Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:52, 5 February 2017

Star Trek C‑class Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Star Trek, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to all Star Trek-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Star TrekWikipedia:WikiProject Star TrekTemplate:WikiProject Star TrekStar Trek C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

The contents of the USS Enterprise (XCV 330) page were merged into Starship Enterprise on 2011-06-28. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Starship Enterprise article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Enterprise M

In this article Star Trek: Of Gods and Men an Enterprise M is mentioned. Shouldn't it be listed in this article also.76.67.103.107 (talk) 14:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the Enterprise-M is not canon, but Star Trek: Of Gods and Men is notable; and notability is what matters here. Therefore, there should be a section about the Enterprise-M here or at the Gods and Men article. If the section ends up at the Gods and Men article, then there should be a link to said section in this article. —MJBurrage 03:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Overhaul

I'm working on an overhaul of this at User:EEMIV/Starship Enterprise. Feel free to jump in there or at the talk page. Objective is to ditch the overwhelming in-universe perspective and focus more on production lineage. Depending on the end product, the idea may or may not be for it to be integrated with Spacecraft in Star Trek. --EEMIV (talk) 20:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I really like what your doing. A couple points to consider:

1. The various designs are essentially sculptures, and as such inherently visual. Therefore I believe that there should be a single small image of each in the article. At the very least, an image of each ship that does not have its own article.
2. The real-world details should come first, and should be the bulk of the article. However, with respect to those ships that do not have a separate article, there should be a brief section for each that describes where the ship fits into the fictional background of Star Trek.
3. If consensus is one image of each ship, they should go in the main table. If we only include images for the ships without separate articles, the images should go in the sections described under point 2.

—MJBurrage 02:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Enterprise F (STO)

While STO is completly non-canon, there is no realy Enterprise F. So why is thisone added and not the ~1000 other non-canon Enterprises from books and so on ... --188.107.6.82 (talk) 18:09, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree. There are multiple Enterprise-Fs from various non-canon Star Trek works. I will remove the Star Trek: Online Enterprise-F. Transphasic (talk) 01:09, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Canon status is not a criterion for inclusion or exclusion at Misplaced Pages -- it's a useful notion to deal with in-universe storyline conflicts, but Misplaced Pages is more concerned with production decisions, third-party coverage, and gooourcingd s.; "canonicity" isn't a hurdle content needs to clear. The STO project has received sufficient third-party coverage to warrant mention here. --EEMIV (talk) 13:35, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

So should Enterprise-F go under "alternate timelines" or "TNG" era? Cause there are still multiple non-canon Enterprise-Fs and Star Trek Online isn't exactly TNG era. Transphasic (talk) 17:07, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Is the Enterprise-F in any way more notable than other non-canon designs from ST Online, or is it just because of the name? Oh it's the Enterprise!! It has to be an important ship I'm not an ST Online player and I do acknowledge that ST Online is notable, but notability doesn't automatically include everything found in the game. Carpe carpam (talk) 18:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Name inspiration

USS Enterprise (CVN-65)#In popular culture elaborates on the inspiration for the name USS Enterprise. This should be mentioned here, shouldn't it? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:22, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Note that the celebrated predecessor of the CVN-65, the CV-6, was of the Yorktown class. Remember that the NCC-1701 was originally called USS Yorktown in Roddenberry's script. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:27, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

In the original "Star Trek Engineers Manuel" (issued in the mid-seventies,) the Enterprise was said to be 1200-feet long(363.64-meters). I suppose the propulsion nacelles were extended an extra 100, to 200-feet to clear their warp and propulsion field further from the body of the engine section!!! --184.248.3.83 (talk) 23:52, 27 December 2015 (UTC)Veryverser

Merge

I suggessted a merge from USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-E) and USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-A). Those two movie-only versions have not received significant independent coverage and pretty clearly fail Misplaced Pages:Notability (fiction). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Keep No never — Preceding unsigned comment added by MightyDinoPower15 (talk • contribs) 01:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

• Keep, of course keep the page, all of the Enterprise ships are notable and should have their own articles. Did you put any more of these on AfD, I seldom look at those sad pages and am lucky I came across this one. And please italicize the ship names in your nom, have some respect shipmate. Randy Kryn 04:58, Star Date 25 January 2017 (UTC)
• The Afd is at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-E). Randy Kryn 21:16, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Kelvin Timeline

In the above named section, it's stated that the black hole and Romulan appearance created a "new reality."

This is COMPLETELY WRONG! ! !

The black hole created a pathway to an ALTERNATE, but extremely similar, universe.

My proof --- Check any bio of/on Capt. James Tiberius Kirk printed before the 2009 movie and you'll read that Kirk WAS BORN ON EARTH in IOWA - - - NOT IN SPACE ! ! !

Also, notice in the 2009 movie WHERE the starship is being constructed - - - HERE ON EARTH ! ! !

Nero coming through a black hole an untold distance away would not effect how/where starships are constructed.

Given the complexity of the construction set-up in the 2009 movie, the earthbound way of building starships appears to be a long established 'tradition' and the shipyards at Utopia Planetia have probably never existed.

Also, given that Nimoy's Spock character has no memory change --- remember the episode The City on the Edge of Forever and the "Guardian of Forever" after McCoy went through and no one recognized Spock? --- that would happen if it was the same universe.

Given all this, I think the section's intro sentence of --

"The 2009 Star Trek film takes place in a new reality created when the Romulan character Nero traveled through time via an artificial black hole."

should be changed to read something like --

"The 2009 Star Trek film takes place in an alternate universe that the Romulan character Nero and the Vulcan character Spock both reach by traveling back in time through a "Red Matter" artificially created black hole."

What do all of you think? 2600:8800:50B:6700:C23F:D5FF:FEC5:89B6 (talk) 07:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• C-Class Star Trek articles
• Top-importance Star Trek articles
• WikiProject Star Trek articles