I've separated the TOS Yorktown and the Star Trek IV Yorktown into separate sections -- I'm not trying to imply they were definitely different vessels, i'm simply leaving it up to the reader to take each entry individually, with accompanying background notes, and draw their own conclusions, since there is so little information and so much speculation about the issue, relating to the confusion over the canonicity of Roddenberry's comments. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 06:45, 17 Feb 2005 (GMT)
- I disagree with the current set up. Lacking a canon cite, we should keep the two under one header with a background note explaining the opinion of some fans. Jaf 14:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)jaf
- WEll, rearranging it may prove difficult, as every attempt to do so has removed the bulk of my observations and info added, and added a number of non-canon speculations. Rearranging the article is not an excuse for remving the information that has been added without explaining why.
- If any attempt to do so was made, i'd have to stress that removing the text explaining that each decade's Yorktown may not be the same ship previously or concurrently mentione -- basically, if we state they were all the same ship, we are speculating and could be wrong, but if we specify they are all different ships, we are speculating and may be wrong. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 14:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- I was refering to Roddenberry's comments lacking a cite, not being a cite really. I should have been more clear. Either way your comments should be kept if assuming community consensus. Jaf 15:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)Jaf
Something for logicians
There is no evidence to deny that this vessel is not the same...
Maybe someone could make a sentence of this which may be understood easier?
Reversion
I reverted an IP edit -- the user removed all the relevant links from the "background" paragraphs, and associated a registry number with several of the subsections.
Please discuss this change, as there are some possible changes in sentence structure (see above) -- but other than that, i think the information is valid as it stands now. (the registry needs to have a source in an episode or movie before it can be added here). -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 19:35, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)
- I've looked into the matter further, and cannot find any credence to the "NCC-1717" registry -- was it used in Star Trek IV or Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. Otherwise, it is a product of Jein and Okuda's publications, and cannot be considered canon at face value. Anyone know anything further, keeping our canon policy in mind? -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk
- Much to my dislike a lot of Okuda-Jein numbers which have no basis in any canon work have entered this database when the ship personnel lists were outsourced. Though one might argue and draw from Jein's speculation to associate Exeter and Excalibur with the numbers 1672 and 1664, the same procedure was used for Farragut even though the number 1647 did neither appear on the Starbase 11 chart nor the TUC list. If Andrew Stiles may no longer be named Andrew, then why should these registries be canon? (Note: It is also an often ignored fact when citing the Jein article, that he assigned the 16xx vessels to another class than Constitution!) -- Kobi - (Talk) 20:05, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)
Yorktown speculation
Anyone else think the speculation as to the naming scheme of this ship is getting a little out of hand, given the recently added paragraph? At least some of the speculation already there can be backed up with the Tech Manual and Roddenberry's comments, but that doesn't seem to be the case with this new paragraph.--31dot 23:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)