If the class is entirely speculative why are we presenting it as fact? --8of5 14:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Precisely what I was trying to highlight. The precedent here is far-reaching, almost none of Memory Beta's D7s were actually called or shown to be D7s. There's a lot of incorrect data to remove here. -- Captain MKB 15:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Well your point is certainly a very important issue that should be brought up on talk and forum pages and hopefully fixed. But if you know the page is in error it would be better to fix it rather than just leave a note saying other editors made an error. --8of5 16:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
You're absolutely right, but I'm not ready to fix it just yet. Seeing as there are over a dozen other articles with the same deficiency, I thought it might be more efficient to list them all, and then eliminate the problems in one swipe rather than starting a dozen new talk pages. -- Captain MKB 17:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
A reason not to remove the class -- if the Devisor is mentioned in "Star Trek Log Four" then it is indeed a D-7 as seen onscreen. -- Captain MKB 18:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Forged in Fire establishes that the Klingonese name translated as "Devisor" is " 'OghwI' ". The scene where this is done takes place immediately after TAS "More Tribbles, More Troubles", and the novel dates this as taking place in 2269.--Emperorkalan 15:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no need for two articles -- they are the same ship with one appearance having the name translated to a different language! -- Captain MKB 14:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.