FANDOM


Decommission dateEdit

I don't recall there being anything in "Power Play" that suggested the Daedalus herself was decommissioned in 2196. It was stated that the last of the Daedalus class was withdrawn in that year; this doesn't necessarily mean it was the original ship, so I revised the article to reflect this. --From Andoria with Love 07:24, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Warp 7 shipEdit

Where the "warp seven ships" mentioned in "These Are the Voyages..." a referance to the Daedalus class? Jaz 04:06, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

(I) get the feeling that the "warp seven ships" may be just another bit of enterprise continuity mutilation, as i get the disturbing feeling that they were referring to the constitution class--205.188.116.11 13:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
You needn't worry; they weren't referring to the Constitution-class. It's time to give Enterprise some credit and to use your imagination to explain any perceived continuity errors made earlier in the series rather than having it spoon-fed to you. --From Andoria with Love 18:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

DaedalusEdit

I hate to even bring it up, but the Daedalus (complete with NCC registry, apparently as in Franz Joseph's work) itself appeared in the New Voyages fan film In Harm's Way. Is that something we want to mention here, like in the Apocrypha section? -- Renegade54 11:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Do Fanfilms count as apocrypha? As far as I can tell, they're less than novels - as their not even licensed by Paramount. (Yes, I realize all the actors and their grandma have been on'm, but I don't see that as giving it canon at all.) I'm personally for removing the reference. - AJ Halliwell 01:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
To my mind, novels, comics, etc are considered apoc, as they are actually part of the "franchise". Fan films are well... fan fiction. -- Sulfur 02:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

That's fine with me. I just wanted other opinions on the matter. I'm all for not counting fan films as apocrypha and ditching the reference to New Voyages on this page. -- Renegade54 02:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

DS9 model appearancesEdit

Does anyone know what/how many episodes the model appeared in Star Trek: Deep Space Nine? -- Tough Little Ship 13:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The model appeared in many episodes, I can only confirm some of the appearance, namely the episodes when the model was seen exceptionally well and I took a screenshot.

These would be: <list moved to article>. Hope that helps. --Jörg 13:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Class historyEdit

But according to the star fleet museum http://www.starfleet-museum.org/daedalus.htm the entire history of this class is different, how is that possible?? - Rahul

The "Starfleet Museum" is a fan site, nothing more. Fanon, not canon. It has no affiliation with Paramount or any of the creators of Star Trek. While it is a fun read, it is entirely fan made up, and was pretty much all written before Star Trek: Enterprise came out, and therefore does not take any of those events into account. --OuroborosCobra talk 16:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

RemovedEdit

Dimensions
The window arrangements on the studio model, if taken as being one deck space, would seem to suggest that the ship has 16 to 17 decks and has a length closer to 250 meters, rather than a length of 105 meters, as suggested in the Star Trek Encyclopedia.

At the moment, I don't find any particular use for this, which comes across a wee bit speculative. --Alan 07:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Armament Edit

I am removing the speculation of armament. The fact that it has to start by admitting the fact that we technically don't even know they were armed (though it is doubtful they were not) puts this all in question:

  • And if they were armed, it might have had either Phase cannons, or Lasers and either Spatial torpedoes, or Photonic torpedos. But if one were to take into consideration that Phasers and Photon torpedos weren't around before the mid 23rd Century, then Spatial torpedos and Laser cannons would have been equipped instead.

Consider also the fact that the preceding paragraph about Warp 7 was based on actual canon information, while this is just fanboyish speculation, and you see the problem is even worse. It isn't needed. --OuroborosCobra talk 05:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Moving/ChaosEdit

Not that I'm totally against this and what was done with the Daedalus class page (and related pages), but we do have a policy permitting us to use names from the Star Trek Encyclopedia and similar reference works in place of "unnamed" or "so-and-so type" pages. --From Andoria with Love 11:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The reason why I did this was to show the flaws and contradictions in the Memory Alpha canon system. 70.51.230.14 20:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good coming from an anon with one contribution. May I suggest creating an account and logging in? That way you might show some continuity. -- Sulfur 20:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I am Ensign_Q. I have temporarily forgotten my password. 70.51.230.14 20:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, now that I think about it, it would probably be best to use names we know are from actual production sources and not just the Encyclopedia, which is also full of speculation. If there are no production sources (scripts, production notes, design notes) deeming this Horizon a Daedalus-class ship, then I think what the anon did is probably for the best. Good work, 70.51.230.14. ;) --From Andoria with Love 20:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm moving it back, because here's the thing; if we ever saw the Daedalus-class on screen, we know what it would look like. The fact that they haven't connected the designs is meaningless. If we go down this route, we'll have to get rid of K'Tinga class, Miranda class, and various other things. Ambassador/Ensign_Q 20:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
First of all, let me say this: don't ever do this stuff again. If you do an article split because you are convinced that it is the right way, that's fine, even when a later consensus leads to a different result. If you are just doing it to prove a point - DON'T. Wikipedia even has a policy describing exactly this behaviour (WP:POINT, you might want to read that), and I think it should be common sense to not act that way.
Second, I personally believe that this article split should have been done earlier, and should not be reverted now. The difference between this and all the examples you give is that, in all the other cases, it's just a "production" name given to a "canon" ship design. Here, we have a "canon" name (via TNG: "Power Play", if I recall correctly) and a "canon" ship design (via Sisko's model) that are completely unrelated unless we accept, full-scale, a resource like the Encyclopedia. -- Cid Highwind 10:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Then what about K'Tinga and Miranda? I guess we can't consider those canon either, even though we are 99.9...% sure that is the name. 70.48.240.44 14:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC) (aka Ensign_Q)
Citing from content and resource policies:
The only exception to the exclusion of production or reference material not seen on-screen from the main body of an article is for naming items or people that were seen on-screen but not referred to by name. For example, names such as Livingston and Neural were not mentioned on-screen, but are derived from production sources. The primary reason for this is to avoid creating a large number of "unnamed" subject pages when an official name already exists. In the event that any of this information contradicts on-screen information, however, then the information stated on-screen will take precedence.
--Cid Highwind 21:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

For the record, that's the policy I pointed out in my first comment above. :) --From Andoria with Love 23:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

But EVERY STAR TREK RESOURCE will tell you that is the Daedalus class! Okuda says it is. Remember what it said? "Widely accepted as canon". 70.51.228.240 22:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Alas, "widely accepted as canon" doesn't fly here. ;) We only use on-screen material, with the certain exceptions for naming purposes. That said, the policy currently states that info from production or reference materials can be used for naming articles. Based on that, then we can leave Horizon type at Daedalus-class or whatever. If, however, we decide to use material only from production sources and not from reference materials like the Encyclopedia, then this should stay where it is. --From Andoria with Love 22:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

That would still depend on whether you think that merging two otherwise unrelated canon facts ([1]:"Daedalus" name; [2]:ball-and-sticks model) by using some background source constitutes a simple "naming issue" as outlined by that part of the policy. I'm not so sure about that, myself... ;) -- Cid Highwind 22:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


Should be left apart, I'm pretty sure a Daedalus class has been mentioned before. As for separating Horizon from the class, fine it makes sense, if it was never proven to be a Daedalus.--Terran Officer 23:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

If this were a democracy (and I'm in no way under that pretense), my vote would be to merge, simply because everyone here knows that model is the Daedalus. Perhaps it was never named on screen, nor in a script, but we all know. I fully understand this doesn't fit 100% into MA's mandate, and I respect that... but I feel sticking 100% to MA's mandate in this particular situation is actually contrary to what people come here for. Information about Star Trek. I feel we can actually do a disservice to the wiki by being entirely inflexible in certain situations. I personally feel this is one of those situations. YMMV.Hossrex 08:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

MMDV, yes. People may "know" that this design "is" the Daedalus... but the same people also "know" that Spock was the first Vulcan in Starfleet, first contact with the Klingons was not in the timeframe of ENT, and the Romulans didn't have warp drive in the 2260s or before. All "facts" that haven't been derived from onscreen dialogue and scenes, but from speculation based on what existed "as canon" at a relatively arbitrary point in the Trek-timeline.
We want to collect facts, not "facts", so what makes this case so special that we should bend our rules here, but not in all the other cases? -- Cid Highwind 10:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I hope you didn't read my comments as aggressive, angry, or sarcastic. That couldn't be further from the truth. I also don't mean to say that your reply was rude... but it did read as if you felt I was speaking out of place. Please accept my apology if I came off that way. I think the difference is that Spock being the first Vulcan in Starfleet, and Klingon first contact taking place any way besides what we saw on Enterprise, or heard in the episode "First Contact" are fanon. Fanon clearly isn't appropriate for this site, and I would be the first to fight for its removal were I to find it (as I did very recently). You have to admit this holds a stronger certification then fanon. In every resource possible, that ship design is presented as being a Daedalus class ship. I don't really have anything more to say. I'm not bowing out due to frustration, I'm simply bowing out because anything else I'd say would be repeating myself. I'm perfectly accepting of your final decision.  :) I just wouldn't have been happy if I hadn't given my input.Hossrex 10:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
It is speculated that the Daedalus and Horizon Class Starships are actually the same class, This is the case Below is the notation from TNG ( Power Play ) I Say add them together under the Daedalus-class

( Data is able to identify the distress call to be consistent with that of Daedalus-class starships, which, however, have not been in service for 172 years. Captain Picard asks Data to check if any starships have been reported missing in this area. Data determines that the USS Essex under the command of Captain Bryce Shumar disappeared in the vicinity, over 200 years ago. )Jayman74 8:54am EDT 11/07/2007

Revisited Edit

I don't know where this fits in here because I really don't want to read everything above, but Greg Jein built the USS Horizon model especially for the ST Encyclopedia/Chronology as a representative of the Daedalus class, which makes those references production sources. Thereafter, the model was put on Sisko's coffee table. Therefore, the intentions of the production staff was that of this being the mythical and legendary Daedalus class starship. --Alan del Beccio 10:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree with that. That model depicts the USS Horizon and a Daedalus class starship. Why should we split up the articles, contrary to the original intent of Greg Jein and Mike and Denise Okuda? --Jörg 21:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, and in retrospect, this entire scenario was just another case of MA:POINT, that has been recently snuffed...the two article split from this one were terribly redundant and additionally, the attempt to create ambiguity, only creates more confusion. This isn't about contradicting canon, it's about contradicting bg info with 1) a MA based made up name and 2) a production name that is just as conjectural (and almost universally recognized) as several other accepted class names in both the production studio and on MA... --Alan 02:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Appearances and Image Edit

First of all, were any Daedalus class ships seen at all? If not, should it be mentioned in background information or its equivalent? Second, is there a clearer image? DaveSubspace Message 23:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed links Edit

...all of them seem to be fanon only, no further canon or official information. -- Cid Highwind 17:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-NC unless otherwise noted.