I have removed the "Timeline" section of the article, as its wording strongly suggests it is a direct copy from the book, and is therefore a copyvio. I do not include it here for the same reason. -- Michael Warren | Talk 17:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Due to its very nature, it is doubtful that it was ever, even behind the scenes, considered "canon" (for example, while not known for sure at the time, the commissioning of the Constitution-class was projected in 2188 in the book, missing the point by about sixty years, as established since then). Furthermore, both real world events and events depicted or referred to...
- as a result, the book's timeline and illustrations are now considered by most to be outside of canon.
- Apparently, later Star Trek production staffers came to agree with the authors' take on the revised design when a display model of the Bonaventure was featured in the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episodes "The Nagus", "In the Hands of the Prophets", and "Cardassians". That model carried more than a passing resemblance to the one presented in the book.
- Okuda's interpretation was such a very close approximation of the one depicted in that book, that a homage to that work, as courtesy to friend and close co-worker Rick Sternbach (who illustrated the Chronology), should be considered the most likely explanation.
I removed these notes from the background information segment as they are a bit nitpicky and fan-based speculations about the intentions and attitudes of the production staff. Even though it is reasonable to assume these were how things went, if we don't have direct quotes from the people, it is speculation and unnecessarily superfluous to state these things in my opinion.--Pseudohuman (talk) 15:58, April 7, 2014 (UTC)