Talk:USS Cortez

Forum:Cortez ship class?
It seems to me that I remember this ship being a Galaxy class vessel, but it's not mentioned on its own page or on the Galaxy class page. But if I recall correctly in "Sacrifice of Angels" the Cortez was the first ship after the Defiant to break through the lines and reach DS9. Then shortly after that we see a Galaxy class ship docked there. Does anyone have any reference to this (similar to the inference we make about the Venture because of Way of the Warrior)? Logan 5 17:58, 17 Sep 2005 (UTC)

C'mon, people! Someone reference! I just rewatched parts of the episode and here's what I can say: There are at least 4 and maybe as many as 6-7 Galaxy-class ships in that episode. We know the Magellan and Venture are two of them. The Trinculo's page says it was involved but it doesn't say how we know that, unless the Registry number has been recorded by someone and it just isn't mentioned there. Also, the Cortez is mentioned specifically as signaling that the Dominion fleet is falling back to which Sisko orders them to rendez-vous at DS9. The next shot shows a docked Galaxy, two Excelsiors, and a docked Miranda. Personally, I think that could lead us to suppose the Cortez is Galaxy class. In addition to the circumstantial evidence from this episode it also fits with the naming of the Magellan. I can't be the only one that's ever assumed the Cortez was Galaxy class, can I? Logan 5 05:36, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC)


 * The Venture was clearly stated as being the lead ship of the Federation reinforcements, which logically would be a Galaxy class starship. Whereas the Cortes just happened to be the first ship to make it through the lines behind the Defiant, which was just a matter of skill or luck, it could be any one of those ships docked a the station at the end of the episode, or none of them. Either way, there is a clear distinction between how one could clearly single out the Venture from a group of ships by the minor description given on it, versus the Cortes, which had none, other than being a random ship. As I recall, the end shot from Sacrifice of Angels wasn't as you described, but included the Yeager and a Nebula and perhaps a couple of those you described, but it clearly wasn't a reuse of the shot from WotW. --Alan del Beccio 05:41, 26 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Uhm...I just watched it the other night and definitely didn't see a Nebula there so maybe you could re-check. Agree that the Venture was stated as the lead ship and that's why I'm hesitant on the Cortez, but what I'm really hoping is that someone can catch the registry number on the Galazy that's docked at DS9 in that scene. Logan 5 19:58, 26 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Also, two things: First, the end shot of the episode is as you describe, but the shot immediately after the battle as I describe so I think my question still stands. Second, checking the page for USS Magellan it's listing as a Galaxy is entirely based on conjecture from dialogue and the next ship seen in the shot. Based on that we should be able to use the same reasoning for the Cortez. Logan 5 03:13, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Proper spelling
IP user: This name is misspelled according to the rules of Spanish orthography. It should either be Cortez or Cortés. The explorer's name was Hernán Cortés. --User:Captainmike 00:13, October 27, 2005
 * Yes, but I believe this is how it appeared in the script. Jaz talk]] 05:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Starship class
Does anyone agree that the Cortez is most likely the Miranda class vessel seen at entering the screen at the top left which can be easily seen leaning to almost 45 degrees to the left/right, while the rest of the fleet is moving through space "horizontally", just before Sisko is told that the Cortez is having thruster problems? I don't have any screen caps handy just now sorry. --User:Breakinguptheguy 23:12, February 8, 2006


 * I watched the episode and I could't see any ship noticably on its side although my version is my backup downloaded copy. Jaz talk]] 05:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Take a look at the fleet shot in minute 42 of 'Favor the Bold' (42:47 onwards specifically) - in the bottom right of the frame a Miranda class vessel is banking left to right with a pivot on the port nacelle - the only ship in the fleet shot with exception of the fighters and the Defiant to do such a thing. Could possibly be the Cortez? Even though a crew of 400 seems awfully high for a 24rd century Miranda.. --193.170.132.236 17:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC) /ChallengerSTA

That's the same vessel I was referring to back in 2006; I think it's fair to assume that that ship is the Cortez Breakinguptheguy 14:09, April 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * "Fair to assume", but certainly not accurate to assume. --Alan 15:28, April 25, 2010 (UTC)

ship named after a genocidal conqueror?
I found the name of this ship extremely jarring when I heard it first on screen. It'd be like Starfleet naming a ship the "USS Hitler" or "USS Pol Pot". Is it fairly safe to assume, then, judging from the obvious mismatches in ideology between this man and the Federation (and the fact that this is not even how his name is spelled), that the ship is in fact *not* named after the "conquistador"? --81.158.147.90 04:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Take your pick:, . --Starfleetjedi 05:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Renaming
I just wish that people would bring things up for discussion here rather than arbitrarily renaming pages from "USS Cortéz" to "USS Cortez". -- sulfur 19:25, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * The issue was discussed above. --Columbia clipper 19:57, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

Four years ago. And two people commented. Two. Four years ago. -- sulfur 20:02, June 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * The article title was previously changed to include the diacritic without discussion. It actually looked to me like someone had decided to arbitrarily "correct" a production English spelling to the Spanish spelling of Hernán Cortés's name - which is only a presumed name source.  Moving the article restored the title to what it was when the issue was last discussed - which was also the last supported spelling.


 * I suppose, though, I could have raised the issue again. I don't usually read the time-stamps on comments, so I didn't notice that the comments were so old. --Columbia clipper 20:23, June 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * The spelling should be however it was spelled in the script(or seen in canon), whether it was spelled correctly or not.--31dot 20:41, June 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * That was my understanding of wiki policy. --Columbia clipper 20:44, June 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * It is still good to bring up something major like a page move on the talk page first. :) --31dot 22:40, June 30, 2010 (UTC)