Talk:Antares

Text removed
I removed following paragraph: because it seems unlikely that crew member of a vessel destroyed in 2266 would be on such an extended shore leave. That, and the visual evidence is less than compelling. --GNDN 05:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * A crew member of the USS Antares was on shore leave on Deep Space Station K-7 in 2268 when the station was infested by Cyrano Jones's Tribbles. He watched the fight between officers of the USS Enterprise and Klingons under the command of Koloth in the bar on the station. 


 * When I added the note about the crewmember on K-7 I had completely forgotten that the USS Antares actually was no more. It would indeed have been a very long shore leave. I re-inserted the info as background information, however, as evidence from the screenshot I provided makes it pretty clear that he was indeed wearing a uniform with the Antares badge. Always better to check the complete episode and not just the trekcore images ;-) --Jörg 09:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The freeze-frame on CED VideoDiscs was balky at best. I see, Jörg, that you are, once again, spot on. --GNDN 20:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Registry number?
An anon added that the registry number of this vessel was NCC-501 this morning... what's this from? -- Sulfur 14:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

As an aside, I know that it's from the encyclopedia, which ain't canon, and have reverted it for the moment, unless it turns out that a remastered TOS episode updates the registry and confirms it for us... -- Sulfur 14:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, we have just had released from the remastered  of the remastered Antares... it's not clear, but I can see a 5 and a 1 for certain. -- Michael Warren | Talk 14:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

You're right... very unclear. Let's wait until the episode airs and someone can get a larger image that might be clearer. -- Sulfur 14:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * A clearer shot of the picture, from StarTrek.com, shows the registry more clearly as NCC-G21, putting her in line with the registries from the Animated Series. -- TFVanguard


 * Do you have an URL for us to confirm that? -- Cid Highwind 13:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Not a direct one, since StarTrek.com uses java for its media pictures. However, links to the often-used Antares pic. If you click on it and blow it up, you can make out the registry (barely). I've sharpened it and got NCC-G21 from a couple of methods. Even without that, though, it's pretty clear that it's not NCC-501. – TFVanguard 15:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I just got a reply from Mike Okuda:


 * Thanks for the note. The registry was NCC-501.


 * That should settle this. --Jörg 18:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Still doesn't look like a '501' to me, but, whatever. Maybe I was too hopeful that Okuda would ditch his pettiness and his insanely bad registry scheme... now we're stuck with it even more. – TFVanguard 19:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Not nice to insult Okuda there, especially when he's made the effort to respond with an answer from the source. -- Sulfur 19:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Tough. Okuda's choice for the arse-headed registries are based on his personal dislike of Franz Joseph (which he himself copped to) and an empty-headed interpretation of the infamous Wall Chart in court martial. According to Okuda, we now have a situation where the entire Constitution class is under repair at the same time at the same starbase. We also have no rhyme or reason to any registries, as they are completely random, completely ignoring the intentions of Matthew Jefferies (and to what Gene Roddenberry himself had signed off on). Okuda has done some great work, but this is one field that I absolutely loathe his work on, and consider it somewhat a slap in the face to both the official works and fandom of the 1970s and early 1980s. But this is a 'canon' site, and that is the 'canon' number, but it's still petty and arse-headed. – TFVanguard 19:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Alright TFVanguard, quit it, now. While he may not be an editor, you are in clear violation of making personal attacks, and are also in danger of embarrassing MA itself. Quit it, now. Take your personal beefs to your own site. --OuroborosCobra talk 19:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't attack anyone personally. I attacked Okuda's choice in registry schemes based solely on his own words about his choices, which he's copped to repeatedly. The NCC-501 registration was a purposely calculated choice to invalidate the Saladin class from Franz Joseph. That is a simply statement of fact, regardless of whether or not you like it or consider it embarrassing. After all, this is a discussion forum, is it not? – TFVanguard 19:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No, this is not a discussion forum where anyone should voice his/her personal opinion. There are other places on the web to do so, and if you want to discuss or argue, please join those places. This thread, and especially unnecessary insults, stop here and now! Thanks. -- Cid Highwind 20:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Just FYI, the caption on the screen at StarTrek.com comparing the original and remastered versions of the photo says the registry number is NCC-501. -- Renegade54 20:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * True, but it also says that the ship is just like the Woden with minor differences, and then promptly links to the Botany Bay model. Granted, the model likely will be reused for the Woden, but it's not like www.startrek.com is free from errors anyway. – TFVanguard 20:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Removed speculation
I removed:
 * However, with the Woden and the Yorkshire, having lower registries, this would seem to suggest that for the 23rd century Starfleet assigning registries differently than in the centuries to come. Unlike the later 24th century, of which we have the most knowledge, the prototype ship carried the lowest number, the prototype ship would have a higher number than her sister ships, a practice which was practiced, if we follow the Encyclopedia, in this class and the ''.

As stated during it's addition, it is "speculation". Also there is _zero_ canon evidence to support this whole chronological registry theory that many insist to say exists. --Alan del Beccio 20:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The observed increase of registry numbers in chronological sequence is POWERFUL canon evidence. You have early Fed ships like the Daedalus class in the high 100s, then TOS era with ships in the 500-2100 range.  In TNG on, you have ships that are canonically KNOWN to be older classes (Excelsiors, Constellations, et al) with registries anywhere from TOS/Movie era to the 10s, 20s, 30s of thousands, etc.  The Galaxy class starts with the prototype NCC-70637, Defiant class (NX-74205), Voyager (Intrepid class, and said to be new type, NCC-74656).  Anomalies like the First Contact armada ships are simply explained as being ships that existed but were never seen on screen before.


 * Your problem is that you are making the fallacious equation of order of "first appearance" = "order of construction".


 * I await submission of YOUR evidence that registry numbers are NOT sequential.Capt Christopher Donovan 01:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It has never been stated anywhere that the registry numbers are chronological or that they are not. There's evidence for both extremes, if you just look closely enough. As long as it is not directly stated anywhere, it is all speculation (widespread and generally accepted, albeit) so we cannot and will not include it here. --Jörg 08:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If it were in the main body of the article, I would agree...but Background notes have traditionally been given a bit of "reasonable wiggle room" to add further detail with the clear implication that they are NOT "fully canon".Capt Christopher Donovan 11:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think your comments could be valid for a background section, but I wouldn't do it for any particular class of starships. Rather, a more general comment on sequential vs. random assignments of numbers could be placed as a background note at registry number. --  Harry  talk 11:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * And if it's added there, then the opposite side needs to be added. I'm with Jorg and Alan on this one.  There's no clear evidence either way, and lots of evidence to the opposite way.  I don't think that it's something that should be added, because we don't subscribe to "fan theories."  Sorry Christopher.


 * Oh... and one other thing... you have a bit of a confrontational attitude about this. May I suggest calming down your way of dealing with things like this. -- Sulfur 13:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Respectfully, Sulfur, WHAT evidence to the contrary? No one has presented ANY evidence other than what the canon shows: a steady upward progression of registries over time.  Seriously, everyone keeps making that claim (evidence they're NOT sequential over time), but I've seen no one back it up.Capt Christopher Donovan 11:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Not sure why you are having a confrontational attitude about all this. We are not necessarily saying that they are not sequential over time, because yes, the tendency exists that lower numbers are on older ships. What we are addressing is that there is no canon proof that they are in a specific (chronological) sequence...--Alan 14:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There is evidence that they are not neccesarily sequential- the Prometheus, a prototype, was NX-59650(initially, at least), well below the older Voyager(74656), Defiant(74205) and many others. The USS Constellation's number(1017) was well below that of the Enterprise(1701), I doubt roughly 700 ships were built in between the two.  As has been said, however, no one denies that there has been an upwards progression, we are simply saying there is no canon evidence that this is deliberate within Starfleet, like a character saying so.--31dot 14:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not being confrontational, I'm defending my position...it's not personal. 31dot laid out exactly the case I expected someone to: a) lack of a quote, and b) anomalous numbers.


 * The second is the strongest arguement, so I'll address it here. The biggest flaw is that the assumption is made that order of appearance=order of construction esp involving prototypes.  Your arguement ASSUMES that the Prometheus (to use 31's prime example) is "newer" than the Intrepid and Defiant classes because they showed up on film first. I find no canon support OR counter-evidence for that presumption.  It IS counterINTUATIVE, however, given the oberved fact we DO have of increasing registries over time.


 * Occam's Razor is the logical principle that the SIMPLEST explanation is the likliest to be true. What is the simpler explanation: increasing registries over time, with anomalies being easily explained as either a)extended development times (for prototypes) or b) refit/upgraded ships (for others, like Constellation, etc)?  Or that Starfleet has some incomprehensibly random system for assigning registries?  Which makes more sense?Capt Christopher Donovan 23:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it is the unnecessary USE OF CAPS, the universal text-form of YELLING, that makes you seem confrontational. Italics work nice too, in moderation. :)

With that said, the Prometheus example is not 31dot's strongest argument, and really, your response to it makes even less sense. Aside from the fact that that registry is an "anomaly," 31dot makes no assumptions about the Prometheus being "newer" at all: it is newer. Nor, for that matter, did the Prometheus appear "on film first", both Voyager and the Defiant appeared first, by like 4 years.

Secondly, answering any of the questions you just posed would require more information than observations alone can support, because these anomalies cannot be explained in canon, just like the registry system we are discussing. Since we don't know how the sequence is determined, or why there are anomalies, all we can do is make an assumptions, invite conjecture, speculation, or extrapolation via means of heuristics on the subject, knowing full well, that in the end none of those angles will make it canon. The producers intent may have been to create the illusion that registries are handed out sequentially, but that pretty much stops at intent, because our best canon examples created from producers intent doe not even remain consistent. Or rather, if it is consistent, it is not to any system we are discussing here.

So to wrap this up, as this circle of death continues to roll on, let me again reaffirm that, "yes," again as 'we have all' now stated, to varying degrees, that 'registries tend to increase over time', because number systems generally grow over time. I am not arguing that, I am arguing that this tendency is not a definitive, without-a-doubt fact, nor is it a "fact" that the numbering system is chronologically established, because it is not, at least not by any system we can recognize. All we know is that they are in some sequential order, what we don't know is how that order is determined. --Alan 02:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * As Alan said, I don't "assume" that the Prometheus is newer, it is newer, it was a prototype. (Especially since we saw an earlier Starship Prometheus in )  The Constitution's number suggests some other numbering scheme that both provides a general upwards progression and shows that it's not just sequential.  The vast size of the Federation and the fact that shipyards are all over it would also suggest that outright sequential numbering would be difficult at best.  I certainly wouldn't want to be the one coordiating that.


 * Anyway, (even assuming I am totally incorrect) if something is likely to be true, that doesn't make it true. Is it possible?  Yes.  Can we say that it's a fact?  No.--31dot 03:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, prototype or not (which doesn't apply because there are no other Prometheus class ships to compare to), the basis I was using that the Prometheus is newer than Voyager and Defiant is based not on appearance, but their launch date. --Alan 03:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Launch date doesn't prove anything...Prometheus (like Excelsior before her) could have been in contstruction/drydock for decades before being declared "finished" and formally launched. That also disposes neatly of the "prototype=newer" fallacy 31dot puts forward. Simple logic, people.  It's our friend...


 * Nontheless, if everyone here is bound and determined to throw up great convoluted suppositions to go in a direction different than what the canon information shows, one lone contributer cannot stop it. I'll move on to other projects.Capt Christopher Donovan 02:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, it is you who is "throwing up great convoluted suppositions". Basically, you're taking all evidence that supports a strict chronological order at face value, but explaining away anything that doesn't fit that (eg. the Prometheus). Likewise "Occam's razor" or "simple logic" suggests we don't start with a premise and then fit information into it.


 * All we can say is that they gradually increase over time. As Jorg said, it's probably worth mentioning the possibility of a strict sequence on the registry article, but we shouldn't have any speculation to other articles based on speculation.– Cleanse talk 06:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Donovan, it's time to drop it. Remember that this is a community project. You have no one on your side on this. Just like I threw in the towel on the Centaur/Destroyer debate, it is time for you to throw it in. Past time. The community does not agree with your interpretation or your standard of acceptable extrapolation. I don't agree with your's either, I'm with the community on this. --OuroborosCobra talk 06:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

No automatic doors?
When Charlie Evans arrives on the Enterprise, he seems surprised by the automatic door. Does this suggest that the Antares (somehow) didn't have automatic doors? 209.158.7.20 16:43, May 27, 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that's enough evidence to make that claim. It might just have been that particular one. 31dot (talk) 19:37, May 27, 2013 (UTC)