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 Star Trek VI. 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