Talk:USS Ahwahnee (NCC-71620)

Does anyone have the images supporting the claims for not one, but two Ahwahnee's? Given the fact that neither ship is in the Encyclopedia, it would be good to give some visual bases for them. Aholland 02:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Ahwahnee NCC-2048 : part of either the Operation Retrieve graphic or another Enterprise display in . No image available, information relayed by behind the scenes sources reproduced in publications such as Star Trek Concordance and Ex Astris Scientia.
 * Ahwahnee from Wolf 359 : Name labeled on model filmed for debris field. No episode image available except at extreme distance, visible registry occurs in closeup views of the studio model reproduced in publications such as TNG trading cards, im sure there are others. Star Trek Encyclopedia has information also, but with registry incorrect to the model itself.
 * Ahwahnee from "Redemption" task force. Ship not seen onscreen, name appears on computer display graphic from Enterprise bridge. Screencaps should be readily available to anyone with enough initiative to go looking at the episode. Similarity of registries (barring one typo) indicates same ship as previous.
 * hope this clears things up -- Captain M.K.B. 15:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds pretty good, I think, but I couldn't find the Encyclopedia reference. Do you know if it is hiding somewhere other than at "Ahwahnee"? Aholland 01:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Try the list of starships.


 * Even without it, i can verify other interviews with Okuda and on set photos of the studio model, so we know for sure the ship name and registry is an official part of the episode itself. (the closeup behind the scenes picture is correlated to be the small appearance by the ship model we've read the registry and name off of). -- Captain M.K.B. (unsigned)

Found it - just as you suspected in the Starship Chart. Thanks, I've added the cite and some other Encyclopedia data to the article. Aholland 13:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Removed
I removed:
 * As we do not know the class of the NCC-2048 and registries have been known to change, there remains a possiblity that it is the NCC-71620.

This is purely speculation on one person's part. It really doesn't fit into the realm of "background" info. --Alan del Beccio 00:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Speculation is conclusion by conjecture or inconclusive reasoning. Possibility is the capacity of existence via the uncertainty of circumstance. The removal of the possible is speculatory. In short that tag actively eliminated speculation by definition. Its removal is therefore an act of speculation because it acts as a reductionism. Jaf 00:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)Jaf

It's still unnecessary. There is no fact to support the statement. Especially for this being an encyclopedia, not a commentary. --Alan del Beccio 01:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you miss my point. And I know you don't like to be wrong, but in this instance you are incorrect. The statement admitted only to a possibility that exist. The very structure of the article(s) indicates the existance of two separate entities in a situation where knowledge of such plurality is not possible. It creates the illusion of certainty. Clarification is necessary for us to be encyclopedic. What is unnecessary is a reductionist interpretation of events. Jaf 01:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)Jaf


 * I don't think you are suppose to remove things from talk pages. Chickens! 04:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)Chickens!
 * Mostly, no, unless it is vandalistic in nature and does not contribute anything to the discussion. What I removed was just an attack on wikis in general and Memory Alpha. It had nothing to do with the topic. Away it went. --OuroborosCobra talk 04:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well that's ok I guess. I couldn't really follow what this was all about anyway, too many big words. I just figured there was a point in there somewhere. Chickens! 04:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)Chickens!
 * Ok I think I understand this now. It's dumb for us to say there is only one ship when there are clearly two pages. Chickens! 05:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)Chickens!


 * hmmm, I've got to agree with jaf on this one. we should keep our options open. what we don't know could hurt us.

The surviving ship
No one will probably really want this, but I figure it's worth at least asking, or a mention, but anyway... Does anyone else think, that it could be worth noting (as non-speculative and neutral as possible) that with no explicit mention otherwise, this ship appears to be the surviving ship of the Battle of Wolf 359? 40 starships went, 39 were said to be destroyed and while a handful of ships were only seen and/or mentioned/named, this ship was seen on screen in service after the battle (when the others were seen at the surplus yard). Unless of course, I somehow missed something and other ships were salvaged/survived and were placed back into service.
 * There is also evidence that the USS Endeavour was the ship that survived relatively intact, including a log entry made by its captain, as described in, as well as a mention in the Star Trek Encyclopedia(which, while not canon, can be used to make the statment). Without some official source speculating like that we probably should not, either.
 * We may want to change this to simply state what the ship did before the battle, and what it did afterwards without speculating as to how that was possible(that it was salvaged, or a new one), and include a statment like: "It was not stated if the later mention of this ship was intended to be the ship that survived Wolf 359, one that was salvaged, or a newer one.  Without evidence, this article assumes it was the same ship.  The Star Trek Encyclopedia states that the USS Endeavour was the ship to survive intact."--31dot 10:52, April 9, 2010 (UTC)

I suppose, I had always figured the Endeavour encountered them in another way, I never placed it with the Battle of Wolf 359, but you make a good point. I just figured it was worth a note somewhere that 39 out of 40 were said to be destroyed, but I know we don't want to speculate here.--Terran Officer 21:04, April 9, 2010 (UTC)