Help:Scratchpad/Questions for Timo - Revision history

Dan at 22:50, 20 March 2017

2017-03-20T22:50:28Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:50, 20 March 2017
Line 1:		Line 1:
	==Who went first?==		==Who went first?==
	In the [[Guide: Durance\|Durance article]], it says, "''USS Chandeleur'' (FR-263) was the first to fall to an attack by the forces of the Rihannsu people, expanding to meet the people who had intruded their space." However, "[[Guide:2130-2161 - Into The Romulan War\|2130-2161 - Into The Romulan War]]" and the [[Messier ~~(Guide)~~\|Messier]] article indicate the first offensive action was against ''USS Balboa'' in [[2132]]. Would it be more correct to state that the loss of ''USS Chandeleur'' was the first one known (at the time) to be a result of Romulan aggression? And, if so, what year did it occur? --[[User:Dan\|Dan]] 12:39, 6 March 2008 (PST)		In the [[Guide: Durance\|Durance article]], it says, "''USS Chandeleur'' (FR-263) was the first to fall to an attack by the forces of the Rihannsu people, expanding to meet the people who had intruded their space." However, "[[Guide:2130-2161 - Into The Romulan War\|2130-2161 - Into The Romulan War]]" and the [[Guide: Messier\|Messier]] article indicate the first offensive action was against ''USS Balboa'' in [[2132]]. Would it be more correct to state that the loss of ''USS Chandeleur'' was the first one known (at the time) to be a result of Romulan aggression? And, if so, what year did it occur? --[[User:Dan\|Dan]] 12:39, 6 March 2008 (PST)

	:Good question... The ''Chandeleur'' comes from a reference that gives the service years in unambiguous Earth years, and in fact lists this vessel as disappearing in 2137. Since the date does not conflict with modern Trek dating, this is how the entry should read as well. In contrast, the ''Balboa'' comes from a novel where the years are somewhat at odds with modern dating, and the year for the disappearance of that vessel is not given explicitly. While I originally intended the ''Chandeleur'' to merely be the first ''Durance'' to disappear, not necessarily the first Earth ship or other asset, it would not be a problem to say that she also went down slightly before the ''Balboa''.		:Good question... The ''Chandeleur'' comes from a reference that gives the service years in unambiguous Earth years, and in fact lists this vessel as disappearing in 2137. Since the date does not conflict with modern Trek dating, this is how the entry should read as well. In contrast, the ''Balboa'' comes from a novel where the years are somewhat at odds with modern dating, and the year for the disappearance of that vessel is not given explicitly. While I originally intended the ''Chandeleur'' to merely be the first ''Durance'' to disappear, not necessarily the first Earth ship or other asset, it would not be a problem to say that she also went down slightly before the ''Balboa''.
Line 10:		Line 10:

	==Visit to Romulas when?==		==Visit to Romulas when?==
	Related question: Both the [[Messier ~~(Guide)~~\|Messier]] article and "[[Guide:2130-2161 - Into The Romulan War\|2130-2161 - Into The Romulan War]]" mention a visit (supposedly to Romulas) by ''USS Carrizal''. When did this occur? --[[User:Dan\|Dan]] 12:39, 6 March 2008 (PST)		Related question: Both the [[Guide: Messier\|Messier]] article and "[[Guide:2130-2161 - Into The Romulan War\|2130-2161 - Into The Romulan War]]" mention a visit (supposedly to Romulas) by ''USS Carrizal''. When did this occur? --[[User:Dan\|Dan]] 12:39, 6 March 2008 (PST)

	:Further food for thought... The ''Messier'' is postulated here to be a slow, primitive type, so the ''Balboa'' sortie probably would not be an instant follow-on mission to the ''Carrizal'' survey. Whether ''Balboa'' is set at 2132, or moved to 2137, ''Carrizal'' could be anywhere between the 2100s and the 2130s; the source novel, ''The Romulan Way'', does not dictate an exact date for this mission, either.		:Further food for thought... The ''Messier'' is postulated here to be a slow, primitive type, so the ''Balboa'' sortie probably would not be an instant follow-on mission to the ''Carrizal'' survey. Whether ''Balboa'' is set at 2132, or moved to 2137, ''Carrizal'' could be anywhere between the 2100s and the 2130s; the source novel, ''The Romulan Way'', does not dictate an exact date for this mission, either.
Line 19:		Line 19:

	==730 or 750?==		==730 or 750?==
	The data for the [[DY series ~~(Guide)~~\|DY series]] indicates the existance for a DY-750, while the text mentions a subclass referred to as a DY-730. Is the former a mistake for the latter? --[[User:Dan\|Dan]] 19:32, 8 March 2008 (PST)		The data for the [[Guide: DY series\|DY series]] indicates the existance for a DY-750, while the text mentions a subclass referred to as a DY-730. Is the former a mistake for the latter? --[[User:Dan\|Dan]] 19:32, 8 March 2008 (PST)

	:The DY series entry has now been edited to better accommodate the numerous various fan-created variants. There is also a semi-systematic approach to the DY numbers now, with numbers below 200 used for early sublight types (and any fan sublight design number above this is shamelessly altered in the style of DY-400 -> DY-140, DY-350 -> DY-135). A separate article will soon describe the warp-capable or warp-uprated variants, and will mention the general DY-700 series, of which the DY-750 as seen in the first Chronology book (courtesy of Greg Jein and Mike Okuda) is one member but does not get specific mention because it is not in UEDP/UESF/Starfleet use. The new entry doesn't mention a DY-730 any more, either, but I trust that one exists as well - as do DY-710, DY-720 and so forth...		:The DY series entry has now been edited to better accommodate the numerous various fan-created variants. There is also a semi-systematic approach to the DY numbers now, with numbers below 200 used for early sublight types (and any fan sublight design number above this is shamelessly altered in the style of DY-400 -> DY-140, DY-350 -> DY-135). A separate article will soon describe the warp-capable or warp-uprated variants, and will mention the general DY-700 series, of which the DY-750 as seen in the first Chronology book (courtesy of Greg Jein and Mike Okuda) is one member but does not get specific mention because it is not in UEDP/UESF/Starfleet use. The new entry doesn't mention a DY-730 any more, either, but I trust that one exists as well - as do DY-710, DY-720 and so forth...
Line 26:		Line 26:

	==Federation Reference Series==		==Federation Reference Series==
	I saw you made this change to the history reference data for the [[DY series ~~(Guide)~~\|DY]] series. What is this? I don't think I've heard of it. --[[User:Dan\|Dan]] 11:45, 11 March 2008 (PDT)		I saw you made this change to the history reference data for the [[Guide: DY series\|DY]] series. What is this? I don't think I've heard of it. --[[User:Dan\|Dan]] 11:45, 11 March 2008 (PDT)

	:Oops, the reference is actually incorrect. For the fan-made DY vessels, the primary reference should be Star Fleet Tactical Database, a "reimagining" and expanding of the Spaceflight Chronology by Lawrence Miller in 1992. The Federation Reference Series is a set of publications by the Mastercom bureau (aridas sofia et al.) from 1985 where canon and Franz Joseph material is graphically represented, but it does not feature the aridas sofia vessel DY-350/''Black Mamba'', which in the Guide entry is perverted into the DY-135. Both can be currently found at the Cygnus-X1 blueprint site (http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/blueprints-main2.php) by John Patuto. --[[User:Timo\|Timo]] 10:59, 12 March 2008 (GMT+3)		:Oops, the reference is actually incorrect. For the fan-made DY vessels, the primary reference should be Star Fleet Tactical Database, a "reimagining" and expanding of the Spaceflight Chronology by Lawrence Miller in 1992. The Federation Reference Series is a set of publications by the Mastercom bureau (aridas sofia et al.) from 1985 where canon and Franz Joseph material is graphically represented, but it does not feature the aridas sofia vessel DY-350/''Black Mamba'', which in the Guide entry is perverted into the DY-135. Both can be currently found at the Cygnus-X1 blueprint site (http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/blueprints-main2.php) by John Patuto. --[[User:Timo\|Timo]] 10:59, 12 March 2008 (GMT+3)

	::Aha! Excellent, thanks! That site is acutally the one that I stumbled across to find Vance's drawings. I hadn't d/l'd thees sources yet.--[[User:Dan\|Dan]] 05:33, 12 March 2008 (PDT)		::Aha! Excellent, thanks! That site is acutally the one that I stumbled across to find Vance's drawings. I hadn't d/l'd thees sources yet.--[[User:Dan\|Dan]] 05:33, 12 March 2008 (PDT)

Dan at 17:17, 15 November 2014

2014-11-15T17:17:19Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:17, 15 November 2014
Line 1:		Line 1:
	==Who went first?==		==Who went first?==
	In the [[Durance ~~(Guide)~~\|Durance article]], it says, "''USS Chandeleur'' (FR-263) was the first to fall to an attack by the forces of the Rihannsu people, expanding to meet the people who had intruded their space." However, "[[Guide:2130-2161 - Into The Romulan War\|2130-2161 - Into The Romulan War]]" and the [[Messier (Guide)\|Messier]] article indicate the first offensive action was against ''USS Balboa'' in [[2132]]. Would it be more correct to state that the loss of ''USS Chandeleur'' was the first one known (at the time) to be a result of Romulan aggression? And, if so, what year did it occur? --[[User:Dan\|Dan]] 12:39, 6 March 2008 (PST)		In the [[Guide: Durance\|Durance article]], it says, "''USS Chandeleur'' (FR-263) was the first to fall to an attack by the forces of the Rihannsu people, expanding to meet the people who had intruded their space." However, "[[Guide:2130-2161 - Into The Romulan War\|2130-2161 - Into The Romulan War]]" and the [[Messier (Guide)\|Messier]] article indicate the first offensive action was against ''USS Balboa'' in [[2132]]. Would it be more correct to state that the loss of ''USS Chandeleur'' was the first one known (at the time) to be a result of Romulan aggression? And, if so, what year did it occur? --[[User:Dan\|Dan]] 12:39, 6 March 2008 (PST)

	:Good question... The ''Chandeleur'' comes from a reference that gives the service years in unambiguous Earth years, and in fact lists this vessel as disappearing in 2137. Since the date does not conflict with modern Trek dating, this is how the entry should read as well. In contrast, the ''Balboa'' comes from a novel where the years are somewhat at odds with modern dating, and the year for the disappearance of that vessel is not given explicitly. While I originally intended the ''Chandeleur'' to merely be the first ''Durance'' to disappear, not necessarily the first Earth ship or other asset, it would not be a problem to say that she also went down slightly before the ''Balboa''.		:Good question... The ''Chandeleur'' comes from a reference that gives the service years in unambiguous Earth years, and in fact lists this vessel as disappearing in 2137. Since the date does not conflict with modern Trek dating, this is how the entry should read as well. In contrast, the ''Balboa'' comes from a novel where the years are somewhat at odds with modern dating, and the year for the disappearance of that vessel is not given explicitly. While I originally intended the ''Chandeleur'' to merely be the first ''Durance'' to disappear, not necessarily the first Earth ship or other asset, it would not be a problem to say that she also went down slightly before the ''Balboa''.

Dan at 17:35, 14 November 2014

2014-11-14T17:35:28Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:35, 14 November 2014
Line 1:		Line 1:
	==Who went first?==		==Who went first?==
	In the [[Durance (Guide)\|Durance article]], it says, "''USS Chandeleur'' (FR-263) was the first to fall to an attack by the forces of the Rihannsu people, expanding to meet the people who had intruded their space." However, "[[2130-2161 - Into The Romulan War ~~(Guide)~~\|2130-2161 - Into The Romulan War]]" and the [[Messier (Guide)\|Messier]] article indicate the first offensive action was against ''USS Balboa'' in [[2132]]. Would it be more correct to state that the loss of ''USS Chandeleur'' was the first one known (at the time) to be a result of Romulan aggression? And, if so, what year did it occur? --[[User:Dan\|Dan]] 12:39, 6 March 2008 (PST)		In the [[Durance (Guide)\|Durance article]], it says, "''USS Chandeleur'' (FR-263) was the first to fall to an attack by the forces of the Rihannsu people, expanding to meet the people who had intruded their space." However, "[[Guide:2130-2161 - Into The Romulan War\|2130-2161 - Into The Romulan War]]" and the [[Messier (Guide)\|Messier]] article indicate the first offensive action was against ''USS Balboa'' in [[2132]]. Would it be more correct to state that the loss of ''USS Chandeleur'' was the first one known (at the time) to be a result of Romulan aggression? And, if so, what year did it occur? --[[User:Dan\|Dan]] 12:39, 6 March 2008 (PST)

	:Good question... The ''Chandeleur'' comes from a reference that gives the service years in unambiguous Earth years, and in fact lists this vessel as disappearing in 2137. Since the date does not conflict with modern Trek dating, this is how the entry should read as well. In contrast, the ''Balboa'' comes from a novel where the years are somewhat at odds with modern dating, and the year for the disappearance of that vessel is not given explicitly. While I originally intended the ''Chandeleur'' to merely be the first ''Durance'' to disappear, not necessarily the first Earth ship or other asset, it would not be a problem to say that she also went down slightly before the ''Balboa''.		:Good question... The ''Chandeleur'' comes from a reference that gives the service years in unambiguous Earth years, and in fact lists this vessel as disappearing in 2137. Since the date does not conflict with modern Trek dating, this is how the entry should read as well. In contrast, the ''Balboa'' comes from a novel where the years are somewhat at odds with modern dating, and the year for the disappearance of that vessel is not given explicitly. While I originally intended the ''Chandeleur'' to merely be the first ''Durance'' to disappear, not necessarily the first Earth ship or other asset, it would not be a problem to say that she also went down slightly before the ''Balboa''.
Line 10:		Line 10:

	==Visit to Romulas when?==		==Visit to Romulas when?==
	Related question: Both the [[Messier (Guide)\|Messier]] article and "[[2130-2161 - Into The Romulan War ~~(Guide)~~\|2130-2161 - Into The Romulan War]]" mention a visit (supposedly to Romulas) by ''USS Carrizal''. When did this occur? --[[User:Dan\|Dan]] 12:39, 6 March 2008 (PST)		Related question: Both the [[Messier (Guide)\|Messier]] article and "[[Guide:2130-2161 - Into The Romulan War\|2130-2161 - Into The Romulan War]]" mention a visit (supposedly to Romulas) by ''USS Carrizal''. When did this occur? --[[User:Dan\|Dan]] 12:39, 6 March 2008 (PST)

	:Further food for thought... The ''Messier'' is postulated here to be a slow, primitive type, so the ''Balboa'' sortie probably would not be an instant follow-on mission to the ''Carrizal'' survey. Whether ''Balboa'' is set at 2132, or moved to 2137, ''Carrizal'' could be anywhere between the 2100s and the 2130s; the source novel, ''The Romulan Way'', does not dictate an exact date for this mission, either.		:Further food for thought... The ''Messier'' is postulated here to be a slow, primitive type, so the ''Balboa'' sortie probably would not be an instant follow-on mission to the ''Carrizal'' survey. Whether ''Balboa'' is set at 2132, or moved to 2137, ''Carrizal'' could be anywhere between the 2100s and the 2130s; the source novel, ''The Romulan Way'', does not dictate an exact date for this mission, either.

Dan: /* Federation Reference Series */ resp

2008-03-12T12:33:04Z

Federation Reference Series: resp

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:33, 12 March 2008
Line 29:		Line 29:

	:Oops, the reference is actually incorrect. For the fan-made DY vessels, the primary reference should be Star Fleet Tactical Database, a "reimagining" and expanding of the Spaceflight Chronology by Lawrence Miller in 1992. The Federation Reference Series is a set of publications by the Mastercom bureau (aridas sofia et al.) from 1985 where canon and Franz Joseph material is graphically represented, but it does not feature the aridas sofia vessel DY-350/''Black Mamba'', which in the Guide entry is perverted into the DY-135. Both can be currently found at the Cygnus-X1 blueprint site (http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/blueprints-main2.php) by John Patuto. --[[User:Timo\|Timo]] 10:59, 12 March 2008 (GMT+3)		:Oops, the reference is actually incorrect. For the fan-made DY vessels, the primary reference should be Star Fleet Tactical Database, a "reimagining" and expanding of the Spaceflight Chronology by Lawrence Miller in 1992. The Federation Reference Series is a set of publications by the Mastercom bureau (aridas sofia et al.) from 1985 where canon and Franz Joseph material is graphically represented, but it does not feature the aridas sofia vessel DY-350/''Black Mamba'', which in the Guide entry is perverted into the DY-135. Both can be currently found at the Cygnus-X1 blueprint site (http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/blueprints-main2.php) by John Patuto. --[[User:Timo\|Timo]] 10:59, 12 March 2008 (GMT+3)

			::Aha! Excellent, thanks! That site is acutally the one that I stumbled across to find Vance's drawings. I hadn't d/l'd thees sources yet.--[[User:Dan\|Dan]] 05:33, 12 March 2008 (PDT)

Timo: /* Federation Reference Series */

2008-03-12T09:01:21Z

Federation Reference Series

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:01, 12 March 2008
Line 27:		Line 27:
	==Federation Reference Series==		==Federation Reference Series==
	I saw you made this change to the history reference data for the [[DY series (Guide)\|DY]] series. What is this? I don't think I've heard of it. --[[User:Dan\|Dan]] 11:45, 11 March 2008 (PDT)		I saw you made this change to the history reference data for the [[DY series (Guide)\|DY]] series. What is this? I don't think I've heard of it. --[[User:Dan\|Dan]] 11:45, 11 March 2008 (PDT)

			:Oops, the reference is actually incorrect. For the fan-made DY vessels, the primary reference should be Star Fleet Tactical Database, a "reimagining" and expanding of the Spaceflight Chronology by Lawrence Miller in 1992. The Federation Reference Series is a set of publications by the Mastercom bureau (aridas sofia et al.) from 1985 where canon and Franz Joseph material is graphically represented, but it does not feature the aridas sofia vessel DY-350/''Black Mamba'', which in the Guide entry is perverted into the DY-135. Both can be currently found at the Cygnus-X1 blueprint site (http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/blueprints-main2.php) by John Patuto. --[[User:Timo\|Timo]] 10:59, 12 March 2008 (GMT+3)

Dan: Chandeleur

2008-03-11T19:40:47Z

Chandeleur

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:40, 11 March 2008
Line 5:		Line 5:

	:However, neither of these losses would be known to be to the Romulans at the time. The loss of the starliner ''Diana'' would in this version of Trek history (and in the Spaceflight Chronology) be the first one immediately attributed to the Romulans. --[[User:Timo\|Timo]] 14:58, 11 March 2008 (GMT+3)		:However, neither of these losses would be known to be to the Romulans at the time. The loss of the starliner ''Diana'' would in this version of Trek history (and in the Spaceflight Chronology) be the first one immediately attributed to the Romulans. --[[User:Timo\|Timo]] 14:58, 11 March 2008 (GMT+3)

			::I think you've done a good job building the confusion with what was deemed simple losses to pirate activity and what was actual beligerence by a state. Thanks for the explanation. --[[User:Dan\|Dan]] 12:40, 11 March 2008 (PDT)


	==Visit to Romulas when?==		==Visit to Romulas when?==

Dan: /* Visit to Romulas when? */ resp

2008-03-11T19:31:14Z

Visit to Romulas when?: resp

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:31, 11 March 2008
Line 12:		Line 12:

	:Generally, the only reason we have for assuming that these two ships would be close contemporaries, and of the same class, is their seemingly systematic naming after conquistadors. So far, the Guide does not claim that the ''Carrizal'' would belong to the ''Messier'' class, but this is the unvoiced assumption. --[[Timo\|Timo]] 15:22, 11 March 2008 (GMT+3)		:Generally, the only reason we have for assuming that these two ships would be close contemporaries, and of the same class, is their seemingly systematic naming after conquistadors. So far, the Guide does not claim that the ''Carrizal'' would belong to the ''Messier'' class, but this is the unvoiced assumption. --[[Timo\|Timo]] 15:22, 11 March 2008 (GMT+3)

			::Okay. I'll leave that 'open' for the time being. Thanks. --[[User:Dan\|Dan]] 12:31, 11 March 2008 (PDT)

	==730 or 750?==		==730 or 750?==

Dan: indentions

2008-03-11T18:49:07Z

indentions

Dan: Federation Reference Series

2008-03-11T18:45:21Z

Federation Reference Series

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:45, 11 March 2008
Line 19:		Line 19:

	I considered the idea that the number would in fact be a registry/serial number, as possibly suggested in the chart glimpsed in TNG "Up the Long Ladder" where no two identical DY numbers appear. Ships from 500 to 599 might then be of identical design but would have unique identity indicated by the DY number. The system proved too cumbersome, though, and isn't dictated by the source material. --[[User:Timo\|Timo]] 15:11, 11 March 2008 (GMT+3)		I considered the idea that the number would in fact be a registry/serial number, as possibly suggested in the chart glimpsed in TNG "Up the Long Ladder" where no two identical DY numbers appear. Ships from 500 to 599 might then be of identical design but would have unique identity indicated by the DY number. The system proved too cumbersome, though, and isn't dictated by the source material. --[[User:Timo\|Timo]] 15:11, 11 March 2008 (GMT+3)

			===Federation Reference Series===
			I saw you made this change to the history reference data for the [[DY series (Guide)\|DY]] series. What is this? I don't think I've heard of it. --[[User:Dan\|Dan]] 11:45, 11 March 2008 (PDT)

Timo: /* Visit to Romulas when? */

2008-03-11T13:22:21Z

Visit to Romulas when?

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:22, 11 March 2008
Line 8:		Line 8:
	==Visit to Romulas when?==		==Visit to Romulas when?==
	Related question: Both the [[Messier (Guide)\|Messier]] article and "[[2130-2161 - Into The Romulan War (Guide)\|2130-2161 - Into The Romulan War]]" mention a visit (supposedly to Romulas) by ''USS Carrizal''. When did this occur? --[[User:Dan\|Dan]] 12:39, 6 March 2008 (PST)		Related question: Both the [[Messier (Guide)\|Messier]] article and "[[2130-2161 - Into The Romulan War (Guide)\|2130-2161 - Into The Romulan War]]" mention a visit (supposedly to Romulas) by ''USS Carrizal''. When did this occur? --[[User:Dan\|Dan]] 12:39, 6 March 2008 (PST)

			Further food for thought... The ''Messier'' is postulated here to be a slow, primitive type, so the ''Balboa'' sortie probably would not be an instant follow-on mission to the ''Carrizal'' survey. Whether ''Balboa'' is set at 2132, or moved to 2137, ''Carrizal'' could be anywhere between the 2100s and the 2130s; the source novel, ''The Romulan Way'', does not dictate an exact date for this mission, either.

			Generally, the only reason we have for assuming that these two ships would be close contemporaries, and of the same class, is their seemingly systematic naming after conquistadors. So far, the Guide does not claim that the ''Carrizal'' would belong to the ''Messier'' class, but this is the unvoiced assumption. --[[Timo\|Timo]] 15:22, 11 March 2008 (GMT+3)

	==730 or 750?==		==730 or 750?==

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:49, 11 March 2008
Line 2:		Line 2:
	In the [[Durance (Guide)\|Durance article]], it says, "''USS Chandeleur'' (FR-263) was the first to fall to an attack by the forces of the Rihannsu people, expanding to meet the people who had intruded their space." However, "[[2130-2161 - Into The Romulan War (Guide)\|2130-2161 - Into The Romulan War]]" and the [[Messier (Guide)\|Messier]] article indicate the first offensive action was against ''USS Balboa'' in [[2132]]. Would it be more correct to state that the loss of ''USS Chandeleur'' was the first one known (at the time) to be a result of Romulan aggression? And, if so, what year did it occur? --[[User:Dan\|Dan]] 12:39, 6 March 2008 (PST)		In the [[Durance (Guide)\|Durance article]], it says, "''USS Chandeleur'' (FR-263) was the first to fall to an attack by the forces of the Rihannsu people, expanding to meet the people who had intruded their space." However, "[[2130-2161 - Into The Romulan War (Guide)\|2130-2161 - Into The Romulan War]]" and the [[Messier (Guide)\|Messier]] article indicate the first offensive action was against ''USS Balboa'' in [[2132]]. Would it be more correct to state that the loss of ''USS Chandeleur'' was the first one known (at the time) to be a result of Romulan aggression? And, if so, what year did it occur? --[[User:Dan\|Dan]] 12:39, 6 March 2008 (PST)

	Good question... The ''Chandeleur'' comes from a reference that gives the service years in unambiguous Earth years, and in fact lists this vessel as disappearing in 2137. Since the date does not conflict with modern Trek dating, this is how the entry should read as well. In contrast, the ''Balboa'' comes from a novel where the years are somewhat at odds with modern dating, and the year for the disappearance of that vessel is not given explicitly. While I originally intended the ''Chandeleur'' to merely be the first ''Durance'' to disappear, not necessarily the first Earth ship or other asset, it would not be a problem to say that she also went down slightly before the ''Balboa''.		:Good question... The ''Chandeleur'' comes from a reference that gives the service years in unambiguous Earth years, and in fact lists this vessel as disappearing in 2137. Since the date does not conflict with modern Trek dating, this is how the entry should read as well. In contrast, the ''Balboa'' comes from a novel where the years are somewhat at odds with modern dating, and the year for the disappearance of that vessel is not given explicitly. While I originally intended the ''Chandeleur'' to merely be the first ''Durance'' to disappear, not necessarily the first Earth ship or other asset, it would not be a problem to say that she also went down slightly before the ''Balboa''.

	However, neither of these losses would be known to be to the Romulans at the time. The loss of the starliner ''Diana'' would in this version of Trek history (and in the Spaceflight Chronology) be the first one immediately attributed to the Romulans. --[[User:Timo\|Timo]] 14:58, 11 March 2008 (GMT+3)		:However, neither of these losses would be known to be to the Romulans at the time. The loss of the starliner ''Diana'' would in this version of Trek history (and in the Spaceflight Chronology) be the first one immediately attributed to the Romulans. --[[User:Timo\|Timo]] 14:58, 11 March 2008 (GMT+3)

	==Visit to Romulas when?==		==Visit to Romulas when?==
	Related question: Both the [[Messier (Guide)\|Messier]] article and "[[2130-2161 - Into The Romulan War (Guide)\|2130-2161 - Into The Romulan War]]" mention a visit (supposedly to Romulas) by ''USS Carrizal''. When did this occur? --[[User:Dan\|Dan]] 12:39, 6 March 2008 (PST)		Related question: Both the [[Messier (Guide)\|Messier]] article and "[[2130-2161 - Into The Romulan War (Guide)\|2130-2161 - Into The Romulan War]]" mention a visit (supposedly to Romulas) by ''USS Carrizal''. When did this occur? --[[User:Dan\|Dan]] 12:39, 6 March 2008 (PST)

	Further food for thought... The ''Messier'' is postulated here to be a slow, primitive type, so the ''Balboa'' sortie probably would not be an instant follow-on mission to the ''Carrizal'' survey. Whether ''Balboa'' is set at 2132, or moved to 2137, ''Carrizal'' could be anywhere between the 2100s and the 2130s; the source novel, ''The Romulan Way'', does not dictate an exact date for this mission, either.		:Further food for thought... The ''Messier'' is postulated here to be a slow, primitive type, so the ''Balboa'' sortie probably would not be an instant follow-on mission to the ''Carrizal'' survey. Whether ''Balboa'' is set at 2132, or moved to 2137, ''Carrizal'' could be anywhere between the 2100s and the 2130s; the source novel, ''The Romulan Way'', does not dictate an exact date for this mission, either.

	Generally, the only reason we have for assuming that these two ships would be close contemporaries, and of the same class, is their seemingly systematic naming after conquistadors. So far, the Guide does not claim that the ''Carrizal'' would belong to the ''Messier'' class, but this is the unvoiced assumption. --[[Timo\|Timo]] 15:22, 11 March 2008 (GMT+3)		:Generally, the only reason we have for assuming that these two ships would be close contemporaries, and of the same class, is their seemingly systematic naming after conquistadors. So far, the Guide does not claim that the ''Carrizal'' would belong to the ''Messier'' class, but this is the unvoiced assumption. --[[Timo\|Timo]] 15:22, 11 March 2008 (GMT+3)

	==730 or 750?==		==730 or 750?==
	The data for the [[DY series (Guide)\|DY series]] indicates the existance for a DY-750, while the text mentions a subclass referred to as a DY-730. Is the former a mistake for the latter? --[[User:Dan\|Dan]] 19:32, 8 March 2008 (PST)		The data for the [[DY series (Guide)\|DY series]] indicates the existance for a DY-750, while the text mentions a subclass referred to as a DY-730. Is the former a mistake for the latter? --[[User:Dan\|Dan]] 19:32, 8 March 2008 (PST)

	The DY series entry has now been edited to better accommodate the numerous various fan-created variants. There is also a semi-systematic approach to the DY numbers now, with numbers below 200 used for early sublight types (and any fan sublight design number above this is shamelessly altered in the style of DY-400 -> DY-140, DY-350 -> DY-135). A separate article will soon describe the warp-capable or warp-uprated variants, and will mention the general DY-700 series, of which the DY-750 as seen in the first Chronology book (courtesy of Greg Jein and Mike Okuda) is one member but does not get specific mention because it is not in UEDP/UESF/Starfleet use. The new entry doesn't mention a DY-730 any more, either, but I trust that one exists as well - as do DY-710, DY-720 and so forth...		:The DY series entry has now been edited to better accommodate the numerous various fan-created variants. There is also a semi-systematic approach to the DY numbers now, with numbers below 200 used for early sublight types (and any fan sublight design number above this is shamelessly altered in the style of DY-400 -> DY-140, DY-350 -> DY-135). A separate article will soon describe the warp-capable or warp-uprated variants, and will mention the general DY-700 series, of which the DY-750 as seen in the first Chronology book (courtesy of Greg Jein and Mike Okuda) is one member but does not get specific mention because it is not in UEDP/UESF/Starfleet use. The new entry doesn't mention a DY-730 any more, either, but I trust that one exists as well - as do DY-710, DY-720 and so forth...

	I considered the idea that the number would in fact be a registry/serial number, as possibly suggested in the chart glimpsed in TNG "Up the Long Ladder" where no two identical DY numbers appear. Ships from 500 to 599 might then be of identical design but would have unique identity indicated by the DY number. The system proved too cumbersome, though, and isn't dictated by the source material. --[[User:Timo\|Timo]] 15:11, 11 March 2008 (GMT+3)		:I considered the idea that the number would in fact be a registry/serial number, as possibly suggested in the chart glimpsed in TNG "Up the Long Ladder" where no two identical DY numbers appear. Ships from 500 to 599 might then be of identical design but would have unique identity indicated by the DY number. The system proved too cumbersome, though, and isn't dictated by the source material. --[[User:Timo\|Timo]] 15:11, 11 March 2008 (GMT+3)

	===Federation Reference Series===		==Federation Reference Series==
	I saw you made this change to the history reference data for the [[DY series (Guide)\|DY]] series. What is this? I don't think I've heard of it. --[[User:Dan\|Dan]] 11:45, 11 March 2008 (PDT)		I saw you made this change to the history reference data for the [[DY series (Guide)\|DY]] series. What is this? I don't think I've heard of it. --[[User:Dan\|Dan]] 11:45, 11 March 2008 (PDT)