But once that step in the road to enlightenment is taken, then it becomes an issue of simply believing in what floats one's boat. I believe it's more "likely" that the registry was 1305-E and that a random computer error took place in "Contagion" - the sheer *number* or arguments for that seems crushing. I also believe that the Celsius scale has not been altered, and that Geordi LaForge (that kidder!) was just making one of his strange jokes there in "The Royale" (unfortunately with Data nowhere near him to correct the "error").

I do not try to impose any sort of systematic logic on my beliefs here, since I'm not engaged in a process of hunting down Trek "bugs". Instead, I'm engaged in a process of trying to understand Trek "features", even when they are contradictory, and I have to take a different approach on each "feature" to make it fit. When a line of dialogue has to be dismissed, I try to invent a reason to dismiss it (but with Riker and 1305-E, I can't). When a line of text or a special effect or a move made by an actor or his stuntman has to be dismissed, I try to invent a reason for that, too (and dismissing the "Contagion" registry seems easy enough - contrary to some arguments, we're NOT going to see the Yamato again, except perhaps in a calendar page or something).

Of course, it would be more systematic and logical to just hunt down the "bugs", and dismiss them on the merit of them not being "features". But I don't believe in the existence of "bugs" in the Trek universe - it's perfect and self-consistent, even if the TV show describing that universe is not.

Of the other ship classes, very few are actually canonical in the sense that they would have been mentioned in dialogue or seen clearly on a computer display. At least Constitution, Excelsior, Constellation, Sydney, Ambassador, Nebula, Galaxy, New Orleans, Intrepid, Prometheus and Defiant classes have been mentioned, but for example Miranda hasn't, AFAIK. Has Oberth been?

Personally, I lean to the 71807 side of the argument for two reasons:

1) It's more consistent with the prevailing numbering scheme (i.e. 5-digit registries for modern ships). AFAIK, the only other Galaxy-class ship (except for the E-D) that we saw clear enough to get a good glimpse of the registry was the Odyssey, and hers was 71832.

2) The only other Trek writing credit the writer had was for STII. It is therefore reasonable to assume he was unfamiliar with the staff's ideas as to how ships were to be numbered (if, indeed, anyone had informed him).

Canon: Riker made a statement that, taken at face value, the Yamato's registry is 1305-E.

Canon: The recording of the log of the Captain of the Yamato displayed on Picard's screen that either the Yamato's computer or the Enterprise's computer thought of the Yamato as having a different registry.

Both of these leave too much room for interpretation to claim this as an inherant, inevitable contradictions. One or both could be wrong. Riker could be joking. There could be multiple registries. The virus could have already started affecting the Enterprise computers. Any number of explainations are possible.

That's different for two reasons. One, the computer screen info occured before we heard her name out loud.
Two, no-one who works for Star Trek is disputing that Geordie's mother's name is really Silva.

"Because what the art department does and thinks is more important than the writers? Star Trek is more about signange than characters? Bullshit..."

quote:

---

Originally posted by Woodside Kid:
My favorite from TOS: how can we have a whole ship crewed by Vulcans when Spock is supposed to be the first Vulcan in Starfleet (and therefore, presumably, the highest ranking)?

---

There is no canon evidence to support the idea that Spock was the first Vulcan in Starfleet, so that's not a problem.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aban Rune:
None of the classes of the new ships from First Contact were ever identified on screen, even the Akira. But they have been so well documented by the creators, it's hard not to say that they are cannon. (sic.)

---

This belies the most common misconception: that canon means accurate. It is very easy to say that the names of Akira and friends aren't canon, because they aren't. Canon is defined as that which is contained in aired episodes and films. However, this in no way means that the class name Akira isn't correct... it simply isn't canon. To use another example, the idea that phaser stands for "phased energy rectification" isn't canon, but it can (and for all intents and purposes, is) still be true. The corrolary to this is that if, in Star Trek X, an Akira-class ship is called Invincible-class, it isn't at all a contradiction of canon, even if it is an accident. Canonically, the ship would be Invincible class.

Incidentally, this has allegedly happened before. Some of those involved with the visual effects for Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan named the Reliant's design the Avenger class. For that reason, nearly everyone called it the Avenger class for a solid decade, and then Okuda came up with Miranda for the TNG Tech Manual. The name Avenger, if fan lore is accurate, is just as reliable as Akira, but it isn't canon.

[ September 10, 2001: Message edited by: Ryan McReynolds ]

"Defiant, Excelsior, and Prometheus speak for themselves."

Oh, and tell that to the people who were still saying Valient-class even during DS9's seventh season.

When was Defiant-class first said anyway? I don't think it was said during Valient (I remember sitting there, begging for someone to say "Defiant-class", just to finally stop one of the most annoying arguments that's ever occured n Trek boards. I was also hoping they'd say how long the ship was, but I wasn't holding my breath for that).

[ September 10, 2001: Message edited by: Veers ]