Memory Alpha
Memory Alpha
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 4: Line 4:
   
 
:: I, for one, am very comfortable with anything Okuda proclaims on ships and technology that is not directly contradicted by what is shown on screen. [[User:Aholland|Aholland]] 06:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 
:: I, for one, am very comfortable with anything Okuda proclaims on ships and technology that is not directly contradicted by what is shown on screen. [[User:Aholland|Aholland]] 06:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  +
  +
:: I have thought about this some more, and feel increasing uncomfortable with simply stating it as fact, without attribution as to where the information comes from. So I would like the article to reflect its actual citation, and carry a notation that it is "likely" named after the star. (It could also have been a famous "Capt. Rigel" or some such thing it was named after - we just don't know.) If that happens, can we remove the "inaccurate" sign? [[User:Aholland|Aholland]] 15:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:41, 10 February 2006

This is sourced to The Best of Both Worlds, Part II, but this reference was not part of the Starfleet armada devised for this episode, the designation was an afterthought to define a ship which was dupped into the script at the last minute, the Tolstoy.

So there are no canon references to the Tolstoy and the Akagi being referred to as Rigel-class, except for the technical writings of Sternbach and Okuda, et al -- done while they worked on the show and contributed some of these ship names to the producers for mention on the show -- but they might have included them in a piece of background art dealing with Wolf 359 or Picard's fleet, but we haven't seen anything like this closeup... is everyone comfortable with continuing to classify the ships based on Okuda's writings that were included in the Star Trek Encyclopedia? -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk

I, for one, am very comfortable with anything Okuda proclaims on ships and technology that is not directly contradicted by what is shown on screen. Aholland 06:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I have thought about this some more, and feel increasing uncomfortable with simply stating it as fact, without attribution as to where the information comes from. So I would like the article to reflect its actual citation, and carry a notation that it is "likely" named after the star. (It could also have been a famous "Capt. Rigel" or some such thing it was named after - we just don't know.) If that happens, can we remove the "inaccurate" sign? Aholland 15:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)