Conspiracy screen captureEdit
Just out of curiosity, can anyone get a clean DVD screencap of the USS Consitution from "Conspiracy"? For one, I'd like to see if it really is the "Conny" (the ship, not the class name) that we see onscreen.
Secondly, it 'might' (though not 100% likely) be that the Constitution shown was not of the 'Enterprise' class (Just bear with me on this one, because I know that most belive the in Conny refit). It may have been this very similar, "Phase 2" Constitution, seen in Jackill's Ships of the Star Fleet, Volume 1. Now, I know that the other onscreen ship images came from FASA, making it likely that the Conny is an Enterprise, but I just wanted to make sure.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mariner (talk • contribs).
Interesting find from The Enterprise Incident Edit
Yesterday, I was watching an un-cut version of the Enterprise Incident. When Kirk and his bridge staff are discussing the discovery that Romulans are now using Ships of Klingon Design, in one monitor it shows a compairson of their ship and the Romulan Battlecruiser. On the side view, on the Warp engine, I was reading the number and this is what it looked like...
NCC-1700. The last 0 was more blurred than the rest. but it clearly was a zero.
Of course I am probably wrong here.
Time Travler February 21, 2005 11:10PM United States Central Standard Time
- You are wrong. :) See below, which are reproduced in The Making of Star Trek in a much clearer fashion. The saucer shows it better, but it is clearly NCC-1701. Aholland 17:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Onscreen Reference Edit
- There's a piece of information from a 70s fanzine which states there was an onscreen display of a phaser bank diagram marked with USS Constitution-class NCC-1700. I've been unable to find it in the episode (i dont have a copy), but i've found the graphic a few times on the web. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 08:31, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
- In an update, I've found the graphic -- its a diagram of a "Constitution class" phaser part, and i've confirmed it was visible onscreen in "The Trouble with Tribbles". I personally don't think I've found the reference in "Space Seed", however. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk
I don't think that chart means much... Edit
I really don't belive that Chart accually mans anything. people hearald it as the constitution class regestrys, including the constitution. But while some may be connies, they cannot all be. Kirk's said there are only 12 in the fleet. 10 ships are on layover at sb 11- well, doesn't leave very many ships out protecting the fedaration now does it? It is completly illogical to assume that these are all constitution class. Impossible even. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cptjeff (talk • contribs).
- Even so, the okudagram seen in the LCARS display in "Datalore" shows the USS Constitution matching up with the registry number NCC-1700, making that number from the chart equal to a "connie." Perhaps all of the Constitutions were recalled to Starbase 11 for some kind of a maintenance check, and the Federation could be protected by the constant other ship classes it should have had.--Tim Thomason 16:33, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)
- By the way, there is no correlation to all those ships being at the same base -- only the Intrepid was mentioned as being at the base. The commodore could very well be displaying a status report on ships at numerous bases (like the later Starship mission status chart does. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk
- There are 13 Constitution Class Starships as of Tomorrow is Yesterday, Kirk said there were 12 like the Enterprise in the Fleet, so you have to add the Enterprise into that count giving you 13 ships. --TOSrules 21:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Citation of "non-canon" connectionEdit
There has been a citation of "non-canon"-ness (whatever) added to the article stating the number and name haven't been associated, since only the number appears on the chart in "Court Martial" and the diagram in "Datalor" -- however, i think this might be in error or misunderstanding.
The blueprints, taken directly from the Technical Manual, show the name "U.S.S. CONSTITUTION" printed on the ship diagram itself, right above the text reading "NCC-1700" and is visible onscreen in both Star Trek II and Star Trek III. Doesn't this provide a reasonable link between the name and number (as well as confirming the identity of the NCC-1700s seen in the TOS and TNG episodes mentioned above? -- Captain M.K.B. 20:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I think this article needs a more "itemized" listing of the various appearances, to explain how all this name and registry data was derived. That way, the background notes wouldn't have so many "canon" confusions added due to the source material being improperly described. -- Captain M.K.B. 21:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- I agree. If a graphic saying "USS Constitution" is in STII and/or STIII then I think that does it. Does a still of it exist anywhere? Maybe added to or referenced in the article? If not, do you know where in the movies it is? Aholland 12:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
There are articles on http://trekplace.com and http://ex-astris-scientia.org showing the exact scenes where the Constitution diagrams flip by on the bridge monitors (sorry, i don't know the exact URLs.. i guess you'll have to research that yourself). They are not readable, as i stated in the article, but flip through the top of the Franz Joseph Technical Manual page, the bottom half of the same page, and various other text closeups are seen. I haven't been able to make out any text to concretely say that the text "USS Constitution" appears onscreen, but that diagram page annotates that NCC-1700 is the class ship of the Constitution class. -- Captain M.K.B. 13:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- I checked out trekplace and ex-astris. You're right: there is no clear graphic to state the name USS Constitution or NCC-1700 with the ship. They both also only make claims for the class, not the USS Consitution from the available data. So if there is no clear association on-screen, what's wrong with referencing the Encyclopedia? I doubt that we can succeed where those two sites failed to associate the graphics with clearer images where, even if associated, a LOT of conclusion-leaping is involved to get to the name and registry. Aholland 14:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
re: the Encyclopedia -- You are right. As a source of behind the scenes info, its referenced in the background notes. No need to discuss that.
re: labeling the association "non-canon". Not necessary, IMO -- this data was included in the Encyclopedia and the SF Technical Manual, relayed from official production materials, that the association was made by the shows creative staff itself. The Encyclopedia and Technical Manual both act as conduits of information by which that canon knowledge is passed to us. -- Captain M.K.B. 14:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- I understand your point, but current (and past) canon policies do not recognize the Star Fleet Technical Manual or the Encyclopedia as valid resources. They are simply background in the old policy and (for the Encyclopedia) Restricted Validity in the current. Either way: non-canon labelling is required from the current one. Unless it is your contention that Memory Alpha has no canon policy at the moment, or that we are free to disregard it. In which case we might as well start loading up articles on games, comics, novels, etc. while we have the chance! :) I believe that we should comply with it as stated: a simple note of non-canon that can be changed later if the policy is changed. Aholland 14:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
re:adding articles as if we had no canon policy - this distracts from the topic, so i'm not sure why you need to write it. i don't advocate any such thing.
re: i'm not contending that we associate the name+registry because the TM or the Encyc. are valid resources to invent such info, so disregard that part of your comments as well -- i'm contending that the association is true to the production intentions of the canon episodes and films because the association pre-dates the creation of the TM and the ENcyc. -- and they are "secondary resourcing" the data from the behind the scenes sources
re: labeling as "non-canon" -- i just have a problem with this terminology, not the note itself -- i'm not advocating MA "go to 'fanon'", i support you finding a note like this to add to articles, but i'd like to make a suggestion for the note's form. i'd even settle for "not discernable in viewing the canon episode or film, but sourced from ..." rather than the shorter, less descriptive form "this is non-canon". I just really have been pushing for the longer definition because it is much more useful to a reader who has no knowledge of "canon" versus "non-canon" or "valid resource" versus "restricted validity naming resource" or even "secondary research". The article shouldn't contain a "Canon: yes or no" without explaining why a "non-canon" thing could exist in a "canon" database -- the explanation "not discernable" with a link to a resource or a description of the research involved would be much more informative, in my view. -- Captain M.K.B. 15:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- So you would want to say something like "The existence of this ship, its class, and its association with a known registry number are not discernable from canon sources; it is instead drawn from the Star Trek Encyclopedia, a Memory Alpha permitted resource"? I think I could be okay with that; its a bit legthy, but it states it fairly well. But while we're at it, any issue with also editing out the speculative bits not stated in the Encyclopedia? Aholland 15:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
re: "permitted resource" -- again, vague? I really like what you wrote, but I was thinking more like "The association of this ship's name and registry is not discernable in canon sources, but the Star Trek Encyclopedia has also verified this information was part of the artwork used in the productions." -- this is again to characterize more "where the Encyclopedia got the info" and to characterize less "this is how Memory Alpha permits this". Maybe we could use "secondary resource" instead of "permitted resource" since it has been pointed out that throwing around "restricted" and "permitted" really only give readers a reflection of our policy discussions, while "discernable in canon" or "from a secondary source" gives the readers more about the info itself. They came here to read on-topic information about where USS Constitution information is from, not to read about how Memory Alpha permits it (which i think is what Shran thought was making things "less fun" to work on).
re:Encyclopedia speculation -- I thought i'd cut up some of this already, i removed the 2245 launch date. Anything else in specific? -- Captain M.K.B. 16:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- I just read the talk page of Canon Policy FAQ and in the very first paragraph it debates the very problem we have: if we can use material from the Encyclopedia and why we can't use material from the Star Charts. The answer is also given "Generally, the Encyclopedia and Chronology don't invent new stuff, while the books like the Charts and Starship Spotter are filled with conjecture and non-confirmed data." the first part of the sentence states why we can cite the Encyclopedia. Though Harry was a bit wrong, they indeed invented a lot of stuff for the pre TNG-era and had a lot of conjecture in the Chronology as Cid pointed out. -- But other than that it is nice to see that we are finding a compromise here -- Kobi - (Talk) 16:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
re:Star Charts -- i have thought of some very good explanations of this, but it might be off topic here. Basically, i think the problem with Star Charts is, while a lot of the information is straight from dialogue, scripts or behind the scenes stuff, a lot more of the Star Charts stuff is "after-the-fact" -- it was invented for the book, therefore it is non-canon in relation to episodes that were made before it. The Encyclopedia and Chronology has more credence because it has a lot more tidbits like "Bob Justman said that Gene Roddenberry and himself named this unnamed character... blah blah" (ok, maybe its not that helpful ;) ).. Star Charts doesn't have as many useful instances of specifying "the producers intended this fact to be apparent even though it wasn't readable, but it is reproduced here" as Encyclopedia does
re:if something was "invented new" for the Encyclopedia, without a "behind-the scenes" source -- maybe we should segregate that data, but keep things verifiably used in graphics, scripts in the articles, noted with the "not discernable" note. -- Captain M.K.B.
- The "bits" I was referencing are: that it was a prototype ship; that it was the "class lead ship", and that it had different dimensions.
- Also, as regards "Space Seed", I just glanced over the episode; there is no visible graphic with the name "Constitution". I also looked at the scene from "The Trouble with Tribbles" and the graphic is not clearly visible there when Scotty is "relaxing". Did I just miss it? Is it reproduced somewhere?
- Regarding picking and choosing from the Encyclopedia, or indeed from any work that isn't the episodes themselves, I support the current and historical approach that those are interesting data points, but not in and of themselves canon. And cannot be used to support the inclusion of information not itself independently canon outside those works. Aholland 17:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Re:different dimensions. this should stay in the article -- except in the vaguest sense, this isn't from the Encyclopedia at all. This is derived from a direct comparison of Franz Joseph's "NCC-1700" drawing and any Okuda/Drexler/Jein/Sternbach drawing of of the NCC-1701. They have different dimensions. Josephs drawing appeared labeled as "NCC-1700" in two movies and a TNG episode, and can be measured and proportioned through the copy available in the Technical Manual. The Okuda/Drexler/Jein/Sternbach variation (used in all artworks of the Encyclopedia, onscreen in "Trials and Tribbleations") is, in most variations, labeled "NCC-1701" and is more accurate to the actual filming model of the NCC-1701. A lot of work that can't be directly reproduced has gone into ths (fans in the 1970s, like Jein and others, have on several occasions measured the original model itself to make blueprints -- which were used by Jein for the DS9 1701 model and others for the ENT 1701 model seen in TaTV. Before anyone can say "you can't reproduce results", i'd point out that the NCC-1700 FJ drew is seen onscreen, and is also published and able to be measured, as well as can be the TNG TM/Encyclopedia/Starship Spotter drawings of NCC-1701, which have also been used in similar manners onscreen. This could be expanded on in the article, over time. OH even better! the pictures you just posted above of the "Enterprise Incident" diagram show the TOS 1701 with different proportions than the FJ 1700. -- Captain M.K.B. re:Scotty's journal. As i indicated, only the Constitution class name, not the calss itself appeared in the technical journal. The graphic is reproduced at http://trekplace.com/article10.html (in particular: the image itself), as published by T-Negative magazine in 1975.. -- Captain M.K.B. 17:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- So . . . what you're saying is that the USS Constitution is NCC-1700 because of the Encylopedia, and is a different dimension from NCC-1701 because of a comparison of "The Enterprise Incident" versus "Datalore"? I can almost buy that, but the article would have to explain how you get from point A to point B. It is not intuitive.
- I see what you mean about that graphic. It does look like what Scotty is viewing. Interesting, but why reference that in this article? The USS Constitution is so noted as to class because it is called that class in the Encyclopedia and/or because of the graphic in "Datalore" if we tie NCC-1700 to it. (The TOS Enterprise is that class because of "Relics".) The graphic (and therefore the reference) doesn't support that, I believe. (Although it would seem to be a cool addition to a phaser article.) (And your second link doesn't seem to work, by the way - the first one does nicely, though.) Aholland 17:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Re: "Ent Incident" 1701 vs. "Datalore"/ST2/3 1700 = not intuitive -- i answered this already above "This could be expanded on in the article, over time" I'd simply eed to make sure the right pictures were avalable for review in whichever section points out this difference (even though it is already explained in the article now why they are said to be different dimensions, but if you can't grasp it from that, i guess expansion is logical) RE: citing the "phaser diagram" -- this is the first use of the term "Constitution class", in a canon production. Even though its deeply buried, i feel that it is an important milestone. -- Captain M.K.B. 17:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for spoon feeding me on the connection. I'll do it myself in the article if I find the time. And "deeply buried" is an understatement! An unseen portion of a barely seen graphic certainly qualifies for that! But interesting to keep, nonetheless. Why not as part of the article on the Constitution-class itself, though, rather than here? That's my only point. Aholland 18:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)