I have to vigorously disagree with this. Alameda is not some obscure spot on the map. It is an island, a city and is the premier East SF Bay county. Even if the town was renamed (or merged with Oakland at some point in the distant future, for which it would still likely would be referred to as the “Alameda” section, just as different neighborhoods in NYC retain their names), it makes no logical sense that they would not be familiar with the name, even if they didn’t happen to visit it at some point.
I think it was a bad goof by the screenwriters attempting to do a comedic scene. I was wise to it the moment I first saw it (I was 12) with the same thought, “They’ve all lived in San Francisco ! They all have apartments there. Sulu was born there. How could they not know Alameda ?” They all knew Sausalito, where the (doesn’t exist in reality) Cetacean Institute was, and that is far more obscure a place.
Remember, these are all supposed to be highly educated folks, and even if Alameda were renamed, they certainly would’ve learned that in basic geography/history or just learning about the lore of San Francisco of 20th Century yore. Add to that, when they showed the visual computer maps of the bay at SF HQ in their “present (23rd C.) day”, Alameda Island stood out on the (unlabeled) screen, which made it all the more baffling.
Maybe I make a big deal of it since #1, my father and his first wife lived there; #2, my half-sister grew up there and got married there; #3, my father was stationed there throughout the ‘60s.
Again, let's use the comparison cited earlier: someone who once lived in New York City not knowing where Brooklyn is. Brooklyn is one of the city's five boroughs and a huge population center today (if it was its own city, it would be the fourth largest city in the US). There is no doubt every New Yorker knows the location of Brooklyn by heart. But if someone from 2016 went back in time to the New York City of 1716, they would indeed NOT know where to find Brooklyn in the New York City of that era. Here is a map demonstrating how differently the city was laid out 300 years ago. The 2016 resident would wander around Mill Basin in vain looking for "Brooklyn" (which in present day New York, would put them in the heart of the Brooklyn borough), only to be told they're in "Flatlands" and that the community of "Brooklyn" is actually much further north.
>> How could they not know Alameda ?” They all knew Sausalito, where the (doesn’t exist in reality) Cetacean Institute was, and that is far more obscure a place. <<
Again, simple explanation: Sausalito still exists in the 23rd century (and is in the same physical place). Alameda does not. Just because Alameda is a household name in 1986, doesn't mean the name is ever used 300 years later.
>> even if Alameda were renamed, they certainly would’ve learned that in basic geography/history or just learning about the lore of San Francisco of 20th Century yore. <<
Again, let's use another example. I've lived in the Chicago area my entire life. In Cook County, "Western Ave" is a MAJOR throughfare street that runs north to south and was originally the western edge of the city. Everyone from Cook County knows where it is. But I don't even need to go back in time 300 years to be unable to locate the street. The present-day "Western Ave" was built in the early 1960s. It predecessor is now know as "Old Western Ave" and the only part of it remaining is a side street in Blue Island, IL, which runs into a dead end. If you sent me back in time to the Al Capone era (let's say, 1920s), I would have no idea where "Western Ave" is in Chicago, and would have to ask directions to find it.
The same is true of numerous other major geographic landmarks in the city. Today, the city of Chicago's last major street that lines up to the lakefront is "Michigan Ave". My dad had his old 30s crime book and told me that a century ago, the street that boarded the lakefront was "Pine St." (which doesn't exist today), and it was a block further back from the present-day Michigan Ave. They filled in the coast and extended the land area a block further east than it had originally been.
>> they showed the visual computer maps of the bay at SF HQ in their “present (23rd C.) day”, Alameda Island stood out on the (unlabeled) screen, which made it all the more baffling. <<
All that demonstrates is that the island still exists in the 23rd century, not that is named "Alameda" or in any way resembles its 20th century equivalent for what its being used for. Again, if you had gone back in 300 years before present day (1716), they wouldn't know what "Alemeda" was either -- since it didn't get that name until 1850. Why would you presume its still called "Alemeda" 300 years in the future, or that people who were born in the 23rd century would be familiar with the region's old name from three centuries earlier? I'm not familiar with most of Chicago neighborhoods from a century ago, let alone 300 years ago.