As we all know this is a horse that has been beaten over and over again. With this ship having at least six different appearances within episodes, with it even appearing after the Excelsior-class, should we maybe revisit the policy on this ship?

With ships like the USS Syracuse (that's sort of now the Ent-D), USS Defiant / USS Defiant (-A but not really -A), USS Minnow/USS Min'ow, the Alantis's, USS Yamato, the appearance of a USS Reliant in DS9 and USS Saratoga / USS Saratoga in Picard/First Contact/Generations, as well as the Endeavour's, Excelsior's, Hood, Lexington (Nebula), USS Ajax (2 different registries and 2 different classes), USS Discovery as Disco/Disco-A/Disco again, USS Ahwahnee NCC-73620 / USS Ahwahnee for examples. Would there be any other examples outside of starships that we take this policy on ignoring viewable information and discarding it? ‐ Yaroze86 (talk) 17:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I am actually for restoring it as a named ship in canon status. I think we should un-retcon this information due to multiple times this ship has shown up after the Excelsior-class. I see no reason we can't have 2 ships with the same registry. This is speculation hat, but what is to say that Starfleet didn't offer the Melbourne Excelsior class to Riker with the intention of a surprise that he was really getting a newly built Nebula-class. We clearly had 2 Ajax's with different class's and different registries being displayed at the same time (at least I think we did). ‐ Yaroze86 (talk) 15:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

From one of the policy pages: "USS Melbourne (Nebula class), with its name and registry indiscernible on screen, were explicitly retconned out by later productions (not exactly true), using a different model up close with the name and registry of the first (Excelsior class), respectively. An explicit change doesn't require the production or producers to be aware that a change is being made at the time, just that the new information doesn't allow for the old information.". PRO throws a rock at some of this with the Starfleet ship on mission and would now potentially per policy un-retcon some of these ships being destroyed (clearly, they were).

I am lobbying some changes to policy:

• Restore USS Melbourne Nebula class along with the Excelsior class (Precedence for the Ajax and Yamato that 2 same named can co-exist at around the same time)
• Split Yamato article into two ships (Syracuse kind of maybe sets a precedence to not do this with its low registry Galaxy-class and the Yamato might have been in the same case. But its speculation. We clearly have 2 cases of the same name being used like the Melbourne but with different registries like the Ajax)
  • (I personally feel that Galaxy class Yamato was sent to replace an older class ship that was also near the Neutral zone giving Donald Varley time to investigate Iconia system. But that is also speculation on my part but I also kinda of have a idea for the NCC-1305-E registry as well but that's another story)
• Second Yamato recommendation: We should follow the registry of the model and not the computer screen. So, precedence set like the Ahwahnee thus becoming NCC-71806 and not NCC-71807. (Note: I am not going to go with this recomendation as I think Okuda intention was for NCC-71807 per the Encyclopedia)
• Create another USS Ahwahnee NCC-73620 (I don't think this should be a retcon per say as it did exist, it's not clearly seen on screen but actual photos of the model clearly shows its registry. The hard part is trying to explain how its registry went back numbers. Worst case re-direct could be created and 71620 page could have the registry of both numbers in the article currently like the Yamato page. Personally, I think 73620 should be the main page as it's not the first time a computer screen was wrong like or unlike the Yamato)
• Merge info into USS Saratoga 2285 as seen in Fist Contact and Generations due to bginfo from Picard (also precedence from the Defiant this can happen)
• Create new USS Reliant as see in DS9 (This would follow the precedence set by the Defiant but could also be Picard's Reliant)
• Split the Ajax's into two entries
• Potentially create a new USS Sitak and the USS Majestic vice having them as Unnamed Miranda class starships (As precedence to USS Defiant. Personal opinion on this is I am not 100% sure I would recommend this because its reused scene but it's the most logical)

‐ Yaroze86 (talk) 03:16, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

I've moved this discussion to a forum, since it may affect at least several pages, or so I understand it. I've also added rename and split tags to USS Melbourne and USS Yamato, respectively, which I believe is part of what you're suggesting (if I misunderstood, feel free to remove the tags). One way or the other, this should certainly get more input before any action is taken, considering how much this has been discussed in the past. 🖖 Mr. Starfleet Command ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:57, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Made a few updates to how I think we should handle these. ‐ Yaroze86 (talk) 18:22, 21 June 2025 (UTC)