Talk:Battle of Wolf 359

Nomination
Together with the list of ships at Wolf 359, this article gives all canon-info along with good illustrations. The article was created with the help of various people. --BlueMars 18:53, Jun 26, 2004 (CEST)
 * Seconded. -- Redge 19:33, 26 Jun 2004 (CEST)
 * Approve. (I did some major rewriting on this article a while back.) -- Dan Carlson 20:27, 26 Jun 2004 (CEST)
 * Seconded. It's pretty good. Ottens 21:54, 27 Jun 2004 (CEST)
 * Seconded. --BlueMars 00:33, Jun 28, 2004 (CEST)
 * Definitely support -- Michael Warren

Reconfirmation
FA from 2004, haven't read it yet, so I'm not sure if it's still up to snuff. - 21:03, June 8, 2012 (UTC)
 *  Hold--For the moment (and I DO want this to be featured), I'm missing some info relating to the events leading up to this event (from in respect to the "Prelude section") and on a very personal note, while it has been split off in the past, I personally would like to see the reintegration of Starships at Wolf 359 into the article --Sennim 21:23, June 8, 2012 (UTC)

That merge should then be suggested as soon as possible, and this can remain on hold until it is resolved. Just an FYI for everyone though, the order I've been using for bringing these up for reconfirmation is the nomination archive (since the list here is still dictated by when the category was added when it was created), so everyone can check the articles likely to be reconfirmed next. - 22:27, June 8, 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I've opened that debate--Sennim 03:09, June 9, 2012 (UTC)
 * Have addressed IMO the "Neutral zone" notion--Sennim 20:15, June 15, 2012 (UTC)

With the merge and discussion now complete, this can continue. - 03:57, June 21, 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, struck the hold note; have in the meantime elaborated on the BG-section--Sennim 09:50, June 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * I've tried my hand at writing a blurb, but I'm the first to admit that in-universe writing is not my strong suit, so if this is not up to specs, I apologize and by all means, edit it into smithereens--Sennim 10:46, June 22, 2012 (UTC)

I did some work on the blurb to try and trim it down a bit, as it was a little long. This one was much harder to summarize than I expected, so good work Sennim. As for the article, I think the "Aftermath" part is lacking some detail, and the legacy part doesn't mention the sidelining of the Enterprise-E during the next Borg incursion. I'll get to those over the next few days if no one else does. - 19:58, June 22, 2012 (UTC)


 * I like your more tersely reworded blurb...and I'm close to casting a (positive) vote...And btw. I'm not sure if the -E's sidelining is pertinent to this article, I thought that was pertinent to, aka the Battle of Sector 001--Sennim 20:41, June 22, 2012 (UTC)


 * There's been some good effort put into the "Background information" section. But with respect, the first paragraph has nothing to do with the subject of the article. The Battle of Wolf 359 isn't even mentioned. The info is more relevant to e.g., and Borg, which have similar notes already.–Cleanse ( talk 06:00, June 23, 2012 (UTC)


 * I removed the paragraph. I'll archive it here:




 * –Cleanse ( talk 04:41, June 24, 2012 (UTC)


 * While I'm not entirely convinced for the need of the removal of the paragraph by Cleanse, as I feel that it served as a explanation of the introductory paragraph of the article, I also do not consider it an insurmountable issue, so let me kick this one off, as I'm satisfied:


 * Support--Sennim (talk) 12:55, June 26, 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll choose to oppose this article. I recently made quite a big effort to improve the page as have others, and it still needs work! I, for one, agree with the afore-discussed removal; it's pretty irrelevant. However, a short bginfo statement could be made that links the finding in "The Neutral Zone" to the Borg, explaining the relevance of this in-universe info. The article could be further improved in several different ways. The sentence, "While investigating a planet within that system, scans, performed by the crew of the Enterprise, revealed evidence of a previous advanced civilization on the planet, but also massive surface scarring notably similar to that detected on several Federation and Romulan outposts along the Romulan Neutral Zone in 2364, which had removed all machine elements on the planet, suggesting a previous Borg incursion in the Alpha Quadrant" ... should be trimmed. The citations around this area of the article are also unclear, as "The Neutral Zone" and "Q Who" are absurdly given for all the above text! Quite a few of the images are messily arranged, and some more clarification should be given in the short paragraph that has in-universe info from . At least at this point, the article is certainly not what I would call an example of the community's best work. --Defiant (talk) 16:56, June 27, 2012 (UTC)


 * A short note in a bginfo template after "The Neutral Zone" info would be okay. What wording did you have in mind?Cleanse ( talk 23:44, June 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe something like "these attacks were intended to have been committed by an insectoid species which, during the production of TNG, were revised to become the Borg" or "[...] an insectoid species that were, in reality, the conceptual progenitors of the Borg." Something like that, possibly.... --Defiant (talk) 01:13, June 28, 2012 (UTC)


 * Did some tweaking on the "trimmable sentence", as well as addressing citations and some pic layout work. "Second Sight" citation does not need more clarification IMO, as Sisko is mentioned two paragraphs earlier as a survivor,--Sennim (talk) 12:05, June 28, 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, how exactly did he "miss" the anniversary?! Was he doing something else at the time, for example, and intentionally didn't commemorate it, or did he simply forget (etc)? The details are currently too few to be clear. --Defiant (talk) 23:36, June 28, 2012 (UTC)


 * Problem is none will be forthcoming. Sisko merely mentions it in his log at the beginning of the episode,"Personal Log, Stardate 47329.4. I finally realize why I've had trouble sleeping the last few nights. Yesterday was the fourth anniversary of the massacre at Wolf three five nine... the fourth anniversary of Jennifer's death." . Besides, the original author misinterpreted it, having cause and effect mixed up, so I have made adjustments to the text.--Sennim (talk) 01:37, June 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * As have I, attempting to make it as clear as possible. --Defiant (talk) 09:59, June 29, 2012 (UTC)


 * I've reconsidered Duke's comment about the E's sidelining and came to the conclusion it had pertinence to the "Legacy"-section, so I've written it in--Sennim (talk) 16:31, June 29, 2012 (UTC)


 * Dear Defiant, while I applaud your (re-)edits of my edits (I particulary like your subtle solution of adding a BG-template concerning the Neutral Zone et al. info) I have reservations about the following:
 * -Pics: Your removal of two pics is in my view only partially justifiable. The early destruction of the Melbourne is specifically mentioned, so I took the liberty to reinsert the pic, as it is pertinent to the article as written. Your argument of it being it "more related to the actual battle than to any singular vessel" is invalid IMHO. Every single historical work, embellished with pictorial imagery, I've read since WW II (and I've did read quite a few), showed pictorial references of individual participants of said battles, so in my view your position is untenable.
 * -The paragraph about the break-away models of the cube: You removed that, yet I feel it is pertinent to the article as it is a bonafide BG part of the "aftermath" section of the article, made even more pertinent perchance due to the fact that the producers decided to concentrate on showing that, instead of showing the battle
 * -The "See what you did"-quote from Okuda...I feel this should be reinserted due to the fact it has direct connections with the battle and it provides some much-needed levity. As far as the two latter points are concerned, it is BG info, more is good in this case...--Sennim (talk) 18:52, June 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * All the removed info about the Borg cube is either entirely irrelevant to this article or written in such a way as to make it seem that way, apparently as much as possible; nowhere does it reference the battle, and all the info should instead be found on the Borg cube page, leading to a completely unnecessary duplication of info if copied here. Basically, the same goes for the "look what you did" quote, which can already be found on both the and  pages. As for the images, your grounds for opposing my removal of 2 of them have now been made moot by you yourself, seeing as our image formatting doesn't allow for more than one instance of the same image used in any particular article. Since you've placed the images in the "Starships at Wolf 359" gallery, they shouldn't be additionally available (messily arranged) further up the page. I also have a problem with the "Uncertain starships at Wolf 359" listing; what differentiates those ships from the unnamed Nebula-class vessel at the bottom of the in-universe "Starships at Wolf 359" listing? Maybe an explanation of what is meant by "uncertain" could introduce the appropriate subsection(?) --Defiant (talk) 00:39, July 6, 2012 (UTC)


 * Dear Defiant, thank you for addressing my concerns. I will not contend your arguments, but please allow me to express that I somewhat differ in opinion about some of your basic assertions. I for one do not see anything wrong with duplication of info on different pages. As for the what you call "messily" placement of pictures (I gather you're meaning the left/right placement of those) I also assert that this is a matter of personal taste. In those cases were a left/right positioning is "called for" I actually find a placement like that appealing as it brings visual symmetry to a paragraph, and while you experience that, as you've stated on another occasion, as "text cluttering" I do not find so, if utilized with care. Please do not construe this as opening salvos for a fight, this absolutely not my intent, but rather as a gentile reminder that opinions and tastes, like people, do exist and can sometimes result in a stalemate as one does not have precedence over another. Anyways, back at the matter at hand, I agree with your skepticism about the use of the term "uncertain". While I have not come up with a better term, I've tried to write an explanatory intro for clarification...I wonder what your take is on Pseudohuman's removal of the "Nebula" wreck, which he's justified as "retconned out". He's right in that it was retconned out as being the Melbourne, but the thing is still (canonically) there, in both depictions...--Sennim (talk) 13:34, July 8, 2012 (UTC)


 * I applaud your effort to write an explanatory introduction to the "uncertain starships" section. I also agree that it's just a difference of opinion about whether the left/right placement of images is messy; it's simply a stylization choice that I'm willing to let slide, as we are meant to encourage differences in style decisions. What's the source for the "retconning" you mentioned? If it's just the Star Trek Encyclopedia, I would think that should still be in the bginfo section. I also agree with what I assume is your position on this; that, regardless of whether it was an apocryphal source that retconned the Nebula-class as the Melbourne, the listing should remain as it was in the "uncertain starships" table, with more info about the retconning (briefly stated) in either the bginfo section (if it is just the Encyclopedia that's responsible) or the apocrypha section. Also, MA's makes it clear that "relevant information should not be referenced in every possible article, but only in the most relevant one." Hence, the info about the Borg cube, which makes no mention of this battle whatsoever, should probably be referenced only in the Borg cube article, etc. --Defiant (talk) 01:08, July 9, 2012 (UTC)


 * In the extremely long and messy USS Melbourne debate we agreed that there was no Nebula-class ship canonically at Wolf 359. It also is not an unnamed ship because it was canonically named. We agreed to go with the interpretation that the Nebula-class model was retconned out of canon from those episodes. we can certainly open this up for a rematch, but this discussion is not the right place for it. --Pseudohuman (talk) 03:25, July 9, 2012 (UTC)


 * Brrr, I remember seeing parts of that particular nasty discussion...Odd solution to disregard visual evidence and pretend the thing is not there at all...But considering the vehemence of the discussion, no thank you, do not feel the need to go there again...I wonder what your guy's position is now on the article, a lot of work by several parties has gone into this article. Is it up to specs now and ready to be voted upon?--Sennim (talk) 09:37, July 9, 2012 (UTC)


 * The list of canonical ships with the pics is a bit owerwhelmingly massive.. some of the pics contain more than one ship... if it were up to me, I would remove those pics. other than that, I like the article. --Pseudohuman (talk) 10:04, July 9, 2012 (UTC)


 * I understand why you see it that way, there was a reason why I did that. The original placement of the table, left with a large chunk of empty space next to it was visually awkward. Yet, if removal of the pics has consensus, I have no problem with that..--Sennim (talk) 10:42, July 9, 2012 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't support any removal of pics from that table. I would instead suggest that we seek out another (more ship-specific) image for the USS Yamaguchi (and possibly for the Bellerophon). --Defiant (talk) 11:08, July 9, 2012 (UTC)
 * Aside from cropping the available pics, I can't get pics of the mentioned ships in a solitary state. We might have to wait for the remasrterd edition--Sennim (talk) 15:13, July 27, 2012 (UTC)

Call for votes
This article is now on the verge of being denominated as a FA article, which personally, if that were to happen, I'd consider it an ignominious disgrace for MA as it held so much importance for so many Trek fans, hence the effort I've put into this one, as well as others, among others Defiant...I truly believe, it is now up to specs. So on this note: --Sennim (talk) 15:13, July 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, once again

USS Melbourne
What's our stance on the two Melbournes? How/why were both there? My assumption (based on the additional presence of 'prototype' ships and a Constitution) is that ships at Utopia Planetia or another shipyard, in the process of decomissioning, were yanked from their scrapyard and pressed into service. Obviously, this is non-canon, so I haven't really stated it in specifics. -- DarkHorizon 13:48, 5 Jan 2004 (PST)


 * Strictly canonically speaking, the proto-Nebula Melbourne was neither named or really seen. I think the only really canon vessel is the Excelsior Melbourne, right? Or was there ever any really obvious evidence (as in: clear to the average viewer) to suggest otherwise? -- Harry 06:42, 6 Jan 2004 (PST)

Klingons at Wolf 359?
Have the Klingons really been proven to have been at Wolf 359 for the battle? All of the dialogue seems to indicate that it was a Starfleet-only engagement. Furthermore, the single effects shot of Klingon ships seen in relation to the Borg was from "Unity," but there were a large number of Klingon ships seen in that shot (reused from DS9's "The Way of the Warrior"). I seriously doubt that the Klingons would have sent that many ships so quickly, considering that they were unlikely to have any of their warships stationed inside Federation territory. -- MinutiaeMan 19:04, 13 Jan 2004 (PST)


 * Perhaps the Klingons did send ships, but they didn't arrive in time for Wolf359. Could we get some references in this article? I thought it was just the two TNG episodes, but in one of the screenshots I read it was taken from . Could someone clarify please? -- Redge 18:23, 26 Jun 2004 (CEST)

The Ship That Got Away
An another note: lists the USS Saratoga as being the one ship to escape intact. -- Redge 19:06, 26 Jun 2004 (CEST)


 * I was under the impression that the Enterprise was the fortieth ship in the fleet and that it was the only survivor. --Andrew 12-21-04 18:16 PST


 * If we often accept other conclusions from the Star Trek Encyclopedia, why are so many against having the USS Endeavour as the sole survivor? --Wangry 8-16-05


 * Indeed, this is supported by Riker's dialogue to Hanson: "We'll be there. Maybe a little late, but we'll be there, sir."
 * Clearly the Enterprise was intended to be part of that fleet, and only survived by dint of not actually making it to the battle. This stuff about a fortieth ship miraculously surviving is based on a misunderstanding, that's all.
 * Even if it was intended to be involved, it wasn't one of the 40 ship present because it wasn't present. – Fadm tyler 01:06, May 20, 2010 (UTC)

About Klingons at Wolf 359
I decided to place this here because I honestly think there were no Klingons in Wolf 359, dispite what says. I have asked numerous people (Including one who knows tons of Trek data by heart, he even has rememerized power output numbers of different phasers) and they all say there were no Klingons at Wolf 359. I even checked Ex-Astris-Scientia's huge article on Wolf 359 and saw not one reference to Klingons, only '39 Federation ships'. Enzo Aquarius 17:30, 27 Dec 2004 (CET)


 * I don't believe there were Klingons at Wolf 359, either. None were seen and none were mentioned. Maybe Klingon ships were destroyed by the Borg on their way to Earth, but there was no reference to them being at the battle itself. AJHayson


 * Not that this would be definitive proof that they made it to the battle, but didn't Admiral Hanson say something along the lines of "the Klingons are sending a few ships too". There isn't proof either way that Klingon ships ended up being involved, but I'm fairly sure Unity isn't the only reference to it. --Pearse 20:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Didn't he say either that he wouldn't be sure that they would make it right in time? 00:48, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Forum:Klingon ships at battle of wolf 359
Is there any evidence that the klingons fought in the battle of wolf 359. I know Adml Hansen told Picard in BoBW Pt. 1 that they asked for assistance, but do we know if any actually took part in the battle? Jaz 04:11, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC) Anyone?


 * I brought this issue up awhile ago, and it's a difficult one, mainly due to a reference in Star Trek: Voyager (Or rather a comment by a battle 'survivor') that Klingons were in the battle. However, despite this comment, I personally don't think Klingons were actually in the Battle of Wolf 359 itself, but maybe tried to stop the Borg cube on it's journey to Earth. Again, as I said, a difficult issue. - Adm. Enzo Aquarius 02:15, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Except, didn't season 2 of TNG establish that the Borg were trying to probe through Romulan space, to find out about the Alpha Quadrant? and that they also took the same path during their invasion? meaning they would have passed through Romulan space, making it kind of hard for the Klingons to have intercepted them.
 * Of course if you take Voyager into account, then it almost doesn't make sense that the Borg would bother flying through the Alpha Quadrant at all when they apparently have a transwarp conduit that goes directly into Earth orbit.. come to think of it, when you consider that it seems rather odd that they didn't keep dumping cubes out of that one conduit every other day until they had control of Earth. Or for that matter, since other episodes of Voyager established that the transwarp conduits were thousands of years old, why didn't the Borg Sphere in First Contact try and use one to contact the 21st century Borg? Or for that matter, why didn't the Borg from Regeneration do the same thing?
 * I'll tell you why... because--205.188.116.9 16:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Because it's possible the Borg Collective built that conduit after Wolf 359. After all this battle took place in 2367 while the final episode of Voyager took place in 2378, twelve years later. The same goes for the Battle of Sector 001 in First Contact (which took place in 2373, five years earlier). And I think it's safe to set our egos aside and postulate that it is possible that humanity is not the Borg Collective's first target for assimilation in the galaxy. Also that "thousands of years old" part is just plain wrong; since that scale of years has never been mentioned in canon and that the Borg encountered Species 262 in the 22nd century (assuming that the Borg designations are chronological, which is fairly backed up in canon; aside from the Ferengi). -Lord Hyren 02:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Didn't "The Drumhead" say the Klingons were there? --74.61.228.199 08:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay. here is how it is, less than a day from the battle, approx. 0.9 stardates to be exact(ish), Hansen said: "Klingons are sending warships" clearly expecting they would make it in time. That's all we have in canon. 40 Starfleet ships were in the fleet at that time allready. "The Drumhead" states only that 39 "of our" (= Starfleet) ships were destroyed. In apocrypha we have the depiction of the Klingon reinforcements: at least one Klingon Bird-of-Prey, at least three K't'inga-class and one Vor'cha-class starships in the 1997 Marvel Comics Star Trek: Voyager issue #10. Until we have canon confirmation however, this information must remain in the apocrypha section. --Pseudohuman 17:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There is also the matter of Klingon ships seen in the Borg memory sequence of as food for thought (and obviously fuel for speculation), but some sort of fact, nonetheless. --Alan 20:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Forum:Ships lost at wolf 359
How many ships were lost at the battle of wolf 359--IP User:24.208.221.223 01:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * 39, as listed on the article. Although I believe they said "forty" a couple times, but that's just an average. - AJ Halliwell 01:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What I have usually heard and read is that 40 ships were present, 39 destroyed, implying that one survived/got away/retreated. --OuroborosCobra talk |undefined  01:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Hansen's ship?
I was under the impression that Admiral Hanson's ship was the Melbourne. How then could Adm. Hanson make a last ditch effort at the end of the battle if his ship was the first to be destroyed? --


 * There are known to be two Melbournes at Wolf 359. The Nebula class ship is seen both in and  and the Excelsior model only seen in Emissary. It is possible that the Melbourne which Hanson is on was the Nebula class which is known to have survived longer into the battle then its Excelsior class namesake --Mattyp48 17:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * According to the script of the episode, Hansen's ship was a Galaxy-class ship, his message was sent from a Galaxy-class battle bridge. The association with Hansen and the Melbourne comes from apocrypha: the 1997 Marvel Comics Star Trek: Voyager issue #10. Other than that there is no indication it was the Melbourne. --Pseudohuman 17:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * ah my mistake, however that said a Proto Nebula hull can clearly be seen in both the above named episodes, as a result should it not be added to the list of ships at Wolf 359 but be given an unknown name and an unknown registry?
 * It was, and no. The majority of MA users feel that the Excelsior-Melbourne was used to retcon the proto-Nebula entirely "out of canon". Similarly as the remastered-TOS ships retcon the original ships. There was a discussion about this that lasted for years in Talk:USS Melbourne and a long discussion about how MA deals with retcons too in Forum:Retcons. --Pseudohuman 14:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The thing can be seen floating upside down past Siskos shuttlepod. The name might have been changed, but a proto-nebula was at the battle, that ship might not have been the melbourne, but it clearly fought along side it.
 * That would be the image on the bottom of the USS Melbourne page, essentially. --Alan 21:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, please Mattyp48, read all the previous discussions on this subject first and feel free to open them up again at their own talk pages (not here) if you feel you have something new to add. --Pseudohuman 11:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The Borg Drones That Got Away
The Wolf 359 cube initiated self destruct in orbit of Earth (despite the fact the drones where meant to be 'asleep'). Yet, there are several canon references that say some drones on the Wolf 359 cube survived, perhaps going straight back to the Delta Quadrant. Not least, the Queen herself. In First Contact the Queen and Picard's interaction allude to the fact that she was the same Queen as in that cube. Many Voyager episodes also show people/drones that were supposedly assimilated in Wolf 359 and survived, as mentioned in the main article, eg. Laura. Indeed, when Picard asks the Queen how she got away she says that "You think in such three-dimensional terms". So, when the Borg initiated self-destruct in that cube did it hide the fact that some drones were transwarp-ing out of there or using extra-dimensional escape routes? --


 * That message was probably made years ago, but anywho... Some Borg might've beamed to a disabled Starfleet ship in order to assimilate it, and then warped off to the Delta Quadrant after the Cube had carried on heading for Earth. The Queen's resurrection could be anything from telepathy to some sort of dimensional fiddling(that's a highly technical term you may not be familiar with). --Pearse 22:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Another possible explanation - Star Trek: First Contact clearly illustrates that Borg cubes (at least some of them) are equipped with smaller vessels (the Borg Sphere). Since there is no canon evidence to contradict it, it appears reasonable that the Cube at Wolf 359 would also have a Sphere onboard.  If that is the case, the Battle could have taken place, then the Sphere could have seperated from the Cube.  At that point, the Cube continued onto Earth and the Sphere returned to the Delta Quadrant. Starfleet personnel could have been assimilated at the Battle and taken to the Delta Quadrant by the Sphere.  In addition, this would mean that both the Borg Queen and Seven of Nine could have been present at the Battle and survived by returning to the Delta Quadrant before the Cube was destroyed.  Also, since there are large periods of time during  (both before and after the Battle) where the action focuses on the Enterprise, not the Cube, we can't be certain what the Borg are doing exactly.  These events could have simply taken place offscreen. 65.185.148.131 11:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It would seem to me that since, as the Borg Queen puts it, she is the Collective, destroying her body wouldn't kill her. So it's not that she "escaped", but that she was never in any danger at all. She had a physical body on the cube that was destroyed, but she exists everywhere the Borg exist. Replacing the body obviously isn't a problem, since she shows up again in Voyager even after Picard and Data "kill" her in First Contact. 24.214.230.66 08:16, January 12, 2012 (UTC)

Constitution refit
What is this evidence on the Constitution refit? If none can be provided, it should be removed. --OuroborosCobra talk 13:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * here --Shisma 14:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Transwarp
It wouldn't be a good script if the Borg managed to transwarp directly to Earth's atmosphere so I understand why the cube was traveling towards the Sol sector at warp giving the writers time for an interesting story. But I still haven't seen an explanation in any of the shows of why the Borg didn't just arrive directly at Earth like that. Could there ever be a plausible explanation? because I'm sure it would make a good story. --
 * Simple, the Borg didn't start utilizing transwarp until around the time of (when it was frist mentioned). Or that the Borg had not yet begun building transwarp conduits inside the Alpha Quadrant or Beta Quadrant just yet. After all, the collective missed assimilating a lot of species in their own quadrant. -Lord Hyren 02:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It's also possible that the transwarp conduits are natural, stable phenomena that the Borg have simply learned to access and use. Maybe the closest exit is light-years away from Sector 001
 * I don't think so. The transwarp conduit used in was very close to Earth. --OuroborosCobra talk 06:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As demonstrated in VOY, Borg Cubes generate transwarp conduits artificially. Also Borg Cubes used transwarp at least as early as the 2350s according to Dark Frontier. So it remains a mystery from the in-universe perspective. =) --Pseudohuman 00:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Out of curiosity
Would photos taken at Star Trek The Adventure be considered a reliable source for the ships lost at Wolf 359? If so, I have a few I can upload from a display that listed all 39 of the Federation's losses. (http://www.treknation.com/reviews/star_trek_the_adventure_review.shtml)
 * No, not canon. --Alan 22:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

removed section
As a featured article with some incites, I removed the following:

Although most of the major battles of the Dominion War seven years later were fought on a much greater scale, Wolf 359 itself will be remembered as the incident that broke centuries of near-total peace for the Federation and heralded a tumultuous decade of conflict to come.


 * as uncited. It'd be nice to see some sort of statement supporting this, since the article is a FA.  "Centuries of near-total peace" also seems a little exaggerated, given the Cardassian wars, the Tzenkethi war, and the Talarian conflict.--31dot 13:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Ships at Wolf 359
I think that it is entirely possible that the Klingons could have had a least a couple of ships in the vicinity and I denounce the idea of the USS Endeavor being the starship that survived. After seeing the wreckage of the battle it is highly improbable that the Borg cube would have let anyone survive or even escape. - Thetrekker
 * On what do you base your assertion that the Endeavour was not the surviving ship? Janeway read from log entry of an Endeavour that participated in a battle against the Borg.  Since they were already in the DQ when  occurred, it could not have been that battle it survived.  Now, it is certainly not definitive that the battle it survived was Wolf 359, but there is at least evidence to support that.--31dot 20:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

possible isn't enough. It needs to be the definite truth. Sometimes I find it sad or annoying, but Memory Alpha would rather have holes or blank spots than make something up to fill that hole. Then again you see some things people add now and again that makes you cherish that rule. – Saphsaph 06:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

USS Ahwahnee
According to the article on the USS Ahwahnee the ship is active and as such was not destroyed at Wolf 359.

If this is the case and only one ship out of the 40 survived the battle and as of yet there is no other proof of another ship that got away would that not suggest that the ship out of the 40 that was not destroyed was the Ahwahnee --Mattyp48 17:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ahwahnee did not "get away", because it was seen on screen in the debris field as an abandoned derelict. It was how ever somewhat intact and presumably repaired in time for "Redemption II". But I agree, it wasn't completely lost as such. But I think Satie counted it in with the 39 in "The Drumhead", but who knows.--Pseudohuman 17:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

My mistake in using the term "got away", probably not the best term to use. However if we accept that there were 40 ships at Wolf 359 and 39 were destroyed then the Ahwahnee most be the only surviving ship, as it didnt get away in the sense of it fleeing the battle however it is 'adrift but salvageable' much like the Defiant during the Battle of Sector 001, and no one would consider that to have been lost during that battle --Mattyp48 22:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. However "adrift but salvageable" was not the term used in BoBW2 instead they looked with horror at the devastation, "No active subspace fields, negligible power readings, no lifesigns". And there were several ships in the same derelict condition, that were still mostly intact hulls. And the 39 statement must also be taken in-context. Satie was passionately accusing Picard of mass murder trying to make the destruction and death toll seem as big as possible. The "adrift but salvageable" was said when Picard was trying to comfort Worf. Perhaps all of the wrecks at Wolf 359 were adrift and salvageable too. We may never know. Other than that, I agree with you, you may be absolutely right. It's still too vague to be definitive proof, me thinks. --Pseudohuman 00:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Starfleet recovery time?
The article states that it took "several years" to return to previous deployment levels. Is there a source for this? In "Best of Both Worlds" they state that it should take less than a year to get the fleet back up to strength.


 * You are correct. Shelby says she'd have to fleet restored in less than a year. I've edited the article. I also removed the part that said "with so many ships on deep space exploration, the Federation was unprepared for any conflicts with the Cardassians" or something along those lines. There's never been any indication that Starfleet's scientific or exploration programs compromised Starfleet's ability to defend the Federation -Robert DeSoto 02:38, May 12, 2011 (UTC)

Removed section
I took out this part for being speculation/opinion:


 * Tactically, Starfleet appeared to use a "wave" assault while engaging the cube. This in turn allowed the Borg cube to simply pick off the Starfleet ships one at a time (as it does with the USS Melbourne, USS Saratoga then presumably the USS Yamaguchi and USS Bellerophon next). In Star Trek: First Contact when engaging a second cube, the Federation fleet appears to "swarm" their target. As reported by Data after the arrival of the Enterprise, that cube had sustained heavy damage - something not even closely achieved at the battle of Wolf 359.

I'm putting it here in case someone thinks that its simply good observation that is okay for the article. Blair2009 02:31, February 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * If a 'wave assault' is ships attacking in groups 1 ater the other or like the 'Human wave attack' from wikipedia, that seemed to be the way they did it, but not enough of the battle was shown to have that put down as fact. – Fadm tyler 16:52, February 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * The statement includes plenty of valid facts though. Only the note must be changed to begin with "In the scenes shown of the battle, Starfleet used" instead of "Tactically, Starfleet appeared to use". This way we would remove the speculation that this was the tactic used throughout the battle. --Pseudohuman 00:37, February 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Not quite. What that would be is original research which means that unless you have a production note saying what it was then it doesn't belong. &mdash; Morder (talk) 00:41, February 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not quite true either. We are not a group of invalids incapable of independent thought based on valid observations. This ongoing effort to dumbing MA down to the point that it is almost useless is getting tiresome. --Alan 01:12, February 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, we can put what we saw there. We don't need a production source to tell us what we plainly could see. --OuroborosCobra talk 01:32, February 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * It's still someone's personal observation that isn't necessary in the article. But, whatever... &mdash; Morder (talk) 01:42, February 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * It's also a personal observation that Picard said "engage," we have it. --OuroborosCobra talk 01:48, February 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd replace this comment with short videos of the FC battle and Wolf 359, so that readers can see the style of combat for themselves. Do we have support for videos here? – NotOfTheBody 21:47, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

39 out of 40 ships.. Which one survived?
Self-explanatory. Anyone have a reference for this?
 * No, it was never stated which one it was. The background section has more info on this. - 03:03, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

3 Lists
Wondering why there are three lists and why they haven't been merged into one list. If they are broken up for ease of how they are referenced, wouldn't two lists be better...one for the ones seen onscreen, the second with each ship and how it is referenced? That or just one large list with the comments after. Just curious is all. Leobold1 03:14, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * The reason is our POV and canon policies. The first list is strictly canon, the second has info from non-canon sources while the third is from the books and comics. - 09:25, December 7, 2010 (UTC)

Changing Starfleet philosophy?
I'm gonna remove the following section

Perhaps more importantly, Starfleet's entire philosophy began to sway towards more offensive, combat-ready starships – warships, to be more precise. Although Starfleet avoided using such a classification, euphemisms such as "escort" or "tactical cruiser" were substituted instead. Such previously controversial designs with heavy armaments, such as the Defiant-class, gained more support following the battle in light of the heightened Borg threat. (DS9: "The Search, Part I")

Although we've seen more militaristic designs such as the Sovereign and Akira class starships, there's never been any canon link to the Borg threat. Also, I've never heard of a Federation tactical cruiser. Ambassador and Constitution class ships were considered heavy cruisers, but that was way before first contact with the Borg. The only ship that we know of that was specifically inspired by the Borg threat is the Defiant. I had always believed that research on the Defiant began after Q Who. Shelby said she was working on new weapons systems, I figured maybe she was talking about Defiant class phasers and quantum torpedoes. Admiral Hanson threw every available resource into developing a defense against the Borg because they knew that Cube was coming. Sisko said the development on the Defiant stopped when the Borg threat became less urgent. I figured this was after Wolf 359, since that Cube had been destroyed. Of course I could be wrong, but even if I am, I don't think the addition of one warship class constitutes a change in Starfleet's "entire" philosophy of peaceful exploration. Robert DeSoto 03:17, May 12, 2011 (UTC)

Merge proposition
I've added a merge proposition with Battle of Wolf 359-article for the following reasons: --Sennim 03:04, June 9, 2012 (UTC)
 * As it stands now, this article is more or less a orphaned one as it is very hard to find, especially for outsiders.
 * Even for insiders, this kind of info is relatively hard to find, due to poor redirecting
 * The article's length, is in comparison to the main article has not been too elaborate to warrant a split-off IMO


 * I tend to agree, the info would be much better suited on the page for the battle itself. This page could be kept as a redirect though. - 07:42, June 9, 2012 (UTC)
 * I also agree. 31dot 09:34, June 9, 2012 (UTC)


 * I disagree, needs better linking though, but this is a good simple list page for this subject and it doesn't need to be merged. --Pseudohuman 10:49, June 9, 2012 (UTC)
 * We've tried to move away from simple list pages over time, and it seems odd that page on the battle does not list the starships involved; as Sennim said, it's not easy to find for most users. 31dot 12:09, June 9, 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge - there's no real reason not to have this info on the page for the battle itself.–Cleanse ( talk 23:20, June 9, 2012 (UTC)


 * Only reason why I would oppose is because this is one of those big separate subjects that the listing of these ships alone is such a big thing for many people. One direction to develop this page might be to expand this page with a picture gallery something like this of the known ships here. -Pseudohuman 23:40, June 9, 2012 (UTC)

In my view the fact that it "is such a big thing for many people" is even an additional argument to have it merged as a separate section with the main article as they most likely will firstly search with "Battle of Wolf 359" in mind. Just my thoughts on it.--Sennim 15:05, June 13, 2012 (UTC)


 * While better linking would probably be beneficial in this case, I support the suggestion to merge. --Defiant 15:30, June 13, 2012 (UTC)

Removed section
I removed this as it is in my opinion just fan-speculation to contemplate that the Akira is in any way connected to the events of Wolf 359. Or that it has been refitted from some previous design as a result of Wolf 359.
 * Though the Defiant-class has been established as being a direct result of the Battle of Wolf 359, it is conceivable that at least one of the ships introduced in Star Trek First Contact, the, was also a result of that battle. While it is highly unlikely that a major ship class like the Akira would have been developed and deployed in substantial numbers in such a short time, retrofitting an existing design would have been possible. It was certainly designer Alex Jaeger's intent for it to be a purely military ship, "This was my gunship/battlecruiser/aircraft carrier. It has 15 torpedo launchers and two shuttlebays – one in front, with three doors, and one in the back." (Star Trek: The Magazine, Volume 1, Issue 3, p. 48), making it one of the most heavily armed starships seen in the franchise.

--Pseudohuman 15:52, June 24, 2012 (UTC)

Star Trek World Tour chart
In the apocrypha section, there is a chart exhibit mentioned, which listed the names of 26 starships that fought at Wolf 359. --GDK (talk) 11:21, January 14, 2013 (UTC)
 * Has anyone found a photo of this chart?
 * Was this chart created for the World Tour or was it (at least intended to be) used as a display in the thes series?

Removed chart
I'm removing this section since it is based on an unsubstiated claim made by a random internet user of a forum and may simply be made up since we don't have a picture of it. We need confirmation. --Pseudohuman (talk) 22:15, August 28, 2013 (UTC)

According to a Flare Sci-Fi Forums user, the Star Trek World Tour in Vienna featured a chart plaque listing the names of 26 starships that fought at Wolf 359. Only the Roosevelt has been mentioned in canon as a ship that fought in the battle. The USS Pueblo has also been mentioned in an okudagram in, but not in connection to the battle. The Falcon was mentioned in the script of as one of the ships Mark Jameson had served on. Other than the names, there was no information on each ships class or registry. The additional 25 apocryphal ships were:


 * I have seen one picture of the chart years ago. However, this photo was probably taken clandestinely, as the vistors to the tour were told expressly that photographing was forbidden.Throwback (talk) 00:10, August 29, 2013 (UTC)

At least its a real chart then :) but we still need a pic to actually verify that all the names are correct before this can be in the article. --Pseudohuman (talk) 00:26, August 29, 2013 (UTC)

Destruction of Borg cube
I have included the description "Cube destroyed", because the cube is seen to have been self-destructed by a Starfleet expedition in the episode.
 * The cube wasn't destroyed in the battle, it was destroyed afterward. We note the difference. - 20:41, April 4, 2013 (UTC)
 * And likewise the damaging of the Enterprise-D you had inserted, occurred before the battle not during. Prelude is not the same as the battle proper--Sennim (talk) 13:52, April 5, 2013 (UTC)

Survivors can't be listed because...?
This article pertains to the ships, yes, but why would survivors not be allowed to be mentioned especially when there were two other noteworthy ships aside from the USS Ahwahnee that went into extra detail on such? It wasn't long and I don't see how it doesn't pertain to the subject? YOu can't have a ship without a crew, they're just as relevant.--Spock78 (talk) 00:52, August 24, 2013 (UTC)
 * That ship's entry goes into detail about the ship. Not the crew. We know nothing about 95% of the crews involved, so we can't speculate. We know details about the ships. -- sulfur (talk) 00:56, August 24, 2013 (UTC)


 * For one I'm not sure where you are getting the information about the USS Ahwahnee. All that is know is that it was part of the wreckage at Wolf 359 and was later put back into service as it was seen in . I know of no dialogue stating it's loss, such as all hands lost or if there were survivors. The dialogue you are looking to add in is speculation not fact. We know that the ships were destroyed because they were seen on screen stated as being destroyed. We don't know the status of their crews, apart from the Saratoga and the Melbourne.--BorgKnight (talk) 01:00, August 24, 2013 (UTC)

I didn't add ANY information about the Ahwahnee, it was already listed that way prior to me adding the information about the crews. And it's not speculation when it was clearly stated in dialogue from those episodes, is included in the sites articles of the ships from canon material (episodes, movies, etc.) and no number was ever stated (hence the "or" and "unknown"). It is a fact that some people escaped, became assimilated or actually were dealt the final blow in battle as well as it being unclear how many lived or died.

The reason I argue that we must include these is due to the possibility that once the site visitors are done reading about the ships lost, they're going to possibly wonder what happened to each ship's crew but not necessarily want to click on each individual ship's page link. We don't know anything about the other ships destroyed but we do know a few details about these three ships.--Spock78 (talk) 01:40, August 24, 2013 (UTC)


 * I know you didn't add the information about the Ahwahnee, I was saying that because you referenced as an example. And the dialogue your talking about, please if you know of it place a quote here of any dialogue that mentions those survivors in the episode. I know of only two references to survivors from the battle and they are not from the episode.  we see survivors of the Saratoga and in  we learn of assimilation of crew members of the Melbourne.


 * Also what you are saying about placing the information in about the survivors, regardless that it is speculation, it should be just of the status of the ships. If a user wants to learn about the status of the crew it is just a click away. --BorgKnight (talk) 02:39, August 24, 2013 (UTC)

Speculation is when people are trying to determine something with hardly any evidence while coming to a conclusion. This mention of an unknown amount of people encountering one of the three fates is fact as mentioned by characters in those episodes on the ship's pages. It is unknown because they themselves say they do not know and a number is not given.

The crew is a central part about each ship's status so it should pertain to this subject.--Spock78 (talk) 02:51, August 24, 2013 (UTC)


 * Firstly please keep your indentation. What I undid was this statement "unknown number of crew survivors and those killed in action". This statement basically says there was a number of crew survivors, it's just unknown. It is not known whatsoever if any crew member survives on any ship, apart from the Saratoga and Melbourne.


 * And about the status, regardless about survivors they shouldn't be added to it. We don't add details about the crew status in the starship sidebars, just the status of the ship itself so the same should be done here. It is just extra information that is available elsewhere. --BorgKnight (talk) 03:00, August 24, 2013 (UTC)

It should be made available there regardless.--Spock78 (talk) 06:38, August 24, 2013 (UTC)


 * It is not even information in the most basic sense if we just list all possibilities. We don't go around and add the phrase "he either is dead or he isn't" to all our people article, or "this species could be extinct, endangered or well alive" to species articles, or "this may still be state of the art, or deprecated" to articles about technology. In each case we could, because it is a list of valid options - it just doesn't make any sense to do so, because it doesn't add real information, and readers aren't that stupid that they need multiple choice sentences at the end of each article. Same here. --Cid Highwind (talk) 08:56, August 24, 2013 (UTC)


 * As for the Melbourne, all we know based on "Infinite Regress" is that a mother of a crew member from the Melbourne who was herself on another ship during the battle, was assimilated before she found out what happened to her son in the battle. So basically absolutely nothing. --Pseudohuman (talk) 10:25, August 24, 2013 (UTC)

It's the same thing as what we did with the Borg queen's state of existence and continuity of escaping or supposedly dying. It does add real information because it actually happened and since it is valid, it is an option. It makes sense in that it discerns the difference between all the other ships at the battle. We don't know what happened with all forty ships but we do know what happened to at least two of them.

For the Melbourne, we know that a person was assimilated during the battle. That's all we need to add.--Spock78 (talk) 15:07, August 24, 2013 (UTC)


 * Your indentation is 0 colons, not "one more than the last guy". Please keep that indentation. Also, please explain how/why we couldn't state about any other ship involved that "an unknown number of crew members was KIA, an unknown number survived and an unknown number was assimilated". In fact, we can say that about every ship exactly because it conveys no information. -- Cid Highwind (talk) 15:18, August 24, 2013 (UTC)


 * She was not a crew member of the Melbourne. --Pseudohuman (talk) 15:25, August 24, 2013 (UTC)

Because characters made light of it and proof of it during the episode, it is knowledgeable and therefore informative. We can't say that about any other ship because we don't know their status other than their ships being destroyed.--Spock78 (talk) 15:32, August 24, 2013 (UTC)


 * Let this be the last time, because you have been told several times, keep your indentation at zero. Now what Pseudohuman said about the Melbourne is true we in fact no nothing about the crew itself, that was my mistake. So the only ship we do know about for sure is the Saratoga.


 * Also I agree with Cid Highwind, we don't put guesses in but fact, things we know happened. You are looking to put in the statement "unknown number of crew survivors and those killed in action". Putting that in the status, which if we do it for one we are going to be doing it for most of them because it can be said for most, it is stating that we know that there were survivors of the ship but we have no idea of that. --BorgKnight (talk) 17:47, August 24, 2013 (UTC)

Then we can change it to "unseen number..." or "ambiguous number of..." plain and simple.--Spock78 (talk) 18:03, August 24, 2013 (UTC)


 * That is the same thing you are just changing the wording --BorgKnight (talk) 18:12, August 24, 2013 (UTC)

Unseen- not seen or noticed; not foreseen or predicted. Ambiguous- open to more than one interpretation; having a double meaning; unclear or inexact because a choice between alternatives has not been made. Unknown- unfamiliar or known.--Spock78 (talk) 18:38, August 24, 2013 (UTC)


 * My point is saying that is saying there were survivors where as we don't know. You are still saying statements such as "unseen number" and "ambiguous number of..." that there was a number of survivors. We don't know that at all.


 * Anyway, regardless of that the general consensus seems to be here to leave status of the crew out and just leave in the status of the ship which is fact as it is seen on screen or mentioned in dialogue --BorgKnight (talk) 18:48, August 24, 2013 (UTC)

The consensus can be improved upon so no arising questions lead to the crew that was aboard the ship. Then we can remove the mention of "number" and simply say "unknown survivors/people killed."--Spock78 (talk) 19:11, August 24, 2013 (UTC)


 * Look we are just going in circles here, it has been stated by several others in this section that it shouldn't be put in, each giving valid reasons. I don't think it should go in for the same reasons. The section is called "Starships at Wolf 359". It is about the ships and its best to leave a brief description of their status, not having to go into too much detail about them that can be placed into their respective articles. Anyway that is my final point on the matter. --BorgKnight (talk) 19:28, August 24, 2013 (UTC)

I rest my case on the matter as well and either way, it's a brief description.--Spock78 (talk) 19:33, August 24, 2013 (UTC)