Memory Alpha

Talk:Maquis raider

Back to page

42,141pages on
this wiki
Add New Page

Ju'day classEdit

if this type of ship has canon to show it is called the Ju'Day class, shouldn't the article name be changed to reflect this? For the moment, I've created a redirect to this page...--Tiberius 06:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Per the discussion on Talk:Val Jean, that was never seen on-screen, only in Star Trek: The Magazine. --OuroborosCobra talk 03:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Does anybody know in which issue of the Star Trek: The Magazine the graphic from "Repression" was seen where the ship is labelled "Ju'day class"? --Jörg 07:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the "background"-sourced name, we accept several other "background"-source named class designs, I really don't see this as any different, other than a case of holding a double-standard. --Alan 02:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
This seems to have been forgotten. Could someone rename the article. --Pseudohuman 01:13, July 19, 2010 (UTC)
Figure out what magazine issue the graphic was in, and get a copy of said image to put on the page, and we'll consider that. -- sulfur 01:47, July 19, 2010 (UTC)
I recall at least one source of the name ju'day class, is this drawing of the ship, but i dont remember where i saw a non-blurry scan of it. --Pseudohuman 09:23, July 19, 2010 (UTC)
Teero Anaydis

Teero's drawing

Star Trek: The Magazine Volume 2, Issue 4, p. 112 has the statement of this according to Sennims addition of info to the studio models page. so rename now? --Pseudohuman 13:12, April 26, 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind, but strictly speaking it still isn't canon, I freezeframed through the scene and could not find the designation and unfortunately, the article in The Magazine does not have the graphic...Sennim 13:31, April 26, 2011 (UTC)
We dont need a clear graphic. We have a citable production source verification that the info was in the graphic that was onscreen but was illegible. So it is canon by our standards. --Pseudohuman 15:00, April 26, 2011 (UTC)
Considering we seem to have two names, one visible and one invisible, the visible one would take precedence. That said, are we even sure the name was on the drawing? Without being able to see it, and without a quote from the magazine article, I still have my doubts it was on screen. - Archduk3 07:16, May 11, 2011 (UTC)
"Maquis raider" however is not a class name, it is simply affiliation + type. So there is no competition on what would take precedence. Sennim apparently has the magazine. So please give us a word for word quote with the information of the class name. --Pseudohuman 08:08, May 11, 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately the article is in narrative form and doesn't give a direct quote but merely states "The art department were delighted with this solution, and as a special thank-you to Penny , a poster on the wall identified the ship as a Ju'day-class vessel"...As I said before I freezeframed through the (very short) scene and could not find it, though that does not necessarily means it wasn't there, the model itself was hardly discernable...As far as I could see there were two possible candidates were the name might have been mentioned--Sennim 09:54, May 11, 2011 (UTC)
I would say that, that is still enough according to our article naming policies to rename this article. --Pseudohuman 13:18, May 11, 2011 (UTC)
What is the context of the quote? Who is talking? What poster is he talking about? Apparently we do not have any recreation of that poster available from anywhere, is that correct? -- Cid Highwind 13:28, May 11, 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't seem like it is a certainty that "a poster" refers to the poster seen behind Anaydis. If we cannot establish that, then it shouldn't be renamed.--31dot 15:23, May 11, 2011 (UTC)
I'm curious why we have a problem with this. In the case of for example Springfield-class we have only a textual bg source statement, no visual evidence, from Encyclopedia giving this name for the class so it's basically "producers want this ship to be called Springfield class" so we call it that. We clearly have a similar situation here, we have no visual evidence, but have a textual bg source statement that clearly indicates "producers wanted this ship to be called Ju'Day class" why do we have a double standard? --Pseudohuman 23:13, May 11, 2011 (UTC)
As I said(and Cid), it seems that we don't know what poster was being referred to in this case, nor who was making that statement. If some more information is provided that clarifies things, I would certainly be willing to support a change.--31dot 23:16, May 11, 2011 (UTC)
...and I'm still not sold on the "Maquis raider" name being less "official" then Ju'Day, since it was clearly seen on screen in a graphic created for the same episode the poster was. "Vessel type" seems much closer to "ship class" than "affiliation + type", especially since we know the Maquis used other ships as raiders. - Archduk3 23:39, May 11, 2011 (UTC)
There is no competition or contradiction on what is more official. Ship class articles are simply named with ship class names when they can be derived from canon or a bg source. The article is behind the scenes trivia from a credible source, Star Trek: The Magazine, regarding a class name for a ship type devised by the production staff. but apparently such a source is not enough suddenly here but for some reason is enough for Freedom-class, Springfield-class, Cheyenne-class, Type 8 shuttlecraft, etc. No on-screen visual posters necessary. --Pseudohuman 00:53, May 12, 2011 (UTC)
Then the article is perfectly fine where it is, regardless of the status of the name Ju'Day, since Maquis raider was predominantly displayed on screen. - Archduk3 02:14, May 12, 2011 (UTC)
The vessel type terminology of "Romulan Warbird" and "Klingon Battlecruiser" are also more prominently and consistantly used everywhere, but still we have the articles use "D'Deridex class" and "K't'inga class". Also, we know from "Caretaker" that the Valjean for example was decades years old at the time on the episode based on dialogue and it's computer displays, so the ship class as such must predate it's Maquis use as a raider. --Pseudohuman 11:46, May 12, 2011 (UTC)
Actually, all we know is that one ship had a decades old rebuilt engine and old computer displays. The ships seen in TNG had "modern" displays, and a rebuilt engine could be from anywhere. For all we know, these ships are made from scrap parts for the Maquis, which may explain the changes in internal structure and size. - Archduk3 13:12, May 12, 2011 (UTC)
In that case the Maquis would have designated them as Ju'Day class. There are only two variants we know of several of those with a small cockpit and several of those with a large one. That doesnt suggest that all were randomly built. --Pseudohuman 13:28, May 12, 2011 (UTC)
...or the Ju'Dayclass was the original name for the space frame used when they made the raider, but now it's a Maquis raider, much like the Soyuz-class has some connection to the Miranda-class, while still being a separate class instead of a different configuration. We simply don't have enough information to disregard the "official" designation of "Maquis raider" for one that wasn't seen or mentioned onscreen. A redirect and a "also known as" should be enough, assuming the poster in question was the one used onscreen. - Archduk3 14:07, May 12, 2011 (UTC)
They were initially identified as a "Federation ship" in Preemptive strike. Clearly all the arguments have been laid out here, and the two of us dont agree. Can you name a precedence where we dont use a class name for a ship class article when we have behind the scenes trivia giving us a class name the producer of trek have come up with. --Pseudohuman 14:46, May 12, 2011 (UTC)

Background noteEdit

Regarding the background note:

"The Maquis raider is often confused with the Peregrine class , both of which were used by the Maquis, but they are two distinct designs."

Since we have no idea what a Peregrine class looks like, how can we "definitively" say: "they are two distinct designs." --Alan del Beccio 00:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

That note was probably written confusing the Peregrine class with the Federation attack fighter, another common fan problem. In fact, the Maquis raider is commonly confused with the Federation attack fighter. --OuroborosCobra talk 03:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


Is there any canon info on if the raiders were made by starfleet and captured by the Maquis, or if they made them them selfs? JCDenton 05:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd say probably manufactured by the Federation/Starfleet. We know, at the very least, that components of the Val Jean were decades older than the Maquis itself, and every other ship we have seen used by the Maquis were of Federation or Bajoran design, and not original. That said, I don't think we have anything canon confirming this. --OuroborosCobra talk 05:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
By this time this is most likely a mute point but has any one thought that both raider configurations could be different ships all together? given the difference in size but similar layout could just really mean they where made be the same firm / shipyard not just simply a variant of one ship. E.X. look at the Klingon Bird of Pray we have a few unique classes of them all different sizes but they all have about the same layout, This could of served as a inspiration for this shipyard given how the raiders show very BoP like design 03:26, April 20, 2012 (UTC)
Yes. We had a long discussion on this. And ended up with listing them as completely different shiptypes as this is a case of a reused and modified model. of this ship we simply say that it was "utilized by the Maquis" since we dont have a clear canonical statement of origin or manufacturer. as we have seen elsewhere in star trek, several different species and organizations have manufactured similar if not identical shuttles and starships. So, manufacturer is unknown. --Pseudohuman 08:07, April 20, 2012 (UTC)

Ad blocker interference detected!

Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.

Also on Fandom

Random Wiki