- "The Hermes class starship was seen on display in the Starfleet Academy's training simulation in "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan"."
- "The Saladin-class starship was seen on display in the Starfleet Academy's training simulation in "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan"."
I can't tell these two classes from each other by the pictures, so are we sure which is which in that training simulation? Are they both in it, or is there only one ship, which is either Hermes or salladin class but surtainly not both? -- Redge 16:49, 18 Jun 2004 (CEST)
- Actually it was both. I perused the screencaps at http://www.st-spike.de , and the Saladin schematic from the manual, topview, has labels for the phasers, impulse deck, nacelle, and saucer.. the labels can be seen on the Saladin, differentiating that page from the Hermes page, which has differently arranged text labels, lacking the arrow pointing to the phasers on the Hermes. --Captain Mike K. Bartel
The recent edits made to this article introduced several non-canon details and concepts. I don't think a final decision to allow information from the various technical manuals has been made - if it is allowed, it should still be marked as speculative. I suggest to revert this to the version of "17 May 2004" or at least edit this to separate canon from non-canon information. -- Cid Highwind 20:05, 19 Jun 2004 (CEST)
- Please identify the information you mean. The article as last edited by User:DarkHorizon and other contained many Technical Manual details such as dimensions, speed and armament for this vessel. Are these non-canon? --Captain Mike K. Bartel
- Mk-VIII, A, B designations
- Destroyer type
- Hermes-class details
- Armament details
- time between overhauls
- all stardates given
...and yes, I personally think that some of the other things shouldn't be there either, but that's what we discussed during the last week here, and we still didn't come to a final decision. I suggest to have some patience and try to work on some less controversial topics in the meantime. -- Cid Highwind 23:21, 19 Jun 2004 (CEST)
- Your suggestion has been noted. --Captain Mike K. Bartel 23:33, 19 Jun 2004 (CEST)
The TRUTH about the Saladin class/Hermes class story? Edit
We may never know, but as Roddenberry himself set up rules for starship design, he stated that a starship should never have an odd number of warp nacelles. And since Roddenberry certainly offered his cooperation in the production of TWOK, we may assume that the Saladin/Hermes variant actually has TWO nacelles, be it stacked on top of each other. Since the class never bore an actual name onscreen, the name "Akula Class" is found on the Net for this type of ship, which indeed is a destroyer/light cruiser type of ship. Actually, this is the REFIT of the Akula class, which is assumed to be out of the same era as the Constitution class of cruiser, and is retrofitted just as her bigger sister.
 - The Akula class -- the true story behind the TWOK computer monitor?
This type of ship is actually featured in Activision's Star Trek: Starfleet Command series of games, which is a licensed manufacturer of Star Trek games, and tends to use canon classes only, however that is not a certainty.
To prove my point, I'm including a blueprint of the ship here: 
Which matches the monitor display (almost) exactly (since this blueprint is a fan's interpretation, compare to the CGI model by Activision). Except for Roddenberry's rules for starship design, this ship is IMO also visually more appealing.
- Well, its a good theory as to the evolution of the non-canon class in the technical manual and the non-canon class in the game. However, since the game was not made by the producers of the show (it was licensed out to Interplay through paramounts licensing office), it cannot be regarded as canon. Remember, only things that have been seen onscreen are considered canon.. that means TV series or movies. We have been known to use information from "official" siources, that is, technical supplements used by the writers of the movies and series themselves. However, not even those volumes are completely applicable, since they are frequently contradicted by the screen. That is why we draw the line there. Since we have acces to official sources, we can know for sure that no attentino has ever been paid a ship from a licensed game in onscreen form, except as the tiniest minutiae.
- BTW, unless you own those websites, posting images inline is considered leeching. I reduced the images to links. --Captain Mike K. Bartel 22:05, 11 Aug 2004 (CEST)
You're absolutely right about the Activision model being not canon, as is the name "Akula". But there still is the point that a starship can never have an odd number of warp nacelles, according to the Star Trek: The Next Generation technical manual, which, as stated on the canon policy page, can be considered canon reference. (You know, the issue that a starship should have a planar symmetry for the warp field configuration...) And there's the fact that, due to the relatively poor quality of the image on the bridge computer screen, it's difficult to see a top nacelle blocking part of the view of the saucer section. I'm saying that it's not proven that the Saladin/Hermes variant has no top nacelle. We simply cannot know, but merely speculate. But considering the rules set up by the production crew about starship design, the two-nacelled version is merely more likely. Anyway, as the Enterprise has undergone a refit, and the Miranda class also makes an appearance in TWOK, a "refitted" variant (with Miranda-style nacelles instead of TOS-style) is also more likely than the TOS-style. Robin van Steenbergen, 01:30, Aug 15, 2004 (CET)
- Well, the TNG TM is only considered valid and canon on this site if the info has not been contradicted on screen, and that piece of info has been contradicted onscreen. there have been a few 1 and 3 nacelled federation starships, so we cannot take the TNG TM as valid on that point. That is why it is an 'official' reference, not a canon piece.
- Besides, on this site, it is our job to report on the canon truth, in order to live up to a role as a reliable reference, so "making up" a conjectural variant of this class, or associating it with a non-canon design, is simply not within our purview. It's a creative theory though, but its a speculation that doesnt have a place in the body of a Memory Alpha article. The canon truth is that the ship is as it was seen on screen, in that configuration, with that name. We can note that this ship shares a design scheme with the Akula, as it does with a DS9 TM vessel, but other than that, i don't see the relevance. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 04:45, 15 Aug 2004 (CEST)
Roddenberry Heresy, Please Move on Folks Edit
Roddenberry's rules should be ignored, as they were NEVER stated on screen, (except for Barclay's Third Nacelle comment, which could be ignored as a bad joke,) and were made soley to decanonize Franz Joseph's work. However, as we all know, FJ got the final laugh, since the first three TOS films all had FJ materials, including the aforementioned Federation, Saladin and Hermes. (though I personally think the Hermes is more extensivley modifed that the book says it is)
There is canon evidence to support ignoring this rule. Bond has a list of ships that violate the 50/50 rule, several of which are very prominent and "hero" vessels.
No matter what Roddenberry did, said or tried in the past, the shows ARE canon, and the evidence stands. Besides, Roddenberry did lots of stupid crap with Trek during his life. This is just more scat. I'm sorry if I offend anyone (Gene worshipers especially,) but Shatner's "ST:Movie Memories" (which doesn't have self-asskissing as his novels do) illustrate that he acts like a jerk whenever he isn't in total control. When he is in total control, lots of bad things happened.
Just my little chirp. I do think that we should leave this page relativley blank and go to more important things....--Mariner 05:35, 15 Aug 2004 (CEST)
- Do we have an article on Roddenberry's design rules? It should be here among the meta-trek articles. -- Redge | Talk 11:45, 15 Aug 2004 (CEST)
Whoops, I fogot to mention that Roddenberry's bad behavioral traits only apply to him after TMP, not during TOS. Gene was a lot more open to having his ideas changed and improving on them, which is why we got the great variety of stories and quality in TOS. I guess as time went on, he got more and more inflexible (which addmittedley happens to all of us, but some of the things he did in his later life were inexcusable.)
- Well, Roddenberry did the things he did as a reaction to studios and licensees alike excluding him from the creative process of what he still viewed as his creation. While I don't completely worship his point-of-view, I still pay part of the blame to legal hassles and shady dealing he was a victim of, by Paramount, the book companies, etc. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 06:59, 17 Aug 2004 (CEST)
A bit late I might add, but I found a reference to the Akula class (mentioned above) in one of your articles. The class was mentioned in the text of the DS9 Technical Manual without its name as a 'light cruiser'. As for the image in TWOK, it could well be the Saladin, as much as it can be the 'Akula', but it's impossible to tell as both ships have the same top view and only different side views. Just imagine the Saladin's nacelles mirrored back to its top and you have the light cruiser mentioned in the text. Probably the fans picked up the ship class and gave it more detail. My point is, the Saladin probably the canon ship, as it's mentioned by name in the Technical Manual. If Franz Jozeph also wrote the DS9 Technical Manual, it could be both, but the Saladin is more likely since the Star Fleet Technical Manual was released earlier. But you can make as well a case for the 'Akula' as for the Saladin, however there were no images released from the 'Akula' other than the blueprint on the computer monitor.
So it's not a matter of this ship being not canon and the other being canon, as this one is mentioned by name in the Technical Manual, the Saladin is more likely. But the light cruiser variant may just as well be the right one, there isn't enough reference material to determine that. Or there has to be a quote in the TM that the ship used in TWOK was actually a Saladin. Stoney3K
So it appears from the above that the entire argument for the Saladin class being canon is a scene from Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan as shown here. I have the Star Fleet Technical Manual, and there is no substantive difference between the Saladin and the Hermes in that book. How on earth does anyone claim a direct connection to one or the other? In fact, why isn't it just as plausible that it is the Constitution Variant shown in the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Technical Manual? All we can see is a round saucer section and what appears to be a single warp engine. Unless someone has something more definitive to clearly say it is one of these three, I propose the article be significantly revised or eliminated. (And we should dump the copyright-infringing picture while we're at it; fair use probably won't extend to the interior illustrations of a book whose copyright holder isn't even Paramount last I checked, despite being made "negative".) Aholland 03:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
- There seem to be three sections and a sectionless paragraph (top of the page) talking about the same thing here. Perhaps someone could rearrange this in a meaningful way... ;) Anyway, the Saladin connection seems to follow our rule-of-thumb of "use a better picture of anything definitely seen on-screen". However, you're right about the copyrighted picture, that one needs to be removed ASAP. I'm suggesting it on the deletion page immediately. -- Cid Highwind 09:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
- Bernd and I worked a little on the problem whether both the Saladin and the Hermes are seen or not a little while ago. Comparing screencaps to the original pages from the Star Fleet Technical Manual, both can be ifentified. Without repeating myself, here's the direct link to the screencap analysis .--Jörg 09:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I am impressed with the detective work. But I noticed that the conclusion reached at that site after all that research was:
- It may be a matter of personal preference how much credence is given to the SFTM. In a rather strict view, but in compliance with Star Trek's canon policy for the last two decades, we may justify the sighting of the new ships in that they are just generic depictions of Starfleet vessels, without knowing their names or any specs. No text was legible on screen that could reveal anything specific, whilst the SFTM does not exist in the Star Trek Universe as a book with starship images and specs. In other words, the SFTM, although it came first, is a book only in our real world whose layout coincidentally looks like the canon depictions of the ships in question.
- In this case, without the knowledge that it should be there too, the Federation class does not exist canonically because it was never visible. Regarding the Saladin and the Hermes, the distinction of these two classes does not become evident on screen, so in canon Trek they look like they are the very same class.
I think that conclusion is valid from the information at hand and we should base things off it. Not sure yet what that does to the article, I just wanted to verify that both the research and the conclusion reached as a result were supported here. Aholland 12:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think we should base our treatment of the class on offsider's opinion: The topic about the inclusion of the Franz Joseph vessels was discussed in the early times of this database and the community came to the conclusion that the vessels should be included, but not the stuff derived from there on (hence no USS Siva for example). Because during the time of the production there was no canon or not canon: The Technical Manual was a licensed work and used as such in an official production. On a side note: For the very same reason (community's choice) neither the Franz Joseph registries nor the Jein registries were used before the change of canon policy by Aholland. -- Kobi 18:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't want this to wander off-topic into canon-land (and my less than single-handed involvement), but as a wiki community we should both respect prior community choices while at the same time not be strangled by them or be forced to accept errors just because they were done a long time ago. Here we have a classification of ship that is based on a poorly seen graphic, and which the best ship-sighting site I am aware of waffles on whether the graphic supports a specific ship, or class of ship. If the class is to remain, I propose that its identification be more clearly explained in the background, the supplementary text from the Tech Manual (not a valid resource for a looooong time) not be used, and its citation be clear. I'll give it a try when I have some time. Aholland 19:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Photo from Khan Edit
Well having used the DVD, screen captured and enhanced through several art programs I would say that it is impossible to say for sure which ship this is, but I will say through enough enhancement that one can see directly above the nacelle there are 2 lines of text. Then turning to my TM I notice the Saladin has 2 lines of text in the same place. 1 pointing to the impulse power, and the other above that pointing to the saucer phaser banks. My definative conclusion would be that this is in fact a Saladin Class starship. And as far as the odd number nacelle thing "All Good Things..." Future Enterprise throws that out of the water. I will also say that in Walter Pierce's service record it states that he served on the USS Suleiman which was a Saladin Class starship and in the image of the personnel file you can make out the reference to the Suleiman. He was a specialist in linear warp containment systems and won an award for warp field engineering he was station on the Suleiman some time before 2363 which would fit in well with the dates for the TM reference to the Suleiman and being a Saladin. So I believe that it all makes it more canon than non-canon, but that is just my take on it all. Tearstar 08:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
- I looked at the personnel file photo on the Pierce page. I see no reference to the Suleiman. It isn't in the Encyclopedia, either. Am I just not squinting hard enough? (Plus his service record was in a illusory sequence, wasn't it?) Aholland 12:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
The illusionary facts are only the dates, In the episode Troi feels that it was fairly recent but in fact it was during the building of the Enterprise at the Utopia Planitia Yards, back in 2363 but the area's he was stationed weren't changed Tearstar 19:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
- There's no reference to Pierce's Suleiman being the Suleiman mentioned in the TechManual, so this discussion is off topic for this page -- the Saladin class is not mentioned in his personnel file.
Issues with ReinsertionsEdit
So let me explain why I cut out some of the material that was reinserted to see if it makes sense to keep out:
- Saying that it was a "destroyer". That information is in the Technical Manual but was not actually seen in any legible way in the movies. It could have been deleted to fit the oval screens, could have been altered (since the images were played with to at least make the lines light and background dark), but can't be read even if shown. Lots of other information is on the page that this appears to have been taken from, but not included for much the same reason.
- The "prototype" was not even in the Tech Manual on that page, I believe. The registry was NCC-500, but it was not clear that it was anything other than a "space-holder" - without a name on the hull.
- The variant in the DS9 Tech Manual is explicitly stated as being a variant of the Constitution class. Not the Saladin. So saying that it is what it clearly isn't doesn't seem right.
Otherwise I'm okay with what was reinserted, especially in the background section. I admit I might have cut a little too much back there with the Hermes distinctions. Aholland 00:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Since there has been no response to the above, I guess I'll just revise those three items when I next have a moment. Aholland 19:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
The schematic of the Saladin that has, at times, been part of this article is of a copyrighted image. Memory Alpha contributions are pursuant to the Memory Alpha:Creative Commons License (see Memory Alpha: Copyrights for details.) We cannot have material copied from the interior of books included in this manner if we hope to hang our collective hat on "fair use" exceptions to U.S. copyright. Please do not reinsert the schematic. Aholland 15:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- You're absolutly right. Now that Shran has deleted the image, would it be possible for anyone w/ the DVD to upload a screencap of when it was shown on the computer-screen. Even though that too is taken from the book, the actual screencap is fair use. Jaz talk 22:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Also, same goes for Hermes and Federation class. Jaz talk 22:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Saladin image Edit
I've got a CGI image of the Saladin, available at my web page at tailkinker.batcave.net. I don't know the procedure for submitting, or if this image meets the standards set out for MA. But it's there, if you want a pic for the class. I've also got pics of some of the other 'forgotten' classes there. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 18.104.22.168 (talk).
- Thanks for the offer, but we really are trying to stick to screen caps and production sources, somewhat noted above. -Alan 17:52, January 30, 2010 (UTC)
Original research Edit
I removed the following
The concept of a single-nacelle starship has been derided by some as contrary to Gene Roddenberry's design requirements for Starfleet ships, but there is nothing in canon that mandates a minimum number of nacelles for a ship. Indeed, single-nacelle vessels would appear in The Next Generation with the appearance of the Freedom-class, which it itself an homage to the Saladin and Hermes classes.For being too much akin to original research. If need be to discuss Roddenberry's apparent nacelle policies, they can be centralized on the nacelle page with cite-able sources. --Alan 17:46, January 30, 2010 (UTC)