VFD archive for Starbase 134Edit

Starbase 134 
Might be an unintentional duplicate of Starbase 174. I don't have the Okudagram of the starship mission status chart handy, but most of the references on MA imply that the Hood was at Starbase 174. Could there have been a dedication plaque of a ship that was built here? As far as I know, Starbase 134 was mentioned only in the Tech Manuals, and the information should be moved to those pages then deleted from the main content. -- SmokeDetector47 // talk 23:28, 6 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Oh wow, the sectors look different. That'll be fun to diffuse. -AJHalliwell 06:27, 10 Jul 2005 (UTC)
So according to the canon image, the USS Trieste is not a Merced class, but a Yosemite class?? --Alan del Beccio 23:24, 13 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Actually, the second one isn't canon either AFAICT. As you can see on that screenshot, the real deal is a crossbreed of both displays. I'm inclined to say that the display [1] from the Technical Manual-CD is the correct one, so I'm gonna vote for Keep.
Agreed, where'd you get the second one Captain, cause I'm questioning its canonitity to. The first one we at least have an idea where it's from. (not saying we're gonna use it) - AJHalliwell 20:01, 19 Jul 2005 (UTC)
The second display is from Rick Sternbach & Mike Okuda's portfolio for TNG Season 2 & 3 as published in excerpt in The Official Star Trek: The Next Generation Magazine issue 10 (from Starlog) (1990). The graphics were mostly reprinted there in blue on white background, not the colors they were displayed in on the series. The color one was completely redone at a much later date (1994), for a non-canon publication called Star Trek: Captain's Chair. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 00:59, 21 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Anyone like the joke in the top image on the fourth line from bottom where its says "Diplomatic Mission to Aldaraan". As in a a joke to all the Star Wars people out there I suppose. Thats cracked my up atleast and yes i checked the spelling--Kahless 02:46, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)
ALso at a glance that line is the only one that is different bewtween the two.-- Kahless 02:48, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Alderaan already exists here. Besides, that wouldnt be the first time Star Trek (almost) used a Star Wars reference: Skywalker Division, ISS Avenger, Kashyk and Botha. --Alan del Beccio 07:50, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • Any chance we can wrap this up? It's been three weeks. --Alan del Beccio 07:53, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)
    • This needs to be moved somewhere until all the minute points can be worked out. But as for actual Starbase 134, since both of the ones we're taking as canon agree on that mark, you can probably delete it now. - AJHalliwell 08:00. 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)

In reference to the screenshot, it seems that the artists mightve changed the Merced class reference from the original version -- but i'm fairly sure that the one reprinted in the magazine appeared onscreen also, and that if the artists changed the ship class to better fit references Okuda was writing about it, they might've taken the effort of changing the sector numbers as well. Since we have a screenshot showing the "Captain's Chair version" onscreen, and the mention that "STTNG Magazine version" was also mentioned as having appeared onscreen there, it seems that the ST Mag one was probably in TNG Season 3 or 4 and the screenshot i believe is from a later episode (5 or 6?? anyone have a citation, please?).

  • I am changing my vote to keep -- both versions of the chart were seen onscreen (the DS9 casualty list was altered and reused in a similar manner) -- each article that is a "counterpart" should link across to the double, and the Starship mission status article should be changed to list the articles from both versions of the list, in my opinion. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 03:45, 1 Aug 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually, there are three versions. -- 04:41, 2 Aug 2005 (UTC)
Archived --Alan del Beccio 07:56, 2 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Canon or non-canon? Edit

Apparently the Type-16 shuttlecraft was never seen or mentioned on screen, only in the Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual. True? If so, is it then non-canon and should the reference to it be removed (or moved to Apocrypha)? -- Renegade54 18:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)