I reworded the note on the bottom because it is a little leading. I do not see how this world being far out in TNG leads to the conclusion that it likely is not the same Deneb from TOS, as Canopus points out the relation of the stars on the star chart can not be taken as necessarily accurate. --TOSrules 05:49, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC)
TOS gives many indications, that Deneb IV was contacted in TOS Era. There is no indication in "Encounter at Farpoint" that would conflict with "No Man". Deneb 4 was undefined, it could have been anything, including a primitive world, not yet admitted to the Federation. --TOSrules 23:42, 12 Oct 2004 (CEST)
- I want to remove the note on the bottom, it is pure speculation and attempts to claim an error that simply is not there. It does not support the idea that there is another planet named Deneb. The Ref is to vague to say anything beyond the fact that we had contact with Deneb IV in the 2260's. --TOSrules 08:21, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
where is this stuff about the people of Deneb IV being telepaths coming from? --TOSrules 08:45, 3 Sep 2005 (UTC)
- Is it really a good idea to separate this into two articles? it creates the risk of the reader never being given the option to read about both Deneb IV mentions at once, and judge whether they could be the same planet, as there's nothing to actually contradict that possibility.
- There's really no reason to assume a Starfleet officer couldn't have visited Deneb IV a century earlier than it was still near to "the great unexplored mass" described in "Encounter at Farpoint" -- after we know Kirk and contemporaries got around -- they visited planets half a galaxy away! From the barrier to the galactic center, to be specific -- also there is Archer's "Magic" warp five trips.
- Just because Picard described himself going far out of the Federation in TNG #1, it doesnt mean that other Starfleet parties hadn't gotten out that far -- and Deneb is just whre Picard's journey began anyway, and Starfleet had gotten there to see the base before Enterprise arrived, added to the Bandi familiarity with humans and Betazoids and even having heard of the Ferengi -- its obvious that 2364 wasn't a first contact scenario with the Bandi. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 14:17, 3 Sep 2005 (UTC)
VfD for Deneb IV Edit
The pages Deneb IV and Deneb IV should be merged back into Deneb IV minus the note on it being unlikly that Kirk could visit Deneb IV because it is completely plausible. --TOSrules 22:52, 3 Sep 2005 (UTC)
- I vote to keep separate. One being a popular tourist attraction close to home, and then a century later it's on the farthest reaches of Federation space? That doesn't make alot of sense. - AJHalliwell 23:02, 3 Sep 2005 (UTC)
- When and where was it said to be close to home and a popular Tourist attraction? I do not recall that. --TOSrules 23:11, 3 Sep 2005 (UTC)
- I agree, merge. The fact that those are two different planets instead of just one is pure speculation and shouldn't be the reason for having seperate articles. Even if it is deemed necessary to have seperate explanations for both, it could be in the form of two sections in one article. Last but not least, the qualifiers "TOS" or "TNG" should not be used; if the majority votes to keep, at least move the articles to Deneb IV (Bandi) or similar. -- Cid Highwind 10:57, 4 Sep 2005 (UTC)
- merge the articles into Deneb IV with two subsections.
- The point is that Gary Mitchell could very well have visited the Bandi world as part of a deep space survey -- TNG never said Deneb was impossibly far from the Federation, just that it was near a great unexplored mass, and TOS never said that Deneb IV was close or frequently visited -- just that it was visited once by a Starfleet party. Kirk or even Archer's era saw the occasionaly brief visit to locales visited or mentioned in TNG Season 1, Abut we don't assume that any of those are "too far to have actually been visited". Most of the Deneb IV situation is based in assumptions. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 13:53, 4 Sep 2005 (UTC)
- merge --Memory 17:05, 4 Sep 2005 (UTC)
- Heck Kirk and Mitchell could have been assigned there, Starfleet officers are not restricted to assignment to Starship or Starbase. Even today we send military officers to foreign countries, usually with their permission. --TOSrules 19:07, 4 Sep 2005 (UTC)
- Neutral I'm affriad that after reading both articles I don't fully undertsand the issue here. Are they the same planet, or 2 planets with the same name. If the former we should merge them and not have 2 articles on the same planet; but if the ladder and they are diffrent, then why would we merge them? So are they the same planet? That's the question that neither the articles or the talk explain. Tobyk777 02:44, 5 Sep 2005 (UTC)
- Merge. --From Andoria with Love 02:50, 5 Sep 2005 (UTC)
- I've restored the original edit that got the whole disambig thing started. --Alan del Beccio 17:13, 8 Sep 2005 (UTC)
- Both the fact that the world has telepaths in TOS, and its extreme distance in TNG, support the idea of being separate, but as yet there is no canon information on this. This has given rise to the theory that there are two Deneb systems, much like there are two systems containing planets named Taurus II.
- (From background section, talking about "Star Charts" info)
- This system was less than twenty light-years from Sol, in the Alpha Quadrant. (p. 44)
The map this refers to is a 2D-projection, so it is not possible to get exact distances from it. The "real Deneb Kaitos", which has been used to place this star on the map, is ~96 ly away from Sol. -- Cid Highwind 17:45, January 24, 2012 (UTC)
Matte painting Edit
When Mike Okuda talks about the matte painting of Deneb IV, he doesn't mean the planet surface but the planet itself, which is a matte painting. The text needs to be changed accordingly. --Jörg (talk) 09:59, August 10, 2012 (UTC)