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.
Forum:Star Trek Encyclopedia based starship classesEdit
On another sore subject, there is the matter of articles based solely on material taken from Star Trek Encyclopedia.
By my count we have a very large selection of Federation starship classes that have never been identified on screen by name, either is diagrams, dialog, or any other format I cannot think of.
Many of these appear to be Star Trek Encyclopedia only references, based on conjecture for ships that were never seen, whereas other are based on production notes to describe models that were actually made. Here is the list:
- No studio model, Encyclopedia only
- Andromeda class
- Antares class (Starfleet)
- Chimera class
- Deneva class
- Hokule'a class
- Istanbul class
- Mediterranean class
- Olympic class (see talk:Olympic class)
- Rigel class
- Sequoia class
- Surak class
- Wambundu class
- Yorkshire class
- Zodiac class
- Kit-bash studio model
- Challenger class -- production notes
- Cheyenne class -- production notes
- Freedom class -- production notes
- Niagara class -- production notes
- Springfield class -- production notes
- Semi-featured studio model
- Akira-class -- production notes
- Norway-class -- production notes
- Saber-class -- production notes
- Steamrunner-class -- production notes
As it stands, these would appear to be fair game for the chopping block, most notably the ones that have Encyclopedia-only sources. If someone could fill in the blanks (?'s) that would be a helpful start. --Alan del Beccio 07:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Most of these I don't see a problem with losing, with the exception of Akira class, but hey, sacrifices must be made. --OuroborosCobra talk 07:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Id say lose the first set, the kitbashed ones are debatable, but the last four are all well known and accepted. --Cyno01 10:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Articles from this Encyclopedia are not cannon. Therefore, it is prohibited to add these articles to this wiki. Please visit the page on Cannon policy for more details. Thank you StoryMaster 21:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Moved from Talk:Rigel classEdit
This is sourced to "The Best of Both Worlds, Part II", but this reference was not part of the Starfleet armada devised for this episode, the designation was an afterthought to define a ship which was dupped into the script at the last minute, the Tolstoy.
So there are no canon references to the Tolstoy and the Akagi being referred to as Rigel-class, except for the technical writings of Sternbach and Okuda, et al -- done while they worked on the show and contributed some of these ship names to the producers for mention on the show -- but they might have included them in a piece of background art dealing with Wolf 359 or Picard's fleet, but we haven't seen anything like this closeup... is everyone comfortable with continuing to classify the ships based on Okuda's writings that were included in the Star Trek Encyclopedia? -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk
- I, for one, am very comfortable with anything Okuda proclaims on ships and technology that is not directly contradicted by what is shown on screen. Aholland 06:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
- I have thought about this some more, and feel increasing uncomfortable with simply stating it as fact, without attribution as to where the information comes from. So I would like the article to reflect its actual citation, and carry a notation that it is "likely" named after the star. (It could also have been a famous "Capt. Rigel" or some such thing it was named after - we just don't know.) If that happens, can we remove the "inaccurate" sign? Aholland 15:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Moved from Talk:Hokule'a classEdit
i don't remember this being said in the episode. is it written on something?
- You are right, this is from the Encyclopedia. I have therefore suggested a merge with USS Tripoli. --OuroborosCobra talk 17:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- I don't remember writing this, or why I said what I did, but I agree with Alan now. Shran wanted me to say that. --OuroborosCobra talk 05:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Moved from Talk:Istanbul classEdit
Is there any valid resource for the naming of this class, or the assignment of these ships to it? I'm considering placing the class designation on the deletion list, but wanted to see if anyone had anything first. Aholland 03:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
- I don't have the direct evidence, but I believe the USS Sarajevo's class might've been listed in a graphic created for "In Purgatory's Shadow"
- Otherwise, this class being listed for all the listed ships is derived from the Star Trek Encyclopedia and the Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual. These sources were previously listed as valid resources of starship data in a previous canon policy (meaning we would use class names and registry numbers from those works, as well as some specifications and statistics). -- Captain M.K. Barteltalk 02:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry - I have deleted my comment here as I was addressing the wrong class of ship. I'll get back to the Istanbul some other time. Again, sorry! Aholland 19:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Just a follow up regarding the Sarajevo. The ship was only mentioned by Garak as being a ship missing since the Feds first met the Dominion, there was never any associated display graphic. --Alan del Beccio 23:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
So here's what I've found out: The Constantinople is listed in the Encyclopedia as being Istanbul class; the Havana is not (nor is its registry); The Istanbul itself doesn't exist in it; the Sarajevo doesn't exist in it. So . . . it appears that only the Constantinople is identified as being an Istanbul class ship in the Encyclopedia. Are there any other resources for these ships? Aholland 03:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- Star Trek Encyclopedia volume 3 lists both Sarajevo and Havana as Istanbul-class with registries for both. You're researching with one of the early editions. -- Captain M.K. Barteltalk 06:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- Must be - I'll have to update, I guess! :) So we now have Encyclopedia references for Sarajevo, Havana, and Constantinople as being Istanbul class with registries, but no episode-specific data. That's fine, we can note it that way. The only one hanging out, then, is the USS Istanbul, for which I'm guessing no information exists anywhere? Aholland 14:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Moved from various deleted starship talk pagesEdit
- The following was moved from the talk pages for these starship classes now merged with this article: Andromeda class, Antares class (Starfleet), Chimera class, Deneva class, Hokule'a class, Mediterranean class, Istanbul class, Rigel class, Sequoia class, Wambundu class, Yorkshire class, and Zodiac class.
I suggest merging this with the Star Trek Encyclopedia, the original and only source of this information. While Mike Okuda states in the Encyclopedia that, "Many class designations and registry numbers are somewhat conjectural, although most of them have been used in various background charts and readouts..." there has been no proof uncovered by our crack research team that might suggest that this was one of those class designations. --Alan del Beccio 19:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with merging all the ship classes, that are currently up for merge which were never seen onscreen or mentioned in dialogue/graphic. I won't post this on all the other pages because I'm lazy, but my vote can be counted there too. Kennelly 14:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Currently only the cover of the third edition is in this article. Should the covers for all three be shown? -- Connor Cabal 12:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Color in 2nd edition? Edit
I have the 1st and 3rd editions of this book, but not the 2nd. Could someone please tell me whether the images in the 2nd edition are colorized (as those in the 3rd are, but not the 1st). --Defiant 10:07, June 11, 2012 (UTC)
- I can, I used to own one and it is in full color...Essentially the 3rd edition is an exact reprint with an addendum (see here for confirmation)--Sennim 10:41, June 11, 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, to you both. :) --Defiant 14:59, June 11, 2012 (UTC)