I understand the necessity to be thorough, but does it to be so excruciating? If the graphic depicted vessels in the Spacedock, why are the Shepard and the Yorktown discussed here? There was never any indication that they were in Spacedock at the time of their distress signals. Rather, their signals were received before the probe even made it to Earth. On the other hand, if this was to represent the Spacedock parking arrangement at the end of the film, there is still no indication that either of those vessels ever returned to Spacedock at any point.

Also, that just a heads up, but that eBay link (which refers to STIII, not STIV) will be invalid in a few weeks. --Alan 01:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

There should be a rule against having 2 orders of magnitude MORE background than in-universe canon info in any article. TribbleFurSuit 01:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Intrepid Edit

It seems clear to me that this is a second Constitution class Intrepid. - Archduk3:talk 03:41, October 11, 2009 (UTC)

We have the NCC-1700 precedent for not naming a ship if there is a canonical registry with a non-canonical name attached to it. --Pseudohuman 15:45, October 13, 2009 (UTC)

The dialog said the Intrepid was clear to launch, and the display has this registry listed, along with the USS Excelsior which was also cleared, so the Intrepid is NCC-1707. - Archduk3:talk 03:38, October 14, 2009 (UTC)

The way the background note here is worded sounds as if the scripted dialogue wasn't even audible in the film - and the fact that we don't have a separate entry for that "second Intrepid" seems to support that. If that is the case, we're left with a more or less invisible registry number (that has been misspelled, even), for some unseen and unmentioned ship. I think even having this article might border on the speculative - we shouldn't go ahead and add more speculation by moving it to an "Intrepid" title. -- Cid Highwind 09:08, October 14, 2009 (UTC)

It is my understanding that one of the screens had the numbers shortened, but the other used the full registry numbers, so there isn't any speculation on that. I haven't seen the movie recently, but I do remember there being dialog in that scene, and if what is recorder he is what was said, then there is no speculation there either. I don't see how this is speculation if both the screens and dialog support it. If being unreadable disqualifies the LCARS screen, we disqualify almost all of then, since almost all were never meant to be seen up close. We have the unseen and unmentioned Starfleet Dental based on the LCARS screen only, and here we have a mentioned ship, with a screen to support it, I fail to see why this would be different. - Archduk3:talk 17:11, October 14, 2009 (UTC)

First, I'm just observing what the background information currently states. Believe it or not, most of the time people know exactly what they are writing here, so if something is specifically worded to avoid assuming a connection, then maybe there's some reason to that. Basically, what I'm saying is: feel free to have another look at the original source, the movie itself, but don't just change something based on two different bits of background information here. :)
Second, I'm not disputing that connecting a ship name and a display showing a ship is likely speculation - just that it is, still, speculation of some sort. -- Cid Highwind 17:35, October 14, 2009 (UTC)
It would help if you specified when (timestamp or otherwise) in the movie the dialog is stated as there is nothing in the movie (that i can hear) to show that the Intrepid is even mentioned let alone linked to this particular registry. The LCARS displays do not work in this case as there is nothing on them to link the display to any particular ship other than the "outline" of the ship which doesn't really help either as there are several ships and since there was only one constitution class (assuming we go by the outline of the ship in the lcars display) vessel in space dock at the end of the film that we actually see, the Enterprise, you could just as easily say that NCC-1707 was renamed to NCC-1701-A when it was decided to give the ship to kirk for saving earth... — Morder (talk) 17:41, October 14, 2009 (UTC)
  • edit conflict - Don't get me wrong, I see your point, and have no intention of changing this without at least checking the film again. But if a ship is being talked about, and a graphic in front of the guy talking has a ship shown, we can easily speculate that the ship being talked about is the ship shown. Of course, there is a chance that it isn't that ship, but IMO, if the information is correct, the chance of that is about the same as the establishing shots of the Enterprise-D during TNG not being the Enterprise, because no registry number was seen. :) - Archduk3:talk 17:53, October 14, 2009 (UTC)

Since the line in question was not said on screen, looks like I'm eating crow on this one. I'll make a change to the article stating that the line was scripted, but not used. - Archduk3:talk 04:42, October 15, 2009 (UTC)

Just another hint that NCC-1707 was intended to represent the Intrepid. Back around the time when ST:IV was being written, FASA published the Federation Ship Recognition Manual (1985). There one could find the refit "Entreprise"-class USS Intrepid, NCC-1707 (second to bear the name). Back then the FSRM was a valid reference for Trek writers/artists, as it was endorsed by Paramount. As far as I know, the only other source for a semi-official NCC-1707 registry is Franz Joseph's Tech Manual (USS Hood), but FJ was out of the loop and out of favor with Paramount so I doubt anyone would have referenced his work at that time. This is not saying that it makes Intrepid NCC-1707 any more canon, but just that it's pretty obvious that was how Mike Okuda interpreted the script in order to design the graphic panels we're talking about. --ANdRu 14:19, June 1, 2011 (UTC)


where is the screenshooting ? C-IMZADI-4 (talk) 20:15, August 6, 2013 (UTC)

What screenshot? An actual ship was never seen with this registry number on it. 31dot (talk) 21:44, August 6, 2013 (UTC)

The screenshot where we can see the graphic display or the station in spacedock. C-IMZADI-4 (talk) 05:36, August 7, 2013 (UTC)

Close-ups of these two panels [1] on the spacedock console weren't seen in the film, because they were for a scene that was deleted, and in the scene that was in the film the actors were in front of most of the panels on the console. --Pseudohuman (talk) 10:13, August 7, 2013 (UTC)

ok, thank you ! C-IMZADI-4 (talk) 13:43, August 7, 2013 (UTC)

I just watched the 10 seconds or so before all displays go dark and I must say I didn't see this graphic at all, not even illegible. It seemed to me like it was obscured by the actors all the time; if so, it would be the same case like the unused pages from the Picard family album, produced, but ultimately not seen onscreen, so non-canon. Kennelly (talk) 13:42, June 22, 2016 (UTC)