Memory Alpha
Memory Alpha
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 8: Line 8:
 
:::Though I support a merge, no one has claimed that it is canon, as the article is a real-world one, and it is currently categorized as "unreferenced material".--[[User:31dot|31dot]] 00:35, November 28, 2009 (UTC)
 
:::Though I support a merge, no one has claimed that it is canon, as the article is a real-world one, and it is currently categorized as "unreferenced material".--[[User:31dot|31dot]] 00:35, November 28, 2009 (UTC)
 
::Again, a valid point, however even as prove would eventually surface, the point remains that the ''Trinculo'' is non-canon, no matter which way you turn it...Quite frankly it is becoming an Urban Legend, since nobobody seems to be able to provide prove of the ''Trinculo''...As far as I'm concerned the '''MERGE''' still stands. Show me where I go wrong in the so-called 'in-universe' article or "unreferenced material" and I'll stand down.--[[User:Sennim|Sennim]] 01:02, November 28, 2009 (UTC)
 
::Again, a valid point, however even as prove would eventually surface, the point remains that the ''Trinculo'' is non-canon, no matter which way you turn it...Quite frankly it is becoming an Urban Legend, since nobobody seems to be able to provide prove of the ''Trinculo''...As far as I'm concerned the '''MERGE''' still stands. Show me where I go wrong in the so-called 'in-universe' article or "unreferenced material" and I'll stand down.--[[User:Sennim|Sennim]] 01:02, November 28, 2009 (UTC)
  +
::::I would go with the merge, as this information is about the model. Whether or not it's accurate is a topic for a different time. The inforomation on the model is on the ''Galaxy''-class page, and this is information on the model. - [[w:c:memory-alpha:User:Archduk3|<span style="color:#00ff00;">Archduk3:</span>]][[w:c:memory-alpha:User talk:Archduk3|<span style="color:#9900FF;">talk</span>]] 13:36, December 13, 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:36, 13 December 2009

PNA

I'm debating on making this a "merge with", because as the Background section states: "It's possible the nomenclature was solely devised as a redecoration of the model for the display, but some fans theorize it might have been filmed as the Trinculo, possibly as one of the Galaxy-class starships that participated in the Dominion War.". While the particular history of the model bearing this name is of interest, the ship itself was never known to exist in the star trek universe, only speculation, leading my to think that perhaps it belongs in the background section of Template:ShipClass. --Alan del Beccio 17:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with a merge as suggested by Alan. Apart from the fact that the ship is non-canon, No Trinculo pics are available on the net at the time although there are rumors abound. The year the author mentioned, 1995 of the model being displayed at a Planet Hollywood restaurant coincides with the last use of the Four-foot model in "Way of the Warrior" when it was labeled as the USS Venture. I have pictures of the model on display around that time, still wearing these labels, coming from McCullars "IDIC"-page, taken by him personally in October of that year. If indeed it was labeled Trinculo, it must have been at a later date. Furthermore the author states that it is "one of the four-foot models". I have yet to read somewhere that there were indeed more than one made. The model is now back in the possession of Paramount and has been on tour recently. Pictures of the now weathered model on tour show clearly that the decals have been replaced by the Enterprise-D again, but is impossible to tell which previous decals they replaced--Sennim 15:03, November 27, 2009 (UTC)

Right, I've now done an official suggestion of a merge with the Apocryphaa section of the Galaxy class, based on my observations of the above--Sennim 23:19, November 27, 2009 (UTC)

I object, on the basis that it seems somewhat unlikely they'd give the model a random name for a restaurant display -- whether or not the model was seen onscreen with this designation is immaterial -- this article is presented as a 'real world article' about the model itself on the basis that no known onscreen use exists that could make this an 'in-universe' article. it is not disputed that the model was labeled this, thus it is acceptable and normal to have an article about the model that bore this name. -- Captain MKB 23:35, November 27, 2009 (UTC)
Support merge. Without proof there was more than one model made, this information should be merged with the article about the model(in this case, the article Alan suggested).--31dot 23:57, November 27, 2009 (UTC)
Granted, the model may well have been represented as the Trinculo in on or another display (and I'm still waiting for confirmation of this), still it is non-canon (as it in this guise has never appeared, nor mentioned on screen) and thus should be relegated to let's say to an Apocryphal-section...And by the by they DID give random names to studio models for exhibition purposes only before, i.e the Constellation class USS Valkyrie, which Rick Sternbach himself had to explain in a article Star Trek: The Magazine Volume 3, Issue 9 after the fact. I'm still going for the merge--Sennim 00:09, November 28, 2009 (UTC)
Though I support a merge, no one has claimed that it is canon, as the article is a real-world one, and it is currently categorized as "unreferenced material".--31dot 00:35, November 28, 2009 (UTC)
Again, a valid point, however even as prove would eventually surface, the point remains that the Trinculo is non-canon, no matter which way you turn it...Quite frankly it is becoming an Urban Legend, since nobobody seems to be able to provide prove of the Trinculo...As far as I'm concerned the MERGE still stands. Show me where I go wrong in the so-called 'in-universe' article or "unreferenced material" and I'll stand down.--Sennim 01:02, November 28, 2009 (UTC)
I would go with the merge, as this information is about the model. Whether or not it's accurate is a topic for a different time. The inforomation on the model is on the Galaxy-class page, and this is information on the model. - Archduk3:talk 13:36, December 13, 2009 (UTC)