Opinions wanted: canon or not?

[First of Two]

Okay, as part of my UberGeeky Ship List Project, I've been making a list of the "Canon" Star Trek ships.

Whare I'm sticking is, sometimes a ship has a class name, but a ship of that class with that name is never actually given.

F'rinstance, we might see the "USS Rebotini, a Stockey Class Transport" but never actually hear mention of the Stockey Class "USS Stockey."

Since I don't believe there's ever been a case of the first ship of a Class not being that class's namesake, I'm inclined to consider such ships Canon.

What do YOU think?

[selek]

If I'm not mistaken, the Star Trek Encyclopedia is considered canon (as they try very, very hard to limit the book to canon/onscreen information, or at least to differentiate between the two). That book does list Class vessels as canon, even if they don't give hull numbers (and they usually do).

[Cut]

I'd say one can support both versions: Online onscreen appearence classify as canon but also direct links by onscreen material can prompt ships to be canon. I have not given it a lot of thought but have a feeling those ships should be considered canon. Selek's mention of the ST: Encyclopidea only supports this.
I'd say they are canon.

[Dan Stack]

For the most part I think you are correct. The only exception I can think of is the NX-class.

[Tobian]

The Star Trek Encyclopaedia is NOT canon, and I'm not sure why you thought it was? Canon is only the TV series and films, even the technical manuals are not 'canon' (the DS9 one is often commented as being wrong a lot too! )

If a name is mentioned it's canon, if it's never shown, whatever ship it is is not canon, till it's shown, and even then it's semi-limbo, because Starfleet frequently gives ships the same name, if one is retired or destroyed (as per the naval tradition), so it might not be the same one.. I.e. USS. Defiant, USS Enterprise etc The name it's self IS canon, because it's been seen on screen!

Many fans create ships based around a name, or define a ship by it's screen name, when no class name is given: Given nothing else to go on, and under the assumption that the incredibly obscure ship will never reapear, then there's no reason not to make whatever assumptions you like.. but it's still not canon!

If semi official, but non-canon books exist, then yeah it's better to go with them, as they represent more what the artists and producers of the show intended, however a classic example of where this goes wrong was the Phoenix: Michael Okuda drew the original Phoenix for the early Encyclopaedia, which is about as 'canon as you can get, but they had to redesign it for the movie because a) it was fugly and b) it didn't fit in a missile silo by any stretch of the imagination!

The point about Canon is it represents only the shows and movies, and the same goes for StarWars: Printed material frequenty goes against common sense, what was seen on screen and logic George Lucas wrote the prequel movies against fan suppositions, just as the Startrek Producers wrote TNG and beyond overruling anything else that had gone before (which annoyingly sometimes is contradictory!)

As for cases of Canon contradicting it's self - arghhhhh

[Ineti]

I've always gone with the idea that class names assume there's a ship in that class with the same name.

[Sea Tyger]

Naval tradition holds that the class takes the name from the lead ship of that class. Given Gene's service in the U.S. Navy, you can easily extrapolate that the tradition followed him into Star Fleet.

As such, I would consider the lead ship of any class mentioned in the show to be canon. I don't recall ever seeing a USS Galaxy on screen, but does anyone deny that the Galaxy exists in the Star Trek Universe?

[Owen E Oulton]

Sionce it has been established onscreen that the lead ship of a class bears the same name as the class itself (three examples, minimum: Excelsior, Defiant and Yellowstone),it is a reasonable and logical extrapolation that it should be considered canon.

Of course, canon is not infallible, and because it is simply a status accorded by being presented onscreen, it may sometimes be self-contradictory - note the two USS Yaegers both existing at the same time, one in Star Trek, First Contact, and one in Deep Space Nine, or the number of decks on the Defiant or Enterprise-E.

[Balok]

Didn't the USS Galaxy fight in one of the battles depicted in the Dominion War arc on DS9? I don't remember for certain any more...

[JALU3]

If it did, I don't remember it being mentioned by name onscreen . . . or onscreen with clearly visible markings on it.

[Nene_Richards]

My opinion is this:

So much is mixed and matched through the show many times canon contridicts canon in a RPG like this, you have to make the wisest decision possible.

I have had debates what is and what is not canon with many people, I have found it is best what your opinion is. No one can agree even those that have written the series and the people in charge.

Do your best look through the books find what you think makes sense to what canon is. I have played the Trek game alot of time canon gets thrown out for the sake of the plot by some GMs.

Just what I was thinking of.

[tonyg]

Well there is a difference between what is "cannon" and what makes sense or is needed to run an RPG. The only cannon stuff is what we see on the screen, and some of that has condracted itself.

OF course, what a GM wants or needs for a campaign is another thing. What makes a good TV show isn't usually enough info to make a good RPG. Any GM is going to condradict or ignore cannon at some point.

There are a few sites out there that list all the ships that have appeared on TREK and gives classes (sometimes by deduction or guestimation) and they could save a lot f work. Some of the sites explain why they believ a certain ship is a certain class and that would be good for a "non-cannon" list.

[First of Two]

"cannon"
cannon
cannon
"non-cannon"

AIIGH! MY HEAD A-SPLODE!

1 N! ONE! ENNNNNNNN!
KHAAAAAAAAN!

[spyone]

I agree with basicly everybody above.

Yes, the existance of a canon "cool name" class vessel implies the existance of a USS "cool name" out there somewhere.
The vessels that were built on the design of DS9's USS Defiant were called "Defiant Class" Vessels. The TNG Technical Manual has the Enterprise-D as one of 3 vessels constructed simultaneously: the others were USS Yamato and USS Galaxy.

Every time a vessel that looks like USS Excelsior has appeared, it has been called an "Excelsior Class" ship. (If it's class was mentioned).

Heck, even back in TOS, where the Enterprise was a Constitution Class vessel, a display in engineering in one episode ("Day of the Dove", IIRC) showed there was a USS Constitution NCC-1700.

So, even though we have never seen a (TNG-era) USS Intrepid on screen, the fact that USS Voyager is called an "Intrepid Class" ship distinctly implies that there is one, and that it looks a lot like Voyager.
And the fact that USS Phoenix was a "Nebula Class" ship implies the existance of a USS Nebula out there somewhere.
And the fact that USS Bozeman was a "Soyuz Class" ship implies a USS Soyuz with a hull number smaller than NCC-1941,
And so on.

But, I suppose it is worth noting that those are all implied, and their existance is not a certainty. They were never shown on screen, and their existance is only logical extrapolation, not established fact.