Operation Return participationEdit
What line from Sacrifice of Angels suggests that the Centaur took part in Operation Return? Jaz 01:28, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- "And tell Captains Diego and Reynolds to stay alert, they may try to outflank us." --Alan del Beccio 01:54, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- This may look like quibbling, but this Captain Reynolds may be another one with the same last name. Or it may be the same one, but commanding another Ship. So we can not be sure at 100% than the USS-Centaur was i operation Return... only at 99.75% ;-) --rami
I would like someone to point out WHERE in either of those pictures you can see a Centaur class ship. I want someone circle them Cause i see NONE.
- That's indicated by the use of Captain Reynolds in Sacrifice of Angels.--31dot 17:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps not, but I was referring to the claim of its presence there in general.--31dot 20:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- Instead of wasting time and space telling me all the ways I didn't answer the question, which could be done on my talk page, why not answer it?--31dot 21:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- It's also worth pointing out that the pictures have been here since 2005 and no one has questioned it until now.--31dot 22:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I recently reverted an edit about the Centaur being a destroyer, with the summary being that it was stated in dialogue in Sacrifice of Angels. I actually was afraid this was going to happen, so I looked up the exact dialogue:
- "Have Destroyer Units Two and Six move in closer -- they need more cover fire. And tell Captains Diego and Reynolds to stay alert, they may try to outflank us."
This confirms that the USS Centaur was present, but not that it was part of either destroyer unit. They are seperate sentences, and could be directed at seperate people. I will let this go for a couple of days, giving others time to respond, but if this is the only evidence, I would say it is not enough to have in the main article. I would not be opposed to a note being added to background saying that it might be a destroyer. --OuroborosCobra talk 17:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- In the STRICTEST sense, it does not confirm it, as someone pointed out above (it could be a different Captain Reynolds). However, if we accept that it IS Capt Reynolds of the USS Centaur, then we must turn attention to the quote itself.
- First we have other dialog mentioning "cruiser wings" "Galaxy wings" and "Fighter Squadrons". In each case it is the accepted meaning that they refer to formations made up of the type ship named, ie cruisers, Galaxy-class, and fighters. So I find it reasonable that a reference to "destroyer units" would refer to units of ships of the destroyer-type.
- Second we have the wording of the specific quote. Sisko gives orders to "Destroyer Units 2 and 6" to advance and provide covering fire. He then uses the word "and", indicating that the next order is ALSO for the DU 2 and 6. That order, addressed to Capts Diego and Reynolds, is to "stay alert" against the possibility of being flanked. Proper military protocol for issuing orders to a unit is to address the orders to the unit's CO, who is responsible for passing them onto their subordinate units.
- So we have Sisko issuing the order to DU2 (under Captain Diego) and DU 6 (under Captain Reynolds) to A)advance and provide cover fire and B)stay alert.
- Thus, if we accept that the Capt Reynolds is the SAME Capt Reynolds as earlier, and that he still commands the Centaur (and at that point we have no evidence that is NOT the case), then we have the Centaur in a Destroyer Unit, and thus it is a destroyer-type starship. If not, then all mention of Reynolds being at "Operation Return" needs to be erased from all affected articles.--Capt Christopher Donovan 09:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I accept that there are destroyer units there, and that Reynolds is there, but the script has those two orders as seperate sentences. I know, you can't start a sentence with the word "and", but that is what the script does. I put to you this, he is telling the destroyer units move in closer, that means away from the flanks. He then gives a seperate order to Reynolds and Diego to stay alert for a the enemy trying to outflank them. That implies Reynolds and Diego are at the flanks, the outside, away from the destroyers.
Also, what if the sentence had read "Have destroyer units move in. And have Picard and Diego stay alert." Would we then be saying the Enterprise-E was a destroyer? No, we would be saying that the two orders are seperate, and not directed to the same people. --OuroborosCobra talk 10:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- In the context of the way military orders are passed, yes I would. I would then say the writers had fragged up about the Enterprise, but the dialog cited is quite clear and explicit.
- If Sisko was giving orders to two units to advance, and then giving orders to two OTHER units to do something else, then it would go something like this: "Have Destroyer Units 2 and 6 move in closer--they need more coverfire. Then contact Captains Diego and Reynolds and tell them to stay alert, they may try to outflank us..."
- Both proper grammar and proper military protocol in giving orders lead us to the same conclusion: all the orders Sisko gave are for DU 2 and 6, under the command of Capts Diego and Reynolds, respectively.--Capt Christopher Donovan 11:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, I still don't completely buy it, but I am willing to go along with it. I'll start the edits. This article should actually just say starship, and the destroyer designation should be in the Centaur type article. Right now, that reads "Light Cruiser", based on the DS9 TM, but as we all now, on-screen dialogue supersedes the TMs. I will also copy this discussion over there, and make the Destroyer article link to the Centaur-type, rather than the USS Centaur. --OuroborosCobra talk 11:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- The registry (which has been on this page since January 2004) is visible on the ship's model (images of the model used in the show is available at several websites and was printed in Star Trek: The Magazine among others). The name "Centaur" was in fact not on the model, but was revealed by Sisko.--Tim Thomason 23:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
The registry on the model is NCC-42043, but the name is Buckner, as we just learned. The model wasn't relabeled because the name and the registry wouldn't be seen in a closeup, but that doesn't mean that the registry was given over to the Centaur. In fact, the Encyclopedia gives no registry for the Centaur, and it is obviously a better source than the Star Trek Magazine article, which was written based on fan input.– The preceding unsigned comment was added by NotOfTheBody (talk • contribs).
- Sign your comments, please. A magazine based on fan input would have less weight than a reference book written by people who worked on the show.
- You may be correct about this Buckner ship, but by your own admission the other model was labeled as that too. It would seem we have to list each ship as having the same number and note the discrepancy.--31dot 12:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
This is similar to when the CG ships were relabeled only when the name and number were seen in closeups, according to statements by Mojo and other Foundation animators. That doesn't mean that a lot of CG Excelsiors out there should share the Frederickson's registry number in this encyclopedia (NCC-42111).
I see no reason to contradict the Encyclopedia because of the Magazine/Fact Files; the Centaur has no confirmed registry number, but the Buckner has. Memory Beta is free to use NCC-42043 for the Centaur, but the standards should be stricter here. NotOfTheBody 12:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm confused- you seem to be arguing that this USS Buckner should have that number because it was on the model, but the Centaur shouldn't even though you admit it was labeled as such and we know it was used in a episode labeled as such. While the Encyclopedia does not state a number for it, it is permissible here to state it came from another source, as long as the source is given and noted as a magazine, if there is no other evidence.
- I read a post on the link you provided where Adam Buckner says that the Centaur had the number first, so he renamed the model the USS Jupp. He also said that while the model was labeled as Buckner, it was referred to in dialog as the Centaur. Maybe I'm a little confused, but it seems to me it was intended to be the Centaur.--31dot 13:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
No, the Jupp is a totally different model he built. He never said that the model was labeled "Centaur", only that his Buckner model was used as the Centaur. I never said that the model was relabeled either. I'd be fine with keeping the registry for the Centaur, but with a detailed reference about the sources so the issue is clear to the reader (as changed on the site). – NotOfTheBody 13:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- What you put seems OK to me.--31dot 13:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)