Talk:Centaur type

PNA-inaccurate

What is the source of the dimmenstion? Jaz ^talk 00:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

...dimensions, or mass, or crew, or armament. All, or most, of this seems to be copied from ditl.org, where it is clearly marked as "DITL speculation". As always, some days to find a proper reference, before I'm going to remove those parts. -- Cid Highwind 18:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The only actual information I know of for the dimensions would be from the DS9 TM, and therefore only for use in background. Much of the weapons stuff could come from the visuals on screen. --OuroborosCobra ^talk Pirates! 18:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

If they're not canon (I doubt they are), then they should be removed.... quikcly. Yesyes? --From Andoria with Love 20:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

move it to the background, to some section regarding what the tech manual states about the ship. Which I will probably be doing or have done by the time someone else reads this. --Alan del Beccio 22:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

When I said the information "would" be from the TM, I meant "could" be. I know there is an entry that is supposedly for this ship, and it has dimensions. --OuroborosCobra ^talk Pirates! 23:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Copied from USS Centaur Talk page

I recently reverted an edit about the Centaur being a destroyer, with the summary being that it was stated in dialogue in Sacrifice of Angels. I actually was afraid this was going to happen, so I looked up the exact dialogue:

"Have Destroyer Units Two and Six move in closer -- they need more cover fire. And tell Captains Diego and Reynolds to stay alert, they may try to outflank us."

This confirms that the USS Centaur was present, but not that it was part of either destroyer unit. They are seperate sentences, and could be directed at seperate people. I will let this go for a couple of days, giving others time to respond, but if this is the only evidence, I would say it is not enough to have in the main article. I would not be opposed to a note being added to background saying that it might be a destroyer. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 17:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

In the STRICTEST sense, it does not confirm it, as someone pointed out above (it could be a different Captain Reynolds). However, if we accept that it IS Capt Reynolds of the USS Centaur, then we must turn attention to the quote itself.

First we have other dialog mentioning "cruiser wings" "Galaxy wings" and "Fighter Squadrons". In each case it is the accepted meaning that they refer to formations made up of the type ship named, ie cruisers, Galaxy-class, and fighters. So I find it reasonable that a reference to "destroyer units" would refer to units of ships of the destroyer-type.

Second we have the wording of the specific quote. Sisko gives orders to "Destroyer Units 2 and 6" to advance and provide covering fire. He then uses the word "and", indicating that the next order is ALSO for the DU 2 and 6. That order, addressed to Capts Diego and Reynolds, is to "stay alert" against the possibility of being flanked. Proper military protocol for issuing orders to a unit is to address the orders to the unit's CO, who is responsible for passing them onto their subordinate units.

So we have Sisko issuing the order to DU2 (under Captain Diego) and DU 6 (under Captain Reynolds) to A)advance and provide cover fire and B)stay alert.

Thus, if we accept that the Capt Reynolds is the SAME Capt Reynolds as earlier, and that he still commands the Centaur (and at that point we have no evidence that is NOT the case), then we have the Centaur in a Destroyer Unit, and thus it is a destroyer-type starship. If not, then all mention of Reynolds being at "Operation Return" needs to be erased from all affected articles.--Capt Christopher Donovan 09:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I accept that there are destroyer units there, and that Reynolds is there, but the script has those two orders as seperate sentences. I know, you can't start a sentence with the word "and", but that is what the script does. I put to you this, he is telling the destroyer units move in closer, that means away from the flanks. He then gives a seperate order to Reynolds and Diego to stay alert for a the enemy trying to outflank them. That implies Reynolds and Diego are at the flanks, the outside, away from the destroyers.

Also, what if the sentence had read "Have destroyer units move in. And have Picard and Diego stay alert." Would we then be saying the Enterprise-E was a destroyer? No, we would be saying that the two orders are seperate, and not directed to the same people. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 10:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

In the context of the way military orders are passed, yes I would. I would then say the writers had fragged up about the Enterprise, but the dialog cited is quite clear and explicit.

If Sisko was giving orders to two units to advance, and then giving orders to two OTHER units to do something else, then it would go something like this: "Have Destroyer Units 2 and 6 move in closer--they need more coverfire. Then contact Captains Diego and Reynolds and tell them to stay alert, they may try to outflank us..."

Both proper grammar and proper military protocol in giving orders lead us to the same conclusion: all the orders Sisko gave are for DU 2 and 6, under the command of Capts Diego and Reynolds, respectively.--Capt Christopher Donovan 11:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I still don't completely buy it, but I am willing to go along with it. I'll start the edits. This article should actually just say starship, and the destroyer designation should be in the Centaur type article. Right now, that reads "Light Cruiser", based on the DS9 TM, but as we all now, on-screen dialogue supersedes the TMs. I will also copy this discussion over there, and make the Destroyer article link to the Centaur-type, rather than the USS Centaur. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 11:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Speculation

I removed the following note from the background:

Another speculation is that this ship may be Chimera class. Some unofficial renderings show distinct similarities between the two. It would also follow that "Centaur" could be an example of similar class naming. Many ship classes around the world are all named with the same letter or theme. American ships may all take state or city names for the whole class. A British ships may all start with the same letter as viewed by their Aircraft carriers and Submarines. This might have been an attempt to duplicate this area of Naval tradition. "Centaur" and "Chimera" are both mythological beasts beginning with the letter C.

There is nothing to support this other than speculation. Background information should at least be supported with some sort of production related references, not one person's pov. --Alan del Beccio 22:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

How many

In one establishing shot of Starbase 375, when Sisko and Ross discuss the attack plan, I think there are 4 Centaurs in flyby. Am I right? If so, there'd be at least three others besides the USS Centaur.Kennelly 14:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

USS Buckner

Do we have a confirmed appearance in an episode for this ship? If not, it should get a real-world POV tag.--31dot 11:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, there was only one Centaur model, and that model was used to represent the Centaur. Because of research done on Ex Astris Scientia, we do know that the model was in fact labelled with a different name then Centaur, but it has never been seen clearly. Regardless of the alternate name, there is no canon evidence of this ship ever existing, nor is there evidence that there was more than one Centaur-type model, so I believe a delete tag is in order. Ambassador/Ensign_Q 13:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Alright, after a brief Internet search, I found this forum link: http://flare.solareclipse.net/ultimatebb.php/topic/6/2726/5.html on the subject. Ambassador/Ensign_Q 13:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I viewed a link provided by the author of this article(located on the Talk:USS Centaur#Registry redux page) which had Adam Buckner state that the Centaurl model that he built was labeled as the Buckner. If we are going to delete this, we should merge the information with the Centaur, but this article seems OK to me.--31dot 13:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Since this is more about the history of the studio model, perhaps it would be best merged as addressed on the Centaur type page. --Alan 17:45, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

The story Buckner/Centaur is indeed already told in the model section of the "Centaur type" and although the name was present on the model it was impossible to see and the "USS Buckner" is therefore not canon, since it was emphaticaly referred to as "USS Centaur". The article is true but contains no new or other info.--Sennim 18:03, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a merge is a good idea. - Archduk3:talk 18:44, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

PNA-incomplete

I propose a removal of the PNA as I think that everything about the subject that can be said, has been...To me the article seems solid enough...Any thougths?...Sennim 19:09, April 8, 2011 (UTC)

I've changed the title of this discussion to reflect the fact that this isn't about, or related to, the pna-inaccurate discussion. This is about a pna-incomplete. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 01:05, April 9, 2011 (UTC)

Since the in-universe section of the article is one sentence long with a list containing one link, I'm absolutely sure there is more than could be said about this. Just compare it too any of the other class or type articles. - Archduk3 (on an unsecure connection) 02:17, April 11, 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. All the stuff in the sidebar should be mentioned in the in-universe section of the article; sidebars aren't meant to replace article content. This is also a citation issue. The article doesn't say, for example, in which episode Warp 7 was "observed" or where it was referred to as a destroyer. –Cleanse ^{( talk | contribs )} 02:26, April 11, 2011 (UTC)

Look up for the latter. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 06:23, April 11, 2011 (UTC)

You´re right, I´m so into the background stuff, that I didn´t consider the in-universe pov--Sennim 09:20, April 11, 2011 (UTC)