes to the various specification pages saying that the specifications were taken from non-canon but official sources, and weapons counts were derived from studying footage and official models, but the canonicity of weapons counts is in dispute. I was hoping this would be a decent compromise. I think that the weapon counts have value for someone who's interested in Star Trek but unfamiliar with a particular ship, as long as they know where the information comes from so they can decide how to trust it.
Anyway, guys, I think you may both be acting a little unreasonable. Alistair, while I agree with you that the weapon counts are not strictly canon fact, they are derived from canon data and they have value as long as someone knows how they've come about. Alyeska, I'm sorry, but you can't go counting slight indentations on a magazine scan and proclaim it to be gospel. Your information is useful but not necessarily infallible. On this very page you've admitted that the middle torpedo launcher on the Prometheus class may have two more tubes on either side of it. There's room for interpretation on this subject. I think your information should go on the page with a note about its origin. TomTheHand 03:34, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

A phaser array is a phaser array. Torpedoe launchers are relatively easy to identify. If new information comes about that proves or shows something different, all the better. Wiki is supposed to be flexibile. Right now I have no problem with your notations TomTheHand. The problem is Ailistair has decided he must have everything his way and delete everything he remotely disagrees with. Alyeska 03:42, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

This comes down to the same problem. There is canon information and there is non-canon information. The problem with non-canon information is that it is wildly inconsistent. You say the weapon counts are obvious, but other people give different values. And even if we ignore that, what exactly do we cite as our sources? Should we put in your mobile phone number, since it is you that is the source? Do you even understand the no original research policy? AlistairMcMillan 04:39, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
In reference to canon vs. non-canon, I believe the specifications from Tech Manuals are useful as long as the reader knows that that's where they come from and understands that they're non-canon. At the very least, I hope that you can leave that information on the page, and you can modify the disclaimer if you feel "non-canon" requires more explanation or emphasis. I don't feel as strongly in either direction on the weapons count issue. Again, I feel it's useful information and should be included with a disclaimer, and in the case of disputes, a range should be given. However, I'm reading over the original research policy more carefully now and seeing what you're saying. I'm not going to fight you tooth and nail on this, but I do feel that weapons counts are harmless at worst and useful at best if they're accompanied by a proper disclaimer. TomTheHand 05:03, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Look at the edit history of the pages with specification lists. The lists are in a constant state of flux. Just look at the numbers for torpedo launchers alone...

  • Apr 9
    • Torpedos changed from "Two" to "2-6"
  • Apr 26
    • Torpedos changed from "2-6" to "Several"
  • Aug 12
    • Torpedos changed from "several" to "at least two"
  • Aug 30
    • Torpedos changed from "at least two" to "several"
  • Oct 25
    • Torpedos changed from "several" to "one (AWACs); two (standard); ten (warpod modification)"
  • Feb 6
    • Torpedos changed from "one (AWACs); two (standard); ten (weaponry module)" back to "two (standard); multiple (weaponry module)"
  • Feb 28
    • Torpedos changed from "two (standard); multiple (weaponry module)" to "two (standard); ten (weaponry module); one (AWACS)"

And not a single editor gave a source for their edit. AlistairMcMillan 05:52, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Once again Alistair is appealing to ignorance. Alistair, by your reasoning of the no-research rule Wikipedia would not exist because IT IS ALL ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Alyeska 16:13, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

No. It is not all original research. You clearly don't understand how Wikipedia is supposed to work. BTW You might want to try responding to my queries instead of just repeating that I am "appealing to ignorance" whatever that is supposed to mean. AlistairMcMillan 16:19, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I have responding to your queries. They are totaly irrelevent and as such I pointed that out. You are stating other people can't get the numbers right thus I can't get it right. This is totaly illogical. You have not disproven my weapon counts. You appeal to ignorance. You state we can't know thus don't even try. This is clearly false reasoning. No original research states that no non-published research may be used in Wikipedia. Well all information Trek related that is canon just so happens to fall under that rule. Because in order for us to put it on Wikipedia we have to *gasp!* research the material by watching the movies. Alyeska 16:27, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

If it was as simple as you suggest, then everyone would have the same numbers. Just look at the specification lists on Wikipedia, they are in a constant state of flux. There is no authoritative source for this information. Therefore it cannot be included. AlistairMcMillan 16:22, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested Compromise

(I've just suggested this over on Talk:Prometheus_class_starship, and was directed here (which appears to be one of the main discussions on the canonicity issue). My suggestion would be to include the specifications etc on the page, but explicitly state in the title of that subsection that the information hasn't been confirmed on-screen. (My which I mean in-script, rather than visual inspection - it wouldn't surprise me if the producers had changed the CGI models, or contradicted that information in speech.) Additionally, at the top of each section, I would list the source for such information - whether one of the various Technical Manuals, the Star Trek Encyclopedia, or actual counting of the number of weapons ports. My suggested title for the sections would be something like "Specifications (not confirmed on screen)", or possibly even "Specifications (Apocryphal)". Hopefully, it will be possible to link the "(Apocryphal)" in the title to an article stating the policy of what information should or should not be included in a article, giving disclaimers that it may be contradicted by the production team. This article could even have pros and cons from each of you, stating the reasons for your prefered interpretation of canon. This way, we leave it to the reader's choice as to what information they choose to include in the Star Trek canon, rather than imposing a single view on everyone (which is very difficult to police in a Wiki) Bluap 18:09, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I feel that the Technical Guides, the Star Trek Encyclopedia, and visual counting are all suitable sources of "Apocryphal" information, as long as they are clearly labelled as such. On the other hand, I believe that a random website is not a suitable source. Bluap 18:09, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
And finally, I should point out that I haven't got any preconceived notions on this matter. While I follow Star Trek, it is simply as a television programme, rather than as an obsession. My sole interest here is to try to broker a compromise, and prevent an edit-war.

We already have a page that discusses Star Trek canon. Instead of us discussing what we consider to be Trek canon, how about we just go with Paramount's opinion, since you know... they own the fecking thing. BTW You are right the CGI models do differ between episodes/movies, they also differ from the physical models where they exist. Even the physical models, when there are more than one, differ from each other. Basically all this stuff is a mess and there are NO authoritative sources, so there are constant arguments that can VERY be resolved. AlistairMcMillan 19:11, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Once again you do nothing more then appeal to ignorance. There are known differences between Galaxy and Sovereign models as well as Excelsior and your still leaving that information up. Alyeska 19:32, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Is this a server error or didn't I already answer this comment earlier? AlistairMcMillan 20:08, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

As I have said before, this is a good compromise. The problem is Alistair refuses to compromise on anything. According to him he is right and will get what he wants, period. With Alistair there is no compromise. Alyeska 19:33, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Since you seem to like compromise then you won't mind if we left the specification lists up but used someone other than you for the source? AlistairMcMillan 20:08, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


You are intentionaly trying to piss me off. I already proved my weapon counts with canon data and you want to take contradictory data just to prove a point. Your doing nothing more then trolling now Alistair. Alyeska 20:19, 13 May 2005 (UTC)\

I'm sorry, but I disagree that Alistair is trolling. Many reasonable Star Trek fans have come up with varied figures for weapons counts. The more you push your own counts, the more it's looking like original research to me. I don't want to hear your "under that definition, everything is original research!" garbage. You need to read the original research policy and understand the reasons behind it. It's to prevent exactly this sort of trash. Figures that go into the encyclopedia need to come from a reliable source. To give a non-Trek example, if I read Car & Driver and get 0-60 times for a car, I could cite that source and put the time into an article. However, I can't go out and drive my car and put the data into an article, and I can't observe someone drive a car, take down the time, and put it into an article.
Bluap, your compromise is exactly what I suggested. I believe once things calm down, we'll be able to include Tech Manual data on the page with a disclaimer about its source. It's not canon, but it's official and useful. I don't buy the argument about how it can contradict on-screen data. On-screen data can contradict on-screen data. Tech Manual info can be included as long as readers understand where it comes from and what that implies. TomTheHand 20:39, May 13, 2005 (UTC)


When one can count the number of phaser arrays and a source which contradicts what is visible is used, that is not logical. Alyeska 21:20, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

You keep on jumping around to the couple of points that you feel are strong without addressing the points which are weak. We have to come up with a universal rule here; the fact that you have some magazine scans where you feel you can count the phaser arrays of the Prometheus class reasonably well doesn't make all of these statistics suddenly valid. I started out feeling there was room for compromise here, but the more I listen to you, the more I think "original research." TomTheHand 21:44, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
What, in your opinion, in that case would not be "original research"? What are you going to dispute? The models are straight out of Foundation Imaging. Iceberg3k 23:30, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, counting the number of phaser arrays on the CGI model which is canon and shown in the show certainly is original research. Why not publish some inaccurate numbers for the other ships as well? Lets forget any attempt at accuracy here. I don't care where you get the information, but it has to be accurate. When you can plainly count the number of weapons and you repeat from a source that is inaccurate, then there is a problem. Alyeska 23:19, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


What next, do we take information off a website that claims the moon landing was a hoax and completely rewrite the Apollo program and moon landing pages? Just because sources disagree is not reason to exclude information. Part of what Wikipedia is about is an attempt at accuracy. What I did isn't research, its an examination of the facts presented to us and posting the information already given to us by Paramount. Alyeska 23:26, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Again you're both (Iceberg and Alyeska) arguing your one strong point (you have nice pictures of the Prometheus) and ignoring the larger situation: that every starship page is covered in statistics of often dubious canonicity. I'm not trying to say that the Prometheus has 19 phaser arrays and you've miscounted. I'm trying to say that in the bigger picture, many of these statistics are up for debate; even your infallible Prometheus images are open to interpretation in their number of torpedo tubes. Quit pulling out silly arguments like your Apollo moon landing example (we DO have an article about Apollo moon landing hoax accusations), and quit shouting "THE PROMETHEUS HAS 18 PHASERS!" because that isn't the point. As far as I'm concerned, at best, the one thing you've accomplished is to show that the Prometheus has 18 phaser arrays; you've done nothing else to counter Alistair's arguments. TomTheHand 06:02, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
I'm going to be controversial, and point out that this is an Encyclopedia. If there are genuine discrepencies in various specifications, then it's not our job to arbitrate on which figures are correct. We should simply quote the varying figures (and cite the source). I'm going to repeat Cite your sources, as it is important that Wikipedia does not get filled with guesswork (as we will be used as a source by others). I am still of the opinion that we should create Sources of Star Trek information in Wikipedia, where we can create a full list of all possible sources of information, and list pros and cons for each individual source (from on-screen dialogue, to set dressing, to the animated series and the books). Once this page is complete, we can create a short code to reference each source (e.g. ENC for the Star Trek Encyclopedia), and use these codes to cite the specifications in each article, with the reference codes being linked back to Sources of Star Trek information in Wikipedia. I feel that everyone in this discussion represents a particular point of view and that, to be truly encyclopedic, Wikipedia should document not only all points of view, but also the conflict between them. Bluap 07:54, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
The problem is that we're not quoting a source, but listening to what Alyeska and other assorted fans say they observed from watching the shows and looking at pictures of models. I agree with you that in the case of official but non-canon sources, we can quote them and cite the source so that readers can understand how much value to give them. TomTheHand 22:03, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

This may sound silly, but calm down you twae, you're giving me a headache. And who suggested that tech manuals are of any value. They are no more canon than some internet fanwank. Therefore they are useless.

Sorry, I don't think your one point necessarily follows the other: they are not canon, but they are official and are written by people who are involved in Star Trek; therefore, while they're not guaranteed to accurately reflect the canon universe, they are not useless. If a reader understands that the Tech Manuals are not canon, then there's no problem. Please sign your posts by putting four tildes (~) at the end. TomTheHand 22:03, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
What do you mean by "official"? Yeah, some of the production staff produced the Technical Manual but I don't think Pocket Books or Paramount has every claimed they were "official"? AlistairMcMillan 22:40, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
I think it's a matter of semantics here. The fact that Paramount produced them makes them "official," as compared to, for example, fan analyses, which would be unofficial. However, they are obviously not canon and can't be regarded as the absolute "truth" about the Star Trek universe. That doesn't make them useless, though. TomTheHand 06:09, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
Pocket Books make the Technical Manuals not Paramount. Granted the authors may also work for Paramount, but that does not make them Paramount books. AlistairMcMillan 01:49, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Gee, I get a 12 hour lockout (which laster longer then 24 hours) for trying to revert information Alistair is deleting. What many people are not paying attention to is the depth of information Alistair is removing. The Klingon ship pages got truncacted and merged without discussion. Same with the Borg and Cardassian ship pages. And now the Peregrine page was outright deleted. Tom, you are only just now begining to see the problem with Alistair. He doesn't want to compromise, he wants his way. Twice in the past we came to a "compromise" and in the end Alistair changed his mind and deleted the information anyway. Earlier in this discussion Alistair said he would post information other then mine. Now he is refusing to even let TM data posted with a canon disclaimer on it. He has no intention of actualy doing anything other then what he wants to do.Alyeska 21:45, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

You got a 12-hour lockout because you broke one of the rules here (no more than three reverts within a 24 hour period). I even warned you minutes before you made the fourth revert, so you can't complain that you were unaware of the rule.
As to all the pages I merged... that is an established practice here... WP:FICT. Other editors did the same thing with all the Trek alien stubs recently.
The Peregrine page was not deleted, read the edit summary... "Merge content and redirect to List of Starfleet ship classes". All the canon content is still there.
We never came to any compromises in the past. Twice I tried to walk you through the process of explaining why the Specification lists were a waste of time, since once you delete the guesswork and the entries that just said "UNKNOWN" there wasn't much left.
And I never said I would post information other than yours. I was trying to make a point... you are not defending the inclusion of non-canon material, you are defending the inclusion of YOUR non-canon material. AlistairMcMillan 01:49, 16 May 2005 (UTC)


Now you are openly lying. I proved the specifications on the Prometheus class and pointed out the warp engine count is absurdly easy. You agreed to leave that material in the specifications list but to remove the shipyard reference and a few other odd points. THEN you just decide "what the hell, I don't want any of it." and removed the entire list AFTER and agreement was already made. Alyeska 02:45, 16 May 2005 (UTC)


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prometheus_class_starship&diff=12625767&oldid=12623852 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prometheus_class_starship&diff=12631245&oldid=12631192

Do you care to comment Alistair? Here, I will even quote you. "Compromise then. Leave canon info and remove the rest." And after you said that you left in the weapon counts. Of course now your calling that information non-canon. Anyway, after agreeing to leave the information in, you then removed it and had this to say. "On second thought. Remove specification list. Any relevant information should be in the main text." So you renigged on a agreement. Furthermore you state the information should be in the main text but never bothered to actualy put it in there. After this point any attempts and having the specification list replaced resulted in you going "But its no canon!". This is funny comming from a guy who called that information canon. I also find it odd that here you state the specifications should be put in the main text of the article. Well why haven't you gone about removing the specifications on the Galaxy, Defiant, Sovereign, or Intrepid pages? AFterall, you like removing that information and making it someone elses responsibility to fix.Alyeska 02:51, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Lighten up, will you? What are the specific sources for each piece of no-doubt-valuable information being excluded? Standard text or verifiable reference, please. And (this is important) saying that you looked at screenshots and counted is, now matter how much you jump up and down, scream, and make false analogies, is original research. If you counted it, you're the source, it's original research -- period full stop. --Calton | Talk 03:52, 16 May 2005 (UTC)


Guess what, then we have to remove almost every single piece of information from all the Trek pages. Two warp engines? Well that was counted, so it has to go. 12 phaser arrays on the Galaxy class? Counted, it goes. I'm sorry, but I see a blatant double standard here. BTW, its not original research. Its an evaluation of the canon data presented to us. Do you consider the tallied number of astronauts the US has sent into space original research? I highly doubt it. Furthermore, this ignores the contradictions and dishonest behavior on the part of Alistair. Do not try and shift the issue to me. I am keeping things accurate here. No more smoke screens. Alistair just claimed he never went for any compromise and I caught him on that lie quite visibly. The issue is not about me or the information I have provided. The issue is about Alistairs dishonest dealings, double standards, and generaly poor behaivor. Alyeska 04:29, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I always wonder why visual evidence is treated almost INFERIOR to dialog. One would never hold it against you for recalling dialog, but both the phase counts from the model and an exerpt of dialog can both be independently verified. I don't think a mental note of the number of something in the media of the episode counts as "original research." Again - why the double standard only toward visual evidence? Illuminatus Primus 04:39, May 16, 2005 (UTC)


Calton, you say that counting the weapons, engines, and well counting anything violates the no-original-research policy. Of course Alistair was the first to bring this up. Well explain why the following pages have not had their specification lists removed for violating this policy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_class_starship http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defiant_class_starship http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excelsior_class_starship http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_class_starship http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrepid_class_starship http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_class_starship http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NX_class_starship

I smell a stinking double-standard. Alistair claims that these ships have plenty of onscreen time to make the information legit. And yet the weapon counts are derived purely from counting the onscreen examples. Whats more is the stated (dialogue) weapon counts on some of those ships is in contradiction with the visual weapon counts, and these pages are using the visual weapon counts. Alyeska 04:42, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Earth to Alyeska: Once again - What, specifically, is the source for EACH piece of information you want to include. EACH. You've handwaved and muddled the sources without making the least bit clear what's too obvious to require citation (two warp engines) and what's not (displacement? shipyards?). And wrong/unverified/original research information elsewhere is NOT the slightest justification for including wrong/unverified/original research information anywhere.

and enough with the stinking weapons counts: Alistair has demonstrated that different people have come up with different totals, meaning that we're being asked to accept YOUR count -- your original research -- as the true one. Uh uh. --Calton | Talk 03:29, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

For information on the Intrepid class, I believe (to the best of my knowledge after having watched most of VOY) most stuff is canon being mentioned/seen on-screen. The "15 decks" came from dialogue in VOY "Good Shepherd" and "Relativity", the 700,000 tons and top cruising speed of warp 9.975 from Janeway herself in "Relativity". The shipyard info is tricky as VOY "Relativity" shows "Voyager" at UP but the dedication plaque says it was from Earth Station McKinley. However, I am unsure about the exact dimensions and crew complement. --Blue387 05:58, 16 May 2005 (UTC)


I'm sorry, but the dedication plaque is visual evidence as is Utopi Planitia. Besides, in the Akira ships page Alistair refused to accept seeing ships at Utopia Planitia as evidence they are built there and he refused to accept dedication plaques as of the Prometheus discussion. This still doesn't explain the engine and weapon counts. Alyeska 12:03, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Page Split

Alistair has merged several pages and deleted information in the process. The act of merging the threads has removed the old histories and information as well as revert information. He has tried to hide his tracks and delete traces of information. He did all of this without discussion with anyone else and has unilateraly decide what to do and demands everyone else follow along. He has deleted information and pages and not replaced this information. This damage must be undone. If anyone knows how to split formerly merged pages and bring back the data lost, this needs to be done ASAP. Alyeska 03:10, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Merging the pages did not remove the old histories. I was not trying to hide anything. And I don't remember demanding anything. AlistairMcMillan 03:55, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

It just makes it conviently difficult to find the old histories. You did this without discussion with anyone and you outright deleted information from the articles in question before redirecting them. Alyeska 12:47, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] You asked for it

If I have to justify my weapon counts every single time someone demands proof, I am going to get highly irritated.

Nebula class WITHOUT a normal pod (aka Phoenix) Photon Torpedo Launchers: 1 http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v177/Alyeska/Star%20Trek/Nebula_1.jpg Yes that’s an image of a Nebula with normal pod, but notice the location. Nebula class ships use stock parts, so this launcher also exists on the Phoenix variant. Phasers: 7 http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/scans/other/phoenix-model.jpg There you can see three arrays, however its symeterical and you will find two arrays on the opposite side and one underneath. That makes 6. http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/scans/mechanics/farragut1.jpg You can see a belly phaser, that makes 7.

Nebula class with normal pod Photon Torpedo Launchers: 2 First one as shown above. Second torpedo launcher was shown in use by the Sutherland as of TNG Redemption PT2 (Episode with Sela and the Klingon civil war). Phasers: 7 Same as above.

Nebula class with WARPOD Photon Torpedo launchers: 10 First two same as normal pod Nebula http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/scans/mechanics/farragut2.jpg You can see 4 red rectuangular points on the pod. These are identical in look and shape to the torpedo launchers on the Constitution, Miranda, and Constellation class ships. They are mirror imaged on the other side. Phasers: 5 This model has just 5 phaser arrays, it is missing the arrays just under the pod on the saucer.


And do I really need to prove the ships length? And do you really want me to post screenshots showing how many warp engines it has? BTW, this “speculation” as you call it Calton is accepted in the previous page links I’ve already given. Crew counts, shipyard construction, ship length, maximum speed, etc… That all comes from the likes of TMs and I don’t see anyone deleting that information. Alyeska 03:49, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

And do I really need to prove the ships length? Of COURSE you do. You've been asked -- repeatedly -- for verifiable sources and all you do is wave your hands and froth about weapons counts that YOU -- Alyeska, the guy what's writing this -- have made. Mushing together your unofficial speculation with the transparently obvious has the effect -- and, I'm convinced, the intent -- of obscuring sources so that the former gets slipped in with the latter. Once more, a source for EACH fact: no screaming about what counting YOU'VE done and no whining that other people are getting away with things. Until then, out they go. --Calton | Talk 04:17, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I think that the information that Alyeska supplied above is exactly the type of information required to justify the weapons count. If you supplied this information (say, in the relevant talk page) for each piece of data provided by visual inspection, then I would be happy - anyone who disagrees with your figures would be able to reply, disputing your logic. It also answers Alistair's (justifiable) complaint that many fan sites disagree on the weapons count, as you are providing evidence that your count is correct. If anyone disagrees with you, then they could supply counter-evidence. I am now going to ask a couple of specific questions. Please try to reply to just these questions, not to any more general issues Bluap 09:18, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Alistair, could you please reply to the following question: "If source images are supplied to all information that is obtained by visual inspection, would you be happy for this information to be included in the Wikipedia entry?" Bluap 09:18, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't answer your questions earlier. Forgot with all the other stuff going on here. Anyway, the only way I'll be happy with this information going in the articles is if we can get 100% accurate information. Please pick any of these pages and look at the edit history. Anon editors are constantly changing the figures back and forth practically every day. None of them provide sources. And looking at the sources Alyeska has provided... fuzzy images of different ships... some physical models, some CGI models... looking at a certain ship from one angle and then another of the same class but a different actual ship and trying to divine figures for the class as a whole from these sources... I can't see that we could ever get anything clear from these sources, that wouldn't be disputed by whoever came along with their own divinations. AlistairMcMillan 02:50, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
Alistair, could you please reply to the following question: "If the source of the length of the Nebula class starship is the Technical Manual, and if this source is quoted against this piece of data, along with a disclaimer that information the Technical Manual may be contradicted by future production teams, would you be happy for this information to be included in the Wikipedia entry?" Bluap 09:18, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Then you get into the problem of which non-canon sources are acceptable. If the TNG Technical Manual and DS9 Technical Manual (which share an author) disagree with each other, do we include both or flip a coin or something else? If some other semi-canon sources (such as the Star Trek Magazine which prints technical articles by one of the Technical Manual authors) disagree with the Manuals, do we include that data too?
Photon Torpedo Launchers: 4 [TNG TM] 6 [DS9 TM] 3 [ST:Mag]
The producers of Star Trek couldn't even manage to stay consistent within their own productions, so even restricting ourselves to canon sources there are still a bunch of inconsistencies. AlistairMcMillan 02:50, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
Alyeska, could you please reply to the following question: "Would you be happy to cite your sources, and justify your logic for the visual counts of weapons etc?" Bluap 09:18, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Alyeska, could you please reply to the following question: "What is the source of the length data of the Nebula class starship?" Bluap 09:18, 17 May 2005 (UTC)


I just provided sources for the weapons and you still removed it. You also removed the information on the warp engine count when thats blantantly obvious. As for the ship length, that comes straight from the DS9 TM and ST Encyclopedia, however, anyone can check the sizes out for themselves. The Galaxy class has a set length, the Nebula class uses the exact same sized saucer section. You can easily veryify that the DS9 TM and STE have the information correct on the size of the Nebula class. As for the other articles, I have already sited my sources for the Akira class. The rest come from the DS9 TM and other people put them in. Alyeska 12:07, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I basicaly did cite my sources on the weapons. I showed you the pictures. They involved the Phoenix, the Endeavor, and the Farragut. And "justify my logic", what sort of nonsense is that? The weapon counts are plainly obvious to anyone who bothers to look at the pictures. Why don't you demand justification for the weapon counts on the Wiki pages I've previously linked too. I see them being accepted and those weapon counts all came from counting. Why are you putting a burden on me when this source of information has already been accepted on multiple pages? Once again, a double standard. Oh, BTW, much of the specification lists on the other pages ALSO come from the TNG or DS9 TMs. Alyeska 12:25, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly who you are replying to. If it's me, then by "justify your logic", I mean say things like "This photo shows 3 weapons on the port side, this photo shows a central one, and the design is symmetric, giving a total of 7 weapons". From my point of view, I came into the discussion having seen a request of yours complaining about this edit war. As far as I can tell, both sides have merit, and I would like to try to avoid all of this hostility by suggesting a compromise. Yes, it's more work for you but, if it goes some way to satisfying Alistair's objections, it will hopefully allow the information to be included in the page without someone reverting. (And, yes, I would like to export this burden of proof to the other ship classifications.) Bluap 13:13, 17 May 2005 (UTC)


Ok, in that case I understand. Alyeska 16:04, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Where to start?

  • Alyeska claims: ...Nebula class ships use stock parts... Could we have a source that backs up this statement?
  • Alyeska claims that [13] proves the Nebula class only has one launcher that is not on the pod. How do we know from that blurry screencap that there are not two torpedo ports side by side at that location, similar to the Constitution-refit class? How can we tell from that screencap that that vessel does not have other torpedo ports located elsewhere?
  • Alyeska then gives us two images to back up his seven phaser array claim. However the two images are of different vessels (the Phoenix and the Farragut) and it seems significant changes were made to the physical model (the obvious pod change, the obvious change to the pylon(s) holding up the pod but also look at the placement of the secondary hull compared to the warp engines).
  • Alyeska then points us to the four red squares for his pod launcher counts. Have we ever seen a Nebula class fire torpdedoes from this location? Please note also the "Nebula class with normal pod" (or USS Sutherland) and "Nebula class with WARPOD!!!" (or USS Farragut) were both represented by the same physical model, with less physical changes than occured between it representing the USS Phoenix and the USS Sutherland. The little squares were present on the Sutherland, but not highlighted. [14] They were painted red for the Farragut for it's ST: Generations appearance. Bigger cinema screen needs more detail.
  • Alyeska says the Farragut (or Nebula class with WARPOD!!!) doesn't have the two phasers arrays on the rear of the saucer under the pod... [15] Look at the right hand edge of the shadow of the pod... the phaser arrays are still there. That part of the image is just washed out because of the sunlight making them less distinct.

Do I have to keep going? Have I made my point? The INCREDIBLY CLEAR OBVIOUS PHOTGRAPHIC EVIDENCE that Alyeska keeps banging on about is not clear and is not obvious. This is original research guys. And not very good original research, when someone can find fault with it so easily. AlistairMcMillan 04:24, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Stock parts, I don’t know, could it be the blindingly obvious Galaxy class saucer section and warp engines and the very similar looking (ie lower half of) engineering section? Gee, could those be stock parts with only minor modifications, I don’t know… Alyeska 12:59, 20 May 2005

What does this even mean? You think Starfleet just walks into a giant IKEA, and says "Okay I'll take a saucer of the top shelf, a couple of engines of the middle shelf right there and... hmmm... you know what, through in one of that engineering hulls." AlistairMcMillan 14:32, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

And now your making an appeal to ignorance. We see one launcher fire, that is proof of a launcher flat out. Unless we see further evidence of a second launcher (which we don’t), then its one launcher. Alyeska 12:59, 20 May 2005

By that logic, I guess there are no launchers on the pod, since we never saw any torpedo launchers fire from the pod. AlistairMcMillan 14:32, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

The only changes between the Sutherland and the Farragut is that of the pod and how it attaches. This has nothing to do with the rest of the ship. So that’s a red herring. Alyeska 12:59, 20 May 2005

Do you mean Phoenix and Farragut here? What is a red herring? AlistairMcMillan 14:32, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

And now your claiming because they were never fired, they don’t exist. Well I guess that means we are going to have to drop the weapon counts on all the ship sections you haven’t touched. Whoops, we’ve only seen 7 or 8 of the Galaxy class phaser arrays fire. Faulty reasoning. Just because they have not been seen to fire does not mean they don’t exist. These items look visually identical to Constitution and Miranda class launchers. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck… Alyeska 12:59, 20 May 2005

Stop talking about the other pages, we are discussing the Nebula class here. "Just because they have not been seen to fire does not mean they don't exist."' So you're saying the main hull of the Nebula class might have more torpedo launchers we haven't seen yet? AlistairMcMillan 14:32, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

So, I make a potential mistake and suddenly that’s evidence against me? I do not see these phaser arrays you are talking about and would appreciate them being pointed out. However, unlike you I am willing to admit a mistake and learn from it. Alyeska 12:59, 20 May 2005

I am not trying to prove my weapon counts are better than yours. You keep claiming that your weapon counts are not original research, all I'm trying to prove is that the counts are your interpretation, therefore they are original research. AlistairMcMillan 14:32, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

All you are doing Alistair is making nitpick statements about the evidence I have presented. Bare minimum we have direct evidence of 2 photon torpedo launchers on the standard Nebula configuration as well as 5-7 phaser arrays. This is information you can not reasonably deny. Alyeska 12:59, 20 May 2005

So basically we should say "Torpedo launchers: 2-?" and "Phaser arrays: "5-7". Great. And in case you don't get it that was sarcasm. AlistairMcMillan 14:32, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Remove your responses from my post. I am not going to wade through that crap to find what your saying. Alyeska 23:40, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

BTW Alistair, I rather like how you ignored the fact that I caught you LYING. Alyeska 23:59, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Where did you catch me lying? AlistairMcMillan 00:11, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

"So basically we should say "Torpedo launchers: 2-?" and "Phaser arrays: "5-7". Great. And in case you don't get it that was sarcasm." If that's the information we have definitively on the ships, why not? Do we not strive for some level of comprehensive converage? Everything in science is to within degrees of accurate estimation? Everything must be dogma now? "5-7 phaser arrays" and "2+ torpedo tubes" is fine. I don't see what's wrong with it than some arbitrary, unjustified aesthetic irritant to Alistair. Illuminatus Primus 00:07, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

So you are backing up my position that we cannot accurately determine weapon counts from photographs and screencaptures? AlistairMcMillan 00:11, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I am sick and tired of your attitude Alistair. Read the god damned discussion page. I caught you lying through your teeth AFTER I already reminded you of something. I am not going to hold your hand through this. Alyeska 00:16, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Don't strawman me. 100% accuracy is a irrational claptrap. As I said before, if it functions just right for every single scientific principle that has allowed you the ability to post your remarks on this page, than we should show to the same level of accuracy possible the number of weapons on the warship from photgraphic/screencapture evidence. There is nothing wrong with saying "the on-screen evidence suggests 5-7 phaser arrays and at least 2 torpedo tubes." Like I said - what is wrong with that? Illuminatus Primus 00:20, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

Alyeska, you thought you were working towards a compromise, I was just hoping you'd be rational and work out that the specifcation data did not belong on Wikipedia. You could make a case for false pretences maybe, but I never lied. Illuminatus, I don't even understand what you are talking about in your "single scientific principle" line. I've proved that the weapon counts are based solely on original research and as such do not belong here. AlistairMcMillan 01:31, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I already posted the evidence. Earlier I stated that we had come to a compromise earlier. You stated we never compromised on anything. I pointed you to the Prometheus thread showing where you infact agreed to a compromise and then later renigged on it. So once again I catch you lying. Alyeska 02:52, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

The only person who used the word "compromise" on the Talk:Prometheus class starship page was User:Bluap. All I did was delete the fan cruft from the specification list to try to show that nothing else useful remained (your weapon counts have been proved to be original research and the engine counts can simply be incorporated into the article text). If you took that as my attempt at a compromise, then that is your fault for mis-interpreting the situation. AlistairMcMillan 04:10, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prometheus_class_starship&diff=12625767&oldid=12623852 You care to try again? Alyeska 04:30, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Like I said before. I was trying to make it clear to you that if we removed all the fan cruft from the specification lists, then it left hardly anything else behind. That specification lists for starships, that only appeared in a single episode, that we know very little about, were a waste of time. Do I have to draw you diagrams? AlistairMcMillan 04:53, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

And now you try and hide from the fact that you were caught in a blantant lie. You agreed to leave the information, then renigged on the deal. You claimed the information should go in the text but refused to put it in. Alyeska 05:34, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I put the engine count in. [16] I refused to add your funky weapon counts, because, as I've demonstrated a million times over now, they are YOUR weapon counts. NO!!! ORIGINAL!!! RESEARCH!!! AlistairMcMillan 06:06, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry, you agreed to keep the weapon counts at one point. BTW, I like the red herring statements your making. You haven't invalidated my weapon counts. Instead you try and write them off entirely by citing certain wiki rules while allowing this very same information to stay in other pages. Explain why the weapon counts on the Galaxy class and Sovereign class pages are still up. They have been derived the same way. You claim more screen time, except the counts still violate the rule you claim to be upholding. Warp engine counts violate this rule. Infact observations of ANYTHING visualy violtes the rule by your reasoning. Prove my weapon counts wrong Alistair. Don't make excuses to not use them. I also like how you are completely hiding from the fact that I caught you in a obvious lie. Alyeska 19:15, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

You said "This model has just 5 phaser arrays, it is missing the arrays just under the pod on the saucer." based on this image... http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/scans/mechanics/farragut2.jpg. Here is an image of the same exact model from a different angle (which you provided above) with the phaser arrays highlighted... http://homepage.mac.com/alistairmcmillan/farragut1.jpeg This is an example of your faulty weapon counts. AlistairMcMillan 04:25, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
Please respond to the above comment. AlistairMcMillan 07:50, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Now do you people see what Alistair is doing? I've caught him lying about the issue of a compromise and he refuses to acknowledge his own words. Now he accuses me of being a troll when I call him on his actions. Alyeska 03:12, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Please note the above comment by Alyeska, dated 27 May 2005, is in response to a comment on some other page. He seems to have added spamming to his repertoire. AlistairMcMillan 04:25, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Real mature there Alistair. I catch you in a lie and you try and weasel your way out of it and now call it spamming on my part. Alyeska 07:34, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Article could do with some work

The article is severely lacking in content for such an important starship and needs some work doing to it, who's willing to help? Ff.eternal (talk) 00:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)