Date of Cardassian wars involvement Edit
- Not from canon sources. All we have is Picard's one line about it. It implies the Stargazer was subsequently assigned somewhere away from the Cardassian front, but doesn't narrow down when the incident took place. A noncanon source, the novel The Art of the Impossible, puts it in 2343. --Emperorkalan 21:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Battle of Maxia Edit
- This event was called the "Battle of Maxia" by the Ferengi.
- For what's it worth, Starfleet also called it "Battle of Maxia" on Picard's Grankite Order of Tactics certificate as seen in Picard's family album. --22.214.171.124 00:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Court martial offense? Edit
Isn't the loss of a ship a court-martiable offense, instead of the abandonment? I think Measure of a Man says that a court-martial is standard procedure when a ship is lost. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 126.96.36.199 (talk).
Planetary debris Edit
This is my first comment on Memory-Alpha, so I apologize if I am doing something incorrectly.
Now, on to the pertinent question. The line about the Stargazer reacuing a planet from stellar debris with the help of three other ships seems to be entirely based upon the PC/Xbox 360 game "Star Trek Legacy", which is of course, not canon. Granted, the fact that the Stargazer at some time did save a planet is canon, but the details of the matter are unknown. All that is known from canon is in the episode "Tapestry", where Q notes that Picard took control of the bridge when the captain died.
Given that, it is my opinion that the other information should not be implied ot be canon, since it appears that the details come only from a video game.
Live long and prosper, --Rogue Vulcan 21:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)Rogue Vulcan
- Greetings! I looked at the recent edits and found that that note was added by an anon back in December. Your claim seems valid, so I made the necessary adjustments. Thanks :) - Enzo Aquarius 21:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Sidebar has multiple status/datestatus info Edit
Templates don't support this. If there are multiple status, then it should be in a different template with multiple template calls. Something like:
If we want to do something like that, elsewise it should be just the most recent status. --bp 11:37, February 8, 2010 (UTC)
- I thought the template page says it should only list the most recent status, seems like a quick wording fix there may be called for. - Archduk3 11:39, February 8, 2010 (UTC)
- No, not another thing to make the template more complicated, please. Let's just remove the duplicate entry here! -- Cid Highwind 11:41, February 8, 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, now that I think about it, USS Defiant (NCC-1764) has two status' though that is very much a special case. - Archduk3 11:46, February 8, 2010 (UTC)
... And its a hack of the parameters. Status has the datastatus of the first update included in it. --bp 00:43, February 9, 2010 (UTC)
Bedford Falls? Edit
I think the "Bedford Falls" reference was a joke by Brent Spiner. If you review the Season 1 blooper reel, he is dressed in costume on the bridge as "data". As his torch passes over the dedication plaque, he mimics Jimmy Stewart "Gosh Mary, they built this thing in Bedford Falls!" I HIGHLY doubt for canon purposes it was built in "Bedford Falls". If someone can prove me wrong, please do it. 188.8.131.52 01:02, April 14, 2012 (UTC)
- The Bedford Falls reference is not in the in-universe portion of the article, only in the Background section. That said, if the plaque appeared in canon, it would be valid in-universe information, any jokes nonwithstanding(the plaque was made before Spiner's joke anyway). 31dot 01:10, April 14, 2012 (UTC)
- USS Stargazer dedication plaque suggests that it didn't contain such a reference. The Star Trek: The Next Generation Companion simply reports Spiner's joke without saying that it was based on something actually written on it. Unless there's a source that "Bedford Falls" appeared on the plaque it shouldn't be here.–Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 02:24, April 14, 2012 (UTC)