Not 'Amber'
Whatever the name of this ship, it's not Amber, as it begins with either a 'V' or a 'Y' (the letter is wide at the top and comes to a point at the base). The closest I can get is either Vader or Yeager, although the former would mean that it's the only 'joke' name in a list of 'proper' ship names. Either way, the initial letter certainly is not an 'A'. Catiline63 (talk) 19:00, December 15, 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I agree that it is a V or Y, but it isn't easy to read. Is the image from the blu-ray? 31dot (talk) 19:32, December 15, 2013 (UTC)
Compare the 'A' of the Atlantis and the Apollo with the initial letter of the "Amber" and it's pretty clear that they're not the same letter. Catiline63 (talk) 20:05, December 15, 2013 (UTC)
Then I'd suggest, if no other suggestions are forthcoming, that the name be marked as illegible (as 3 others currently are).Catiline63 (talk) 20:10, December 15, 2013 (UTC)
- If that's the case, then I will mark this as a rename suggestion to the registry number as the title. 31dot (talk) 21:11, December 15, 2013 (UTC)
- I can't even clearly make out which line from that chart is being discussed here. I guess it is line #16 (the first in a darker shade of blue, three down from the line in yellow), simply because it looks like the only 5-letter name to me. While I agree that the general shape looks more like \/ /\ than /\ \/ to me, all of this is total guesswork until a higher quality screenshot (or a reference to a reproduction in an official publication, as we still allow that stuff I think) can be provided. For what it's worth, though, I can't make out the registry number either, so I'm not sure that is a good replacement title. -- Cid Highwind (talk) 23:14, December 15, 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe just merge with Unnamed Federation starships? 31dot (talk) 01:05, December 16, 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah. I guess what this will boil down to is that, either, a readable reproduction or blu-ray still exists, so that all starship names can be used - or many (though probably not all) will need to be considered "illegible". In the latter case, merging the illegible ones to "unnamed" seems like the best solution. -- Cid Highwind (talk) 14:16, December 16, 2013 (UTC)
- I think it would be worth it to reproduce the information in these type of lists on the file description page, in a manner similar to this or the tables at casualty report, because it isn't initially clear which line is even in question here. That said, how many of these names are in question anyway? - Archduk3 20:38, December 16, 2013 (UTC)
I think that most of the starship names, if not completely legible, are at least able to be discerned because we know their names from elsewhere in Trek. The only other name I have a problem with is the "Da-Taplan", which seems to have no provenance either in Trek or in a real life naval ship. This being said, I bet that when someone does a CSI-style image-enhancement on this pic, the ship in line 8 - seemingly with a 'V' in the middle - turns out to be BONAVENTURE ;) Catiline63 (talk) 22:10, December 16, 2013 (UTC)
- I did the work for this chart. I had a 42" flat screen tv to work with. Even with a screen that big, three of the ship names are not readable. It took many tries to get the chart into focus. When I did the chart, I compared each letter in the name with other letters. It helps that the bottom third of the chart had the best coverage. Amber seems to be the best fit. I did a chart for this site, which can be found at Starship Deploy Status.Throwback (talk) 05:38, July 25, 2014 (UTC)