Talk:USS Chekov

Information source?

For this ship is the information on it (name, class, registry number) taken from the model as shown on screen, or some reference work? If the model, is there a screen cap of it somewhere? Thanks! Aholland 19:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Photographs of the filming model are part of Michael Okuda's portfolio, and can be viewed as http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org .. the photos cannot be reproduced here or on other websites. There is also an interview with Mr. Okuda which confirms this data. -- Captain M.K.B. 19:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Captain! Hmmm. I don't think it works. What we have is a permitted resource (a model seen on screen) that is directly contradicted by dialogue on screen. Pursuant to the canon policy, a Restricted Validity Resource cannot be used as the basis for an article if it is directly contradicted by a valid resource (in this case, on-screen dialogue referencing the same ship by a different name). The script doesn't even support the name; it actually had the ship's name as the "Chekhov", which is the proper spelling of Anton Pavlovich Chekhov, the Russian writer, but NOT Pavel Chekov, the Russian navigator. And if you look at the model anyway, it appears to me (after much eyestrain) that there are 7 letters for the name of the one with the registry 57302.

So it seems that the script originally called for a ship called the "Chekhov", that a model for such a ship was built and filmed, that the name was not visible on-screen, and that sometime between that point and the time the episode was finished the decision was made that the ship called "Chekhov" would be renamed the "Tolstoy" in dialogue. Therefore, for Memory Alpha resource purposes neither the "Chekhov" nor the "Chekov" can be used for the creation of an article. They can be background for the Tolstoy, though.

If anyone has some other resource for the Chekov or the Chekhov, though, please post it here. Aholland 20:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

But here on Memory Alpha we use many pieces of information that were applied to hardly-seen starship models and other artwork, not directly visible onscreen, but are available for review through the photographic records of the studio and art department. I have reviewed pictures of the Chekov filming model and found that it is indeed labeled "Chekov" (not "Chekhov"), and it has been found to be visible on he Enterprise viewscreen in "Best of Both Worlds" (even though the name isn't).. the script called for a ship called Chekhov, but the script was contradicted by being edited out of the episode, but the model and its registry were filmed as such. So the script reference is immaterial, as the creators didnt want "Chekhov" in the episode (they renamed the dialogue "Tolstoy"), but the model reference stands, as a model indeed labeled "Chekov" was included.

The producers didn't remove Chekhov because they didn't think a ship could be named that (although there was no ship Chekhov), i don't believe this illustrates their intent that there "would be/never was" a ship Chekov -- this is dragging out too many assumptions. Just because they thought that mentioning a ship at a certain moment would disrupt the drama of the scene, doesn't mean they thought it an impossibility or unlikelihood the ship was named.

Do you have a statement from Michael Piller stating his intentions? If not, I'd say you have no argument...

I'm not sure that a consensus would agree with your opinion that it "doesn't work", but thanks for sharing that. Perhaps we need to alter the canon policy again so it is clearer about how this information is valid. -- Captain M.K.B. 21:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I personally believe that a ship where there is no clear image of the ship from the episode, where there is no clear image of a name on the model, where a script has a different name for the ship, and where dialogue was expressly changed to reference the ship - whatever name was on the model - by another name should only be background information (on Tolstoy?) rather than an article of its own. I'll check my Encyclopedia and Tech Manual at home (since if it is in there that counts as a permitted resource for this type of thing and I'll quietly shut up after citing it), but if I can't find anything I'll probably just nominate it for deletion as a primary article and we can let other people weigh in. Aholland 21:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

So far, hasn't "off-screen" information only be used to support on-screen information? Isn't that what the whole section of the new canon policy is about? Wasn't information not from the episodes considered completely "invalid" according to the old canon policy? If there's exactly nothing on-screen that even hints at a ship that might have been called "Chek(h)ov", and that's what I'm getting from the discussion above, why are we even having this discussion? -- Cid Highwind 22:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Isn't that why i dislike most of the new canon policy and feel it should be changed?

The info on the Chekov is available in behind the scenes resources, as well as the encyclopedia -- i feel that any time a modelmaker working for the show labeled a ship, and there is no good reason to disinclude the info, the info should be used. Count this as my vote that such language should be part of the policy. Maybe we are rushing things with policies, since i feel my point of view isn't included.... -- Captain M.K.B. 22:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what exactly you might or might not like about the new policy, but I'm sure we will discuss that in great detail on the policy talk page. ;) However, I'm equally sure that I don't like including information that doesn't have the tiniest connection to at least some on-screen data. I think that reasoning would lead us straightly into including the whole TNG:TM - after all, it was created by people "working for the show" and there's "no good reason to disinclude the info"?

The problem with "rushing things with policies" is, that this article would have even less of a place here according to the old one - but that's another point that should probably be discussed elsewhere. -- Cid Highwind 22:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

In the late '90s and early 2000s, this site's own founders participated in information gathering, Michael Okuda was interviewed to obtain behind-the-scenes photos and information about how the ships were labeled, and where they appeared in this episode. This information has not been secret, it was relayed in several of his reference works and those of others, and he gave talks on the subject at numerous conventions. I've provided a link to a site where this model is photographed, and caps are available of where it appears onscreen. I'm not sure why there's still a question.

I certainly think there could be improvements to this article -- for example, the Springfield class designation is not from canon -- it wasn't mentioned except in the later Encyclopedia. But the research is here to prove this ship itself was used onscreen -- what i don't like about the canon policy is that it is too long to read, i'm not even sure which part of it is being quoted here, but it seems designed to disinclude all data except that which is available from cursory examination of TV episodes, which conflicts with the fact the MA has thousands of articles based on behind-the-scenes info which fit fine into the Star Trek universe -- and has been included as valid because (like TAS), despite not being immediately visible as part of episodic Trek lore, was designed and referred to later by numerous artists who have done hard work contributing to the creation of new episodes. -- Captain M.K.B. 22:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Well... Was the model visible in one of the battle scenes in the episode somewhere? As I said above, the impression I get from this whole discussion is that it wasn't - if this impression is wrong, please tell me, as that would probably shorten the whole thing considerably. -- Cid Highwind 22:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay... wow, um... I'm not sure exactly how much I can add to the discussion, or if I'll even help matters, but this is how I feel: the model for the USS Chekov was seen in the episode, although the name and registry was not... am I right? If so, then the fact that the name wasn't seen doesn't matter... the mode was seen; that model was called USS Chekov. Therefore, the USS Chekov is valid. The dialogue in the episode may have changed to reference a different ship, but that doesn't change the fact that there was a USS Chekov seen in the battlefield. Had there been a different camera angle of the ship, guess what – we wouldn't be having this discussion. But, yeah, that's my view on things. (By the way, the model doesn't conflict with the dialogue, nor did it mean that the Chekov was changed to Tolstoy – they just referenced a different ship in dialogue. Hence, there is no conflict with our canon policy.) --From Andoria with Love 23:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Here are Bernd Scneider's illustrations: (Captain M.K.B.)

[IMAGE REMOVED - COPYRIGHT VIOLATION]

Well, here are some more screencaps that might be of help.

File:Springfield class 1.jpg

Springfield class 1

File:Springfield class 2.jpg

Springfield class 2

And here are the direct links to the articles at www.ex-astris-scientia.org

Wolf 359 - Overview Wolf 359 - Interview with Michael Okuda Springfield Class Reconstruction

--Jörg 23:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed the copyrighted image as it was expressly forbidden to be reproduced. Aholland 23:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, most "fair use" licenses on wikipedia recognize that low res and obscured versions of copyrighted or non-circulable pictures can be used for review purposes, but I hope you at least looked at it this time. A lot of people who worked with Bernd on that project have verified the data in question, and i've discussed it with all involved numerous times to make sure that there were a large number of people in agreement about what the registry said, where the ship was placed in the episode, so on and so forth. -- Captain M.K.B. 00:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I deal with copyright law. An argument can be made about fair use, but the fact that this is a commercial site (note the google ads) cuts against it when the entirety of a copyrighted work is copied (albeit masked) and it is clearly noted as licensed for an individual website only. Regardless, the site asked that it not be copied, and I suggest we honor that request.

I had earlier examined the image as presented at ex-astris scientia (a wonderful site). I see the conclusions reached, and the methodologies used. In the writeup itself the author notes discrepancies in what was seen on screen and the models that someone identified as having been used, but concludes such things as "it is still a mystery why the bottom pod seemingly doesn't exist in the top view of the ship". In the end, it becomes a matter of faith and supposition rather than fact, as the matching of the smudge to a 3D rendered ship is interesting, but hardly conclusive.

But the thing that I cannot get over is the total lack of a name. The script discarded "Chekhov", and no photo of the model used shows a name with any legibility.

I am not, as is suggested above, dismissing this out of hand. I am merely trying to get my initial question answered: Where is there anything from a permitted resource that contains the name "Chekov", where is the registry associated with it found, and where is the ship class name found? I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that it isn't found anywhere except as an accepted fiction. Please prove me wrong, and I promise to shut up about it! One clear photo of a ship with a name that matches what is shown on screen and I can get over Tolstoy very easily. Thanks. Aholland 01:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm saying that the photo is or should be a permitted resource -- and I'm sorry I don't understand the new version of the canon policy that might say different. It was taken behind the scenes, at Paramount Pictures, by Michael Okuda or a member of his staff. The status quo here, and possibly older revisions of the canon policy, all maintain this kind of thing as allowable.

I'm also saying that I have seen a higher resolution version of that photo, and that it does indeed say C-H-E-K-O-V on the hull -- and the website the photo is on backs me up on this. If you are saying you can't read it fine, but I'm not sure if you are accusing me of a falsehood -- something that really makes me think you aren't discussing this with me in good faith. I'm not a liar. -- Captain M.K.B. 01:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I did not and am not calling you a liar. I am merely saying that I cannot read a name in that photo, and do not subscribe to the forensic photo analysis (noted as flawed in the article itself) that attempts to place the model in that episode. We cannot, as I discussed on the long note you left on my Talk page, simply go by what people say is true. We have to have independent verification or this site will degenerate into a "trust me" mode. That would permit me, for instance, to say I visited the Trek sets in 1991 and saw a model of the USS Bozo, NX-49876, which was stated to me by Okuda to be a Clown Class and was filmed in BOBW. That smudge in the lower right. See? We cannot operate that way and hope to have any claim to legitimacy. It has to be capable of being seen or heard by readers independent of this site to count as a resource - valid or otherwise. Aholland 01:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying we should accept the data based on the convention slideshow -- so I don't really care for your bozo reference.

I still maintain forensic photo analysis isn't necessary -- the photo on Bernd's site is of a ship with six letters in its name, not 7 -- clearly visible to me. I know Bernd still has an account here, but 'independant of this site (i.e. before MA existed) he had verified it with his published interview that the six-letter variant of the spelling was on the hull (not through photo analysis as you suggest). Whether you are accepting his information as an independant party (as webmaster of EAS) or as an admin at MA (which he is), his site exists as a publication of that kind of data. An addition to the page of a link to his site, the resource (The official interviews and official photo that his site can publish and we cannot) will be visible to readers, meaning we have succeeded in satisfying that requirement. -- Captain M.K.B. 02:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I, respectfully, disagree. I have nothing but respect for Bernd, but it took him an entire page to reach a conclusion that is conjectural at best - and it looks to me like photo analysis. I still cannot read the name; I still don't fully buy off on the conclusion. I've put the article up for deletion and we'll see what the powers that be say about keeping it around with the paucity of information regarding it.

I'm not sure, maybe its your eyesight at fault and not EAS or the USS Chekov page. I can read it pretty well, but I am an artist who spends a lot of time setting type.

The next step would be to in some way send a question to Mr. Okuda asking if he had indeed been interviewed and that the picture and information on Bernd's site was turthful. Seems like a lot of trouble when so many archivists here realize we have the evidence in front of us in that picture, on that site, in other interviews or the same published other places (Star Trek staffer interviews on EAS were conducted by a group of several websites in unison, some have been republished various forms -- and indeed, a lot of the other information outside the interviews is cited to published booksources). -- Captain M.K.B. 02:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

It could be my ancient eyes, but I asked my 11 year old to read it and he didn't have a clue either. "LCC Something" was his guess.  :) I've put the matter up for deletion and we can discuss on that page whether there is additional information available somewhere or not. Or even if it is needed; maybe it will be seen to meet canon rules and be clear enough to everyone else. Aholland 02:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure is an 11 year old a "restricted validity resource" or a "permitted resource"? :p -- Captain M.K.B. 03:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes I feel the more restricted he is, the better!  :) Aholland 03:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

If ya can't read the registry label seen here, you got problems. ;) Looking at the image of the actual model, however, I'm about 99% sure it says "U.S.S. CHEKOV". --From Andoria with Love 14:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay - THAT one even I can read.  :) (But I had to go there manually; the hotlink reads as disabled when I click it.) I am really trying my best to be fair and not to jump to unwarranted conclusions, so I also asked my other son, a 13 year old, what the picture of the model showed as a name. He said it was too small to make out. He also thought there were 8 letters in the second portion (after the presumed "USS"). After I told him some people thought it said Chekov, he squinted and said "I can't see it". So it ain't just me and my tired old eyes! Aholland 14:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I asked the archivist who mentioned the 99 Encyclopedia reference to supply the registry and class given in there. If it matches, we can cite that as the resource. It'll still have to carry the non-canon note, of course, as the Encyclopedia is a Restricted Validity Resource - but the article could stay per policy I believe. I'll be happy to remove the deletion nomination once the data is confirmed. Aholland 03:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Registry, and "non-canon" template

I've replaced the {{NonCanonValid}} template with {{Valid}}, since I've expressed serious misgivings about maintaining a database with a "canon only" mandate, but with articles labeled "this information is not canon" -- this is being misleading since we are not able to define canon ourselves, it is a product of the studio. Its a change in wording, but i find that we are spending more time defining resources, instead of revealing the sources of our information. The latter should be our concern, the former, as you can see from the discussion above, is mostly a waste of time.

The registry can be seen on the studio model photographs, even if the name itself is too small to be seen, and I really do think that the model itself as used in the battlefield should take precedent -- and i think its doing a disservice to Memory Alpha to write a long, confusing, unclear, canon policy that supports a typographical error from a non-canon source (the Encyclopedia) disproving an actual piece of production material (the model itself, from the canon episode). -- Captain M.K.B. 14:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted the article to conform with policy. There are two issues which you confuse in your explanation:

• First, Memory Alpha does worry about what is canon. A cursory examination of multiple policies reveals this clearly. And that is the only thing that makes sense, unless the site is to devolve into fanon. The notation of non-canon is a required notation and prevents articles like this from being automatically deleted as under the prior canon policies.
• The name of "Chekov" or "Chekhov" or something else entirely cannot be seen on the model that shows the registry you happen to like. The only clear, unambiguous association between a ship named "Chekov" and a registry at all is in the Encyclopedia. Websites, by the way, are NOT permitted resources anyway. You claim that the data in the Encyclopedia is clearly inaccurate, yet that claim is not supported by a clear, unambiguous photo or the episode itself. We cannot pick and choose data from a permitted resource (the name is right, the registry is wrong; or vice versa). Your issue is not with this article, and is not with the data in it: your issue is with the policy that requires the notation you deleted and the information from the Encyclopedia. Please discuss your problems at the policy, not here.
• I care about the policies on Memory Alpha. I believe all archivists should if they want to work here. I believe they should be followed if the site is to have any authoritative basis for anything. If someone does not like the policies, changes should be proposed and the full implications discussed on the policy Discussion page. In future, please follow policy until and unless it is changed. Aholland 15:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

You know, it is exactly this what bothers me about the Encyclopedia, according to new policy errors need to be repeated (like the Chekov's registry) instead of corrected. I will now contact Timo and ask him if he has a larger version of the image under debate and if he is willing to share the registry part in larger detail -- Kobi - (Talk) 16:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

That's a great idea! We should probably make an addition to the canon policy about things like this -- that way, Aholland won't be able to waste the time of hard-working archivists by continuing to strongarm removal of information that a consensus considers valid (see the VfD discussion for example), based on a policy that he himself wrote, and multiple archivists have expressed misgivings about. There are numerous problems also with him immediately reverting my edits (again). If anyone else besides me thinks that a background set/model photo is valid, that the registry used on the model in the studio is valid, and so on, then the article should take the form that the majority dicates -- and if Aholland thinks it disagrees with the canon policy, then the canon policy should be changed to take a form more acceptable to the majority of the archivists who are working with it -- everything on a wiki should take the form the majority dictates in gray areas like these. -- Captain M.K.B. 16:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Okay, reading the above discussion and the current changes to the article, I can only say this: since when did Memory Alpha start accepting invalid, non-canon information (a typo in a restricted resource) over valid, canon information (a model used and seen in an actual canon episode)? Aholland, are you just afraid that the person at ex astris created the model in their spare time and made up the name and registry off the top of their head? The registry in the Encyclopedia is far too close to the real one on the model for me to believe that, and it's not like its the only typo the Encyclopedia has made. If your canon policy supports the above (which I don't believe it does, although there is just so much to read that I could be wrong), then it definitely needs to be revised. I can tell you now that if it comes to choosing between what was on the actual filming model to an obvious typo in a piece of reference material, then we – as a community – will be going with the former, for the sake of correctness. If your canon policy goes against this, then obviously the policy is incorrect. --From Andoria with Love 16:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

• • No, this article should stay as it was. I recommend that the canon policy be altered in such a way that the language reflects that ships that appear visually in an episode, and are named behind the scenes in production materials or scipts that can be verified and annotated to the talk page, they be kept. Please, Aholland, no further reverts or other edits about this subject until there has been more discussion on the matter and the policy has been altered accordingly -- two people changing an article back and forth is called an edit war and is bad wiki etiquette until the matter has been resolved. -- Captain M.K.B. 00:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Shran, my problem with the model remains I cannot read the name. The only link between a registry and the name "Chekov" is in the Encyclopedia, which should rule as it is clear. Captain M.K.B, are you suggesting that current policy be ignored simply because you do not like it? That this article is outside current policy? Why can it not be changed to match current policy and then reverted to what you like if the policy is changed? Aholland 03:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm saying that policy on this site is by the consensus of the majority, and I think that there is majority support for including most of the data you suggest we remove. This is why I am saying that we will be blocking edits removing such data until a vote of confidence is taken with keeping the canon policy as currently enacted. I know I didn't really get involved with the discussions about it, but I completely object to your suggested removals -- and intend to make it clear how and when the data that currently populates this database should be cited, kept and organized.
      • And I believe a majority of us will give credence to the spelling of the name on the model, as revealed by Okuda in his Encyclopedia -- and the registry visible on the model in the picture, as obtained from Okuda, on Bernd's website. I intend to take steps to contact modelmakers or other Trek staffers to verify this information if possible. Memory Alpha needs to cite this data properly as being actual studio info, and I intend to follow through on this. -- Captain M.K.B. 04:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Captain M.K.B, it is clear to me that you have a lot of emotion around this. I do view things differently than you do. I care about the universe desired to be portrayed by those on the Trek staff beyond simply the art department. So decisions by directors not to show something matter, decisions by producers to exclude something matter, decisions by writers to cut lines matter; the distilled and combined efforts are what matter. The bits and pieces that make it up matter only to the extent they support the episode, not independent of the episode.

As to the Chekov, I find it interesting that you give full credence to a registry on a model that was never seen as more than a smudge when Okuda supposedly provided a copy of a shot of a model to someone, yet discount Okuda when he writes the Encyclopedia in clear and unequivocal English. Picking and choosing data because you like it better is not a good habit for an archivist; you may want to reexamine your motives in this case as to why you feel that Okuda should be trusted fully in one instance and ignored completely in another. Aholland 04:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I wish you'd stop asking that same question over again, Randy -- the image, of the actual studio model itself, provided to the Ex Astris Scientia website by Okuda, shows that the registry is defferent from the Encyclopedia -- meaning the Encyclopedia has a typographical error. Even if you refuse to acknowledge that the name might be readable, i think the number still is, and Okuda himself gave an interview with Bernd, as well as two co-founders of Memory Alpha, saying that the vessel in the picture, with that number, was the Chekov. This is not "letting MA go to fanon" (as you've commented elsewhere) -- this is a citation of a source that MA should recognize, and that should be recognized in our policy. A quality of a wiki's openness means that one person can wander onto our site at a late date and rewrite a policy, but it also means that the majority view stands in cases of things dealing with the additions to articles -- and in this case, i feel that myself, and others above including Jorg, Shran and Kobi have all stated that the article is fine how it was, and despite Cid's support for your suggested edit, there are still more people supporting mine. I've raised a matter on Ten Forward about preventing misunderstandings like this. -- Captain M.K.B. 05:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

This is not a misunderstanding. It is a fundamental difference in where the line is drawn as regards where we can cite information. Current policy says "no web sites". Former policy said "no web sites". Rationality says "no web sites". Captain M.K.B. says "web sites are fine". That's a difference, not a misunderstanding. Captain M.K.B. keeps saying that the source "should" be recognized by Memory Alpha. But the fact of the matter is it doesn't today. And opening it up to do so tomorrow would amount to all kinds of data flowing in that shouldn't. At least if the site is to maintain any semblence of authenticity. This is a bad idea, and one that may seem innocuous here, but has implications that will adversely affect this site for a long time. Aholland 06:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Once again, you've misunderstood -- I'm not talking about recognizing all websites. I'm talking about recognizing all information (like the photo on that website) that is confirmed to be behind the scenes "authentic". And I love the idea of the implications it has -- since its the assumption that myself and numerous other users operated under when we added this data to the site -- including the site's founders, who worked with Bernd and EAS on obtaining that photo. Based on the people who have commented above stating that the information should be kept accurate to the photo Okuda provided, and not the Encyclopedia typo, it seems that 4 of the six people who commented in this discussion think that your attention to the article is no longer needed. -- Captain M.K.B. 06:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I beg to differ. The fact that Captain M.K.B. has not offered one objective standard to determine when a photo on a website is "confirmed" or not "confirmed", the fact that Captain M.K.B. has not offered one objective standard to determine when a website should or should not be used as a resource, and the fact that it appears that the only standard in play is the Captain's own sense of what is appropriate shows that everyone's attention should be drawn to this article. It cuts to the heart of what Memory Alpha can be. And I think it can be something that cites appropriate published sources rather than blurry photos on other websites. So, forgive me, but it seems my attention to this matter is still required. Aholland 07:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Not really. See here, please. --From Andoria with Love 07:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Apparently it is not only Mike's view, I also think we should use common sense rather than stupid chanting of the Encyclopedia. Because they make mistakes! Shi'Kahr was always spelled without r until the Encyclopedia came around, 2113 was never connected with United Earth until the Chronology came around. Also to me the available picture looks as if there are six letters not seven associated with the registry and the interview it is quite obvious what is wrong and what is not -- Kobi - (Talk) 11:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Shran, forgive me, but I've reviewed the link. I cannot fine the objective standard used to "confirm" a photo, or determine when a website is okay to use as a resource. Can you please point me to the section or quote the text? Kobi, I was unaware that wanting to provide all the information from a clear source, permitted by policy, was "stupid". I understand perfectly well your desire to include data from a model whose only moderately clear photo is on a website and whose associated name cannot be read. But if the article exists only because of the Encyclopedia (it was up for deletion prior to that as websites don't count as resources), that should be the source of the information, with differing data being background. Anything else would be . . . inconsistent (a kinder word than was provided above). Aholland 12:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Moved from Vfd

• There is no mention of the USS Chekov or Chekhov in the Star Trek Encyclopedia, Star Trek Chronology, or Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual
• There is no mention of the USS Chekov or Chekhov in any series or movie.
• There is no clear photo of a ship with a name that says "USS Chekov" or "USS Chekhov" in any series or movie. (The photo added to the USS Chekov article is too indistinct.)
• There is no clear photo of a model of a ship that (1) clearly corresponds to one seen on-screen and (2) clearly shows the name "USS Chekov" or "USS Chekhov". (The photo from ex-astra scienta, while nice, is so low-resolution that a name can only be guessed at.)
• There is a reference to a "USS Chekhov" in the script for BOBW, II, but the line was discarded and changed to another Russian author, Tolstoy, for the final show.
• There is a mention of a Rigel class "USS Chekhov" on page 139 of Star Trek: The Next Generation Companion by Larry Nemecek as a replacement name for the "Tolstoy" in the final script. Note the spelling. (Apparently the production staff went back and forth on this point.) Note also in the referenced Okuda interview that he said "Larry's list in the Companion was info that I provided to him." (And note that this book is not a permitted resource on Memory Alpha.)
• There has been no permitted resource cited for the information in this article in conformance with the canon policy (or even the former canon policy). The information should be moved to background on Wolf 359 or Tolstoy. Aholland 01:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Update: There is no reference for its class designation as "Springfield" either. Aholland 12:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

redirect one to the other if we can't verify the name, but we know from the Star Trek: The Next Generation Companion and Ex Astris Scientia's USS Chekov reconstruction that there was either a ship named Chekov or Chekhov, i personally believe that Chekov is what the model says, according to a photo confirming that the studio model was labeled. The model's location in the canon episode TNG: "The Best of Both Worlds" has been revealed in interviews with the creative staff, published on EAS, and visual evidence from screencaps. keep the article.. if you can't discern "Chekov" or "Chekhov" then a redirect will be in order, but I believe based on the veracity of sources listed that most ID "Chekov" from the name. -- Captain M.K.B. 02:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. As I already said, the ship was seen in the episode and is therefore canon, regardless of whether the name was legible or not. The fact remains: it was there. --From Andoria with Love 02:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Could we PLEASE stop these witch hunts? -- Kobi - (Talk) 09:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The Chekov is referenced in the Star Trek Encyclopedia. It's in the shiplist, on page 471 of the 1999 edition. Locarno 23:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • You are the first to note that, Locarno. What is the registry and class given for it? And is it Chekov or Chekhov? If there it can be cited as a Restricted Validity Resource; not canon, but enough to pass muster by the canon policy (I believe) to have continued existence as an article. The citation would then be to the Encyclopedia. Aholland 03:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• It's listed as Springfield-class, registry NCC-53702. However, analysis of the model used for filming indicates the actual number is NCC-57302.Locarno 04:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Locarno is correct! The Chekov (not Chekhov) is found on page 471, listed between U.S.S. Charleston and U.S.S. Clement. It's description is as follows:

• Starship name: Chekov, U.S.S.
• Registry: NCC-53702
• Class: Springfield
• Description: Lost in the battle of Wolf 359; named for the noted Russian space explorer
• Episode or film: "The Best of Both Worlds, Part II" (TNG)

• I hope this settles it. :) --From Andoria with Love 04:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

• It settles it for me. I have removed the deletion tag and revised the background to reflect the information. Note, though, that the registry in the article itself is now listed as 53702; the background notes that 57302 is on the model. (If the Encyclopedia is the only real source of clear data, it should be used.) Thanks to everyone for working this; it's important to get it right. Aholland 13:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, the model for the USS Chekov (not Chekhov), registry number NCC-57302, was seen in the episode, therefore it has more prescedence than, say, a typographical error in a non-canon reference guide. You may not be able to clearly see USS Chekov on the model, but that was the model that was used, the Encyclopedia confirms the name on the model, Okuda confirms the name on the model, and we can all read the model's registry number in the image. When in doubt, use common sense. Why do you think one of the founders of MA created it in the first place? --From Andoria with Love 16:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Surplus Depot Z15

What is the source of the newly added claim that "By 2368, the wreakage of the Chekov had been moved to Surplus Depot Z15"? It is not in Unification in dialogue as far as I can tell. Aholland 02:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

No its not. But footage of the model is thought to be included in the episode. Someone must've spotted it, or thought they spotted it. -- Captain M.K.B.!~

Well, unless we can get a good screencap, I don't think we should engage in speculation about it. Can whoever added the info please post the image supporting it? Thanks! Aholland 03:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

http://www.trekmania.net/the_fleet/utopia/qualornew02.jpg

Ensign q 15:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but what makes anyone think that the Chekov is the ONLY Springfield class ever made by Starfleet? Is there something else that shows a name? Or some contemporaneous production information that links the ship to the shot? We can't make a definitive claim based on a blur that is thought to be the same class of ship as the Chekov. (Besides, I'm not sure how much we can trust the conclusion when the ship's name isn't even right!) Aholland 05:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The name is right -- The model was only filmed on one occasion, and it was labeled "U.S.S. CHEKOV" -- the person who added this is assuming that since that is what the model said when it was filmed for the scene above, this must be what the ship was, even though the name didnt end up being legible. -- Captain M.K.B. 17:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The name is not right on the illustration above: "Checkov" versus "Chekov", giving rise to my concern about the conclusions reached by its creator. But in any event the original series reused ship shots to represent different ships of the same class. I don't think we should leap to the conclusion that anything different was done here. So unless the Chekov is the only Springfield, I suggest the depot speculation be placed solely in the background. Aholland 18:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The creators reuse models all the time without them meaning it to be the same ship. Which ever we pick here, we need a background note addressing the issue. Jaf 18:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)Jaf

I have placed the re-use of the model in the Background section. To suggest that the re-used elements from the BoBW Wolf 359 scenes imply that the ships were all moved to similar orientations at Z-15 seems quite odd. By the same reasoning, we could also conclude that almost all Runabouts are actually named Rio Grande (per the stock footage), and that all Constitution Class ships of the 2260's (except Constellation) were labelled USS Enterprise NCC-1701 (since the M-5 wargames of "The Ultimate Computer" featured the famous four-Connie shot, all by reused stock footage elements). Maybe the Wolf 359 ships were left on site, or maybe they were all moved, but stating one or the other as fact is unsupported. - DSG2k 07:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Excellent, please do the same with the other Wolf 359 ships now listed in the depot. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 07:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, you beat me to 'em. :) - DSG2k 08:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge

I find it highly doubtful that the name can be seen on screen, therefore this is taken from background information, and should be merged. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 12:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The canon policy allows us to use production and reference resources in the naming of articles. --From Andoria with Love 07:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Like how Nemecek saved the day on the USS Trial. --Alan del Beccio 08:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)