Vega colony anyone? or at least the Vega system, I mean Delta Vega could easily be Vega D, Vega 4, or Vega IV depending on how you read the delta, but it still seems like it should have been someone in the vega system--18.104.22.168 03:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
- "Captain's log, stardate 1312.9. Ship's condition – heading back on impulse power only. Main engines burned out. The ship's space-warp ability – gone. Earth bases, which were only days away are now years in the distance [...]"
- There's obviously no human colonies in the system of Delta Vega. This planet is only automated. - Philoust123 10:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
- Well, why not, without some sort of faster than c travel, Mars is years in the Distance, should we edit Earth to reflect the fact that it isn't really occupied? Besides, when they wrote the second pilot, they probably assumed The Cage would never see the light of day again, and just re-used the name 'Vega'--22.214.171.124 06:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- When Kirk talked about "Earth bases", he was not refering to bases from the Sol system, but rather human bases (like the "Earth Outposts" who are set near the Romulan Neutral Zone). The problem was clearly that the ship without distorsion was far away from any base (Earth or UFP bases), otherwise they just would have sent a distress call to the base for repairs. Ultimately, Spock find the planet Delta Vega, who is the closest.
- "We'll never reach an Earth base with him aboard. [...] Recommendation one - there's a planet a few light-days away from here, Delta Vega, it has a lithium cracking station. We may be able to adapt some of its power packs to our engines."
- Furthermore, Vega seems close to Earth and Rigel, which put the planet in a frequented trade route since the 22nd century (ECS Horizon). And the Enterprise is, in that particular episode, on a quite unexplored area of space.
- The only problem with that planet is the lack of protection. - Philoust123 17:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- Wouldn't it be an interesting note if we discovered Delta Vega was in the L-371, L-372 or L-373 system? (It wouldn't be L-370 or L-374, because then Kirk or Spock would surely have mentioned it. But if it was one of the other three, mention would have occurred off-screen.) Then, we can assume the planet and the cracking station... and Gary's remains... are gone, consumed by the planet killer! Gcapp1959 14:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm.... I just noticed that the sign on the entrance to the lithium cracking station spells the planet "Delta-Vega" (note the hyphen). This in mind, should we rename the page? -Angry Future Romulan 19:12, March 11, 2011 (UTC) Anybody? -Angry Future Romulan 20:09, March 14, 2011 (UTC)
- As a redirect perhaps, but the map in "Conspiracy" spells it as "Delta Vega". Do note that hyphens are considered the same as spaces in the new search engine though... -- sulfur 20:13, March 14, 2011 (UTC)
Alright, I made it a redirect. -Angry Future Romulan 20:29, March 14, 2011 (UTC)
In 2293, the location of Delta Vega in the Milky Way Galaxy was labeled in a star chart that was in Captain James T. Kirk's quarters aboard the USS Enterprise-A. (Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, okudagram) In 2367, the location of Delta Vega was labeled on a tactical situation monitor in Captain Benjamin Maxwell's ready room on the USS Phoenix. (TNG: "The Wounded", okudagram) In 2366, in an alternate timeline, during the Federation-Klingon War, the location of Delta Vega was labeled on a tactical situation monitor in the ready room aboard the USS Enterprise-D (TNG: "Yesterday's Enterprise", okudagram) This information is relevant to Delta Vega, the star.Throwback (talk) 12:11, July 19, 2014 (UTC)
Merge (originally from Delta Vega (star) Edit
There doesn't seem to be enough evidence to point to the conclusion that the map references were about a star called Delta Vega and not the planet called Delta Vega. Better to have a single article me thinks. --Pseudohuman (talk) 14:20, July 19, 2014 (UTC)
- We have a sector named Delta Vega. Canonically, the majority of known sectors are named after a people (the Cardassian sector, the Tholian sector) or after a star (the Sol sector, the Archanis sector). Yes, the maps could be possibly referring to a planet. Now, the problem for me with the maps is their inconsistency. I had to face this issue when it came to deciding what to do with the map from Star Trek VI. We had a list of locations. I had to answer the question, is this a star? is this a planet? When I couldn't answer this question, when there wasn't enough information, I called the location an astronomical object. In the case of Delta Vega, we have evidence that there is a star named Delta Vega in the name of the sector. So, I am opposed to the merger.Throwback (talk) 16:31, July 19, 2014 (UTC)
And then we have the Bajor sector, Takara sector, Rakhar sector all seemingly named after planets. And the one that clearly is: Genesis sector. I would say it is completely wrong to interpret that Delta Vega in the maps and in the sector name refers to a star. When we have a canonically established planet with that name. --Pseudohuman (talk) 17:14, July 19, 2014 (UTC)
- Do we know that for sure that these four examples are named after planets? They could have been named after stars. We have had systems that share the same name as the planet, for example, Qo'noS is in the Qo'noS system. And, the Qo'noS system is in the Qo'nos sector. And, looking at the images available about the Mutara Nebula, there was no sun near Regula. Yet, we have a star after the detonation of the Genesis device. Could the Genesis device created both a planet and a star? It's an open-ended question.Throwback (talk) 19:08, July 22, 2014 (UTC)
- I feel you have failed to answer the question and have resorted to a personal attack. The question is, Do you know that for sure that these four examples are named after planets?Throwback (talk) 05:03, July 30, 2014 (UTC)
I didn't answer, as it doesn't really matter. According to Star Trek: The Next Generation Writers' Technical Manual (season 4, pg. 19), "Sectors are properly known by a three-to-six digit number (i.e. Sector 18834), but many sectors have common names for their major star systems or planets." Not canon, but I assume these are the guides the writers go with when naming sectors. --Pseudohuman (talk) 11:54, July 30, 2014 (UTC)
- I read the first line of this thread, which to me sounds like, Could the map reference be a planet? I raise a point, you raise a counterpoint, I raise a point, then you counterpoint with a disparagment - thanks for that (I am being sarcastic), - and I attempt to "man up" by not responding negatively to someone I feel is acting as a troll and who I feel hostility towards and I attempt to bring the subject back to a question, and in your last post you evade answering by referring to a non-canon source. I feel it does matter that you do answer, in your own words, as you were the one who started this thread, with the question, could the map reference be a planet?Throwback (talk) 15:12, July 30, 2014 (UTC)
- You're just weighting different assumptions against each other hoping to somehow end up with a solid fact. Do we know that for sure that these four examples are named after planets? Could the map reference be a planet? Well, we know nothing of that sort for sure, and when it comes down to it anything could be a reference to anything. Now to synthesize these conclusions : we can't know for certain there's a star called Delta Vega, and therefore its problematic to have a page on the Delta Vega star. The closest thing to a valid, assumption-free page on this label would be a page on the label - essentially, what is known as a disambiguation page -- Capricorn (talk) 17:23, July 30, 2014 (UTC)
- I don't know how to do a disambiguation page. I have read the instructions, and I am baffled by them. At this point, I concede that I am unable to think and reason clearly. If there is a merger, so be it.Throwback (talk) 18:32, July 30, 2014 (UTC)