Talk:Galaxy class starship (Star Trek)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Star Trek, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to all Star Trek-related topics on Wikipedia. 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 Trek Portal

Contents

[edit] Galaxy class

Is the first paragraph refering to Galaxy Class ships in Star Trek? If it is then it is wrong. If it isn't, what is it refering to? Jeoth 01:56, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I rewrote the article (in a Star Trek context) because it previously implied that Galaxy class starships in Star Trek were designed to travel between galaxies. If the previous text was referring to something other than Star Trek, it should be put back, but there should be a distinction between that and the Star Trek usage. -Jeoth 02:43, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)


[edit] supposed to last a century

I heard in an episode of tng or ds9 that galaxy class ships are built to last a century. Yet three of them have been destroyed during tng's 7 year run!

Being built to last doesn't make them invincible. They would only last 100 years if they were maintained and didn't sustain heavy damage in combat.

USS Ronald D. Moore? Where did that one appear? Adam Bishop 19:26, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I haven't ever heard of it... the external link doesn't mention it, nor does the Star Trek Encyclopedia, as of 1994 ( out of date, but best I have on hand). Lyellin 19:42, Jan 4, 2004 (UTC)
Apparently it comes from a DS9 calendar...that can't be canonical :) Adam Bishop 19:49, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I wouldn't think so..... Lyellin 21:09, Jan 4, 2004 (UTC)
Commander Riker refers to the Yamato as "NCC-1305-E" in one episode...
Iceberg3k 00:35, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That was in the episode when they were stuck inside that weird, sentient cloud thing. The registry is the more normal one, with no E... Pr1983 10:33, 18 August, 2006 (UTC)

[edit] USS Magellan

Hello folks.

Source: http://www.st-spike.de/pages/ships/starfleet/starfleetships_m.htm

Spike at Spike's Star Trek Site says the Magellan is a Constellation class starship with registry number of NCC-3069. He backs this up saying this is from the "Magellan" entry in the Encyclopedia. On screen, the "Magellan" is seen to be a Galaxy class starship in DS9 "Sacrifice of Angels," which I have not seen. Who is correct?

Also, can someone post a picture of a Galaxy class starship? Thanks.

blue

This is what is considered "canon" with respect to the USS Magellan. Take it with a bit of salt...
Dialogue and VFX give evidence that there really is a Galaxy Magellan in Sacrifice of Angels. Sisko ordered "Galaxy wings" to attack some cardassian Galors. The next VFX scene shows two Galaxys attacking the cardassian formation. It is very likely that one of the Galaxys from this scene is the USS Magellan. Moments later Sisko refers to the starships Magellan and Venture (the Venture is definitly a Galaxy) and orders them to protect the Defiant's flank. Why would Sisko order an old Constellation class vessel to lead an important assault and to cover the Defiant? --Echoray 11:30, 20 May 2004 (UTC)


I agree with Echoray about the Magellan probably being Galaxy-class, as there were no Constellation-class ships shown throughout the entire war, never mind that battle. However, about Sisko ordering an old ship to protect the Defiant; he did order the Miranda-class Sitak and Majestic to protect it at one point, and we know what happened to them!

I think the only person I've ever heard complain about Starfleet vessels being too comfortable was a Klingon. Otherwise I do not ever recall Starfleet personnel complaining about ships being too comfortable. What struck me was that originally the article seemed to be saying that anything other than a hard slab in some hallway corner and a hole in the floor as a toilet was way too good for someone in Starfleet.

JesseG 03:34, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Updates

I added cetology to the science and research section. A cetacean lab is shown in the blueprints and in the epidode "The Perfect Mate" Geordi makes reference to there being dolphins aboard while attempting to distract two Ferengi.

I updated information regarding the Galaxy class to changes various mistakes. There are known Galaxy class ships lost in the Dominion war.

Where did you get that information? I have seen nothing in canon referring to ships lost in the war. If you can back up your claim w/ canon sources, I will leave it as is. Otherwise, as with other non-canon information, it will be reverted back to its original form. --Famartin 04:43, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Check out this picture http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v177/Alyeska/Star%20Trek/DeadGCS.jpg That is a burning GCS Stardrive section missing both its saucer and neck. -Alyeska

Could this be a "Stardrive section" of a Nebula class? From the DVD edition of this episode, I think I can identify some strange structure atop this piece of debris that might have been the connection between the saucer and stardrive of a Nebula ship, but I'm not really sure. --Echoray 16:37, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Nebula class stardrive section is connected to the main body of the ship differently. The Saucer is directly attached to the warp engine pylons. If the saucer is gone it would have ripped off the pylons taking the warp engines with it. On the other hand removing the saucer from the Galaxy at worst tears off the neck of the Stardrive section and leaves the rest intact. The evidence is conclusive. A Galaxy class ship was destroyed. Besides, www.ditl.org is where the no Galaxy losses claim came from and I e-mailed this pic to the site owner and he removed the claim. -Alyeska

Fair enough. However, considering that the only battle where a Galaxy class was known to be lost was a complete massacre, I think this should be noted as well in the main body, and I will add it as such. --Famartin 13:50, 03 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It is absurd to assume that the Galaxy class is some mythical ship. We've never seen a Steamrunner, Sabre, or Ambassador blow up onscreen and no mentions have been made, shall we assume they took zero losses as well? Fact of the matter is Starfleet did take heavy losses in the war. The Galaxy class did well, but logic tells us it HAD to have taken some losses and this picture is proof of one of them. Do not edit the entry again because all you do is propogate the Myth that the Galaxy class was nearly invincible. -Alyeska

Oh, you are funny... That picture is proof of the ONLY one, and that battle was a special circumstance. I will edit this entry as many times as I want to, and you can change it back as many times as you want to. --Famartin 07:26, 04 Nov 2004 (UTC)
And, by the way, the Galaxy class IS a mythical ship. They all are... --Famartin 07:31, 04 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It is irrational to assume the Galaxy class suffered losses only in one battle seeing how many battles the Federation fought in was took serious losses. Another battle had out of 100 some ships less then two dozen survive. The battle to retake DS9 involved more then 9 Galaxy class ships (we see 9 in just one screen shot) and they had to take losses when you consider the fleet was outnumbered 2-1 by the Dominion. Tell me the logic in assuming the Galaxy class suffered no losses outside of Chin'Toka. Using your logic we can assume no Sabre, Steamrunner, Constellation, Ambassador, New Orleans, and Cheyne class ships were destroyed because we never saw them destroyed. This flies in the face of logic. The Galaxy class can be destroyed. Just three Jem'Hadar attack ships are sufficent to drive off a Galaxy that has no shields. When you factor in Galor class ships and Dominion Heavy Cruisers the logical thing to assume is Galaxy class ships were destroyed in the war, just not many because we rarely saw them take damage on screen. Assuming that only ONE battle cost them ships just doesn't fit with known facts. -Alyeska

Echoray is correct and Alyeska is stubbornly wrong- it is a Nebula Class star drive section. There is indeed some type of apparent structure in the same place that a Nebula class would have one. IF there is so much doubt, then it is un-confirmed, and can not be canon. You can't have it both ways. --72.56.18.53 18:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

In the initial contacts with the dominion, the USS Odyssey was destroyed in a kamikaze run of a Jem’Hadar ship slammed into is engineering section. Should it be considered part of the war against the dominion? -Gaumond

[edit] Rewrites on 1/21/05

I have removed or rewrote the following bits of information which are non-canon or speculative:

  • The Galaxy class starship was originally intended to be a smaller design, but mission creep and specification creep during the design process resulted in the largest starship Starfleet had ever produced. However, the power systems turned out to be somewhat vulnerable, especially during enemy attack. The ejection systems for the warp systems were known to be vulnerable to failure.
    • Deleted. Never established in an episode.
  • The Galaxy class was sometimes seen by those of a more military background as devoting too much space and energy to creature comforts and family support, such as holodecks, schools, gymnasiums, amphitheaters, and a bar, rather than mission equipment. Spacious facilities, while a definite benefit to morale on the deep space exploration and diplomatic missions the Galaxy was originally developed for, were seen by some as a hindrance to the patrol and combat missions the class found itself performing during the drastically heightened military tensions in the late 2360s and '70s.
    • Rewritten. Pure fan speculation, reproduced only on websites and not anywhere in canon. Moreover, the Intrepid and Sovereign classes have just as many luxuries and amenities which would befit smaller ships. Also, nowhere is it established that the extra facilities caused other things to be lost--as a matter of fact, the 1701-D was probably the best-equipped ship we've ever seen on Trek.
  • The inclusion of large amounts of families among the crew also proved to be a somewhat questionable policy with some (the Enterprise's captain once noted that while one's life is at risk whether on a starship or on Earth, Earth is not likely to be ordered into hostile territory to repel an enemy attack). At least one ship — the Yamato — was lost with its full complement, including families.
    • Rewritten. Several ships seen in TNG and DS9 have been seen with children and civilians aboard, just not in large quantities. Additionally, "Second Chances" establishes crew are allowed to bring aboard family after a certain period of time, as "Emissary" shows.
  • By the beginning of the Dominion War, three Galaxy class starships had already been lost, all of them due to damage to their warp drives: Yamato from an alien computer virus which had taken over her major computer systems, Enterprise-D from Klingon torpedoes which damaged the warp core, and Odyssey from impact damage to her secondary hull, deflector dish and starboard warp nacelle resulting from a kamikaze run by a Jem'Hadar attack ship. The vulnerabilities noted in the ship's warp core design (exhibited especially well duirng the destruction of the Enterprise-D) were noted by Starfleet, and steps were taken to fix the problem. Galaxy class ships during the Dominion war suffered far greater damage than the Enterprise-D and continued to fight, such as the Galaxy's heroic actions at the First Battle of Chin'toka. The upgraded Galaxy class design operating during the Dominion War was sometimes referred to as the War Galaxy; the Venture was an example of some of the modifications the Galaxy class received. Thanks in part to these upgrades the Galaxy class suffered no major losses in the war.
    • A history of warp core problems is speculative. The Odyssey and Yamato may have destroyed by warp core breach, but the breaches were precipitated by causes which would destroy any ship in that situation. No canon source -- even Tech Manuals -- make any mention of Starfleet redesigning the warp core, and again, this is fan speculation. There is no such canon thing as a "War Galaxy" -- again, more fan speculation. The Venture itself had the upper phasers removed by the end of DS9's sixth season.
  • "The Venture itself had the upper phasers removed by the end of DS9's sixth season." Not quite. In some episodes of DS9 where the Venture is shown, she has the nacelle phaser strips. In other episodes, she lacks them. However, stock footage of the Venture at DS9 had been reused for episodes late in the 6th and 7th season. This would mean that Starfleet couldn't seem to make up its mind about those phasers. I would stick with the Venture having the phaser nacelles entirely, seeing as how CGI Star Trek ships have not always been accurate in their reproduction of established ship designs.
  • Many of the Galaxy class ships in operation during the Dominion War were produced just before and during the war, with the specific goal of filling the fleets out with heavy combatants until the Sovereign class starship could be procured in numbers. Most of those ships were completed without most of the fittings of their peacetime counterparts — some ships were sent into battle with only the facilities needed for minimal crew support and heavy combat because the need for ships was so great at times during the war. It is not known how the ships were fitted following the war.
    • Rewritten. The mostly-empty thing was established in the DS9TM, but it said nothing about the Sovereign.

--SmokeDetector47 08:39, 2005 Jan 21 (UTC)


Smoke, stop screwing with the Galaxy article. You have removed some established facts and you have made assumptions on your own. Some information put in isn't strictly speaking canon, but came from the producers and designers of the show. Replace what you removed or I will put it back myself.

-Alyeska

Please feel free to point out an episode, movie, or even a backstage source which states that the Galaxy class carries fighters or was rehabbed in the fashion you mention. I guarantee you'll have difficulty, because there aren't any. All of your latest revisions seem based on fan speculation. The article I wrote was based solely on onscreen data and nothing else. If you don't believe me, head on over to Memory Alpha and attempt to make the same edits to any of our articles over there. -- SmokeDetector47 20:43, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)
Would you care to tell me where the Peregrine Tac-Fighters came from? We know that shuttled sized ships do not have the endurance or speed for long range opperations. This means they did not deploy from a space station prior to the opperation because the whole fleet would have had to move at warp speed for a significantly longer amount of time, and we know in Sacrafice of Angels that time was critical. Furthermore we have the Battle of Cardassia in which Pregrine Tac-Fighters were shown, and that is most definately a substansial range from any Federation asset. Some vehicle had to launch the Tac-Fighters. The Galaxy class just happens to have the largest known hanger bays and we see a particular version with an expanded size main hanger. Do the math.

-Alyeska

Exactly which version of Galaxy class ship has a larger hangar bay...in what episode? As for which ships can hold such craft, there are a number that potentially could: Sovereign, Galaxy, Nebula, Ambassador, even smaller ones or specialised carriers that may exist. Cite your work.

To that end, I have removed fanon edits regarding the Peregrine Tactical Fighters and will continue to do so. Rationalise and speculate all you want, but unless you can cite and prove conclusively your contention (and at this point you cannot), your fanon edits will be removed.

E Pluribus Anthony


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v177/Alyeska/Star%20Trek/GCSImpulse1.jpg Note the differences to the main shuttlebay. The only way that would be remotely useful is if it had to do with fighter opperations. -Alyeska

Hmmm. You're trying to tell us that this image of fairly low quality--which merely exhibits that the main shuttlebay superstructure and exterior door are casting shadows aftward and downward--is conclusive proof that the Galaxy class supported fighter operations? Even if there is a remarkable difference between this and prior Galaxy class models, and there is not, it doesn't support your notion that changes made are due to fighter operation support. Sorry: that doesn't cut it; show me--SmokeDetector47, and others--one such ship launching a fighter or a similar canon reference validating your contention and we might believe you. It appears, though, you are again trying to justify your fanon contention with erroneous rationalisation.

Anyhow, the editions I made to the article regarding auxiliary craft allow for such ... speculation but are still accurate. Any further changes/additions regarding Peregrine fighters et al. will be removed unless you can conclusively provide proof.

Thanks!

E Pluribus Anthony

I'd read that the akira class starships were used as carriers... they have hangar bays that run from the back to the front of the saucer section, so to me, those are the most likely carrier ships... Pr1983 15:04 August 15, 2006 (UTC)
I have also read that, though I cannot recall where. I do believe it was a "backstage" source rather than an onscreen one, likely one of the people who designs the ships. This is difficult to back up with on screen sources though, as it's pretty clear there's no fighter bay on the upper side of the saucer, and we rarely (if ever) get clear, well-lit views of the underside. Toroca 09:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yamato

"Yamato", aside from being a battleship, is an old name for Japan.

[edit] Star Trek Online

I'm not sure if we can use this but this blog [1] discusses the fleshing out of the Galaxy class for an upcoming online game. Considering that Andrew Probert, the person who came up with the original design for the T.V. show, is working with them, does that make it somewhat official? Beowulph 03:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I think this is still at most unofficial (i.e., not endorsed by Paramount per se); even if it were, it would be analogous to any other ST game that is (non-canon).
That being said: given the involvement of Probert, I see no reason to exclude any such comments from him or to merely provide links if they are germane, properly sourced, and indicated as such. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 03:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Odyssey

Odyssey is a noun that means long voyage, The Odyssey is also one of Homer's epic poems, so the ship isn't neccessarily named after a component of Apollo 13. This should probably just be removed.

[edit] Tactical Systems

This text:

"Although the Galaxy class shield grid is noticeably insufficient against contemporary weapons of other major powers, this is compensated by its very powerful photon torpedo launchers, which can fire up to 6 torpedoes in one spread. The Galaxy's Type X phasers, while not powerful in comparison to typical adversaries' shield systems, can fire in almost any direction, leaving almost no blind spots in the Galaxy class starship's weapon coverage."

In my opinion is false. During the war the Galaxy Class ships were used as the juggernauts of the fleet, regularly engaging the larger, more powerful enemy ships. In "Sacrifice of Angels" it takes only two or three blasts to disable a Cardassian Galor warship, and later on in the background of the battle a Galaxy class ship is shown firing one blast at a ship and destroying it. Given the size of the explosion it would have to be either a galor class warship or else a jem'hadar battlecruiser (not the huge one, the average sized one). During TNG, to increase dramatic effect they had to underpower the galaxy in many of its battles, but i think that changed during the war (another example being that starfleet engineers did modify the shields of all starfleet vessels to better withstand dominion weaponry). To be honest, i think the only vessels better shielded and better equipped (phaser wise), are the Sovereign and Prometheus classes. Pr1983 11:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apocryphal and non-canon

Surely by definition these ships oughtn't to be here? They weren't on the show, and don't belong in a reference which is supposed to use solely canonical, verifiable data --Mnemeson 22:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Since it had been two weeks with no objections or comments, I removed the section labelled 'non canon' Galaxy class ships. The section heading alone is enough for them not to be in, as they're not part of the Trek canon. --Mnemeson 02:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I only just now saw this note and am torn. On the one hand, I'm a canon purist, but on the other, so long as the information is marked as being outside what Paramount considers canon, I don't see a reason not to include the information. Ugh, headache. Thanks for your note on my talk page, by the way --EEMeltonIV 18:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Many Star Trek articles have sections for non-canon information. I don’t see any problem with that as long as it’s clearly marked as non-canon. In the interest of completeness, I think the section should be put back in. UncreativeNameMaker 19:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Order

Surely at the very least, the Enterprise, as by far the most prominent ship of this class, wants to be first (if not having an entire subsection). Morwen - Talk 07:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Has it's own page.. but yeh listing it first seems logical :-) Deus (talk) 08:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Has it's own page, hah, I'm not sure if this article shouldn't be a section of that one, given that the backstage information is inseperable. (But I shall trial and sandbox such a move and try to whip up support should I do this). Morwen - Talk 08:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] USS Dauntless NCC-71879

Should the Dauntless from Star Trek Bridge Commander be included as a non-canon Galaxy-class? It is said as being of the Galaxy class, but it's also from the game, which is likely considered non-canon. --M45k3d N1Nj4 G4R0 04:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it and all the other non-canon -- but "verifiable" -- ships out there are worth including. That said, a previous version of this article had such a section someone excised. I'd say, go for it and see what happens. Might foment a much-needed discussion about how to and to what extent these article should incorporate non-canon material. --EEMeltonIV 17:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Non-cannon material should definitley _not_ be brought here - if you like non-cannon take it to Non-cannon star trek wiki Matthew Fenton (talk) 17:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
This is not true. Material from whatever verifiable sources is welcome here. All material needs clearly marking as to its provenance, which will allow the reader to decide. This insistence on "cannon" conflicts with WP:WAF. Generally in-universe reference works will adopt TV/movie canon because they are written in the context of in-universe, and therefore an attempt to introduce other works will introduce innumerable inconsistencies (you can't very well reconcile Federation (novel) and Star Trek: First Contact. However, since this is a real encyclopedia, we write using an out of universe perspective, and we can simply note both versions, probably giving the filmed one primacy. Likewise with ships. We probably want to give on screen primacy, followed by Okuda/Sternbach, then followed by lots and lots and lots of different non-canon sources. We should make absolutely no attempt to reconcile them ourselves, but note when the sources disagree. Morwen - Talk 18:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Lets not be so disgusting, okay? You may hold a license to produce a game et cetera but that doesnt make it part of the storyline of "official" ships - Are we going to start including ships from FlashTrek etc now? I think not. Matthew Fenton (talk) 18:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
"disgusting"? Where did i say that this makes it 'part of the storyline of "official" ships'? Please stop putting words into my mouth. I don't know what FlashTrek is? Is it notable? It is legal? If so, then yeah, put it in. We aren't some kind of in-universe fan encyclopedia here with a canon policy: this is a real world encyclopedia talking about fictional things: and you know, the USS Dauntless is no more or less fictional than the USS Enterprise. Morwen - Talk 20:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Paramount have stated that while games may be licensed they are not part of the story, a.k.a non-cannon - They do not belong in this article, period. I my self have no problem "mentioning" non-cannon things being a game player and a book reader but you should also read Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Trek#Non-canon (trivia). Matthew Fenton (talk) 21:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
"Paramount have stated that while games may be licensed they are not part of the story, a.k.a non-cannon" - so what? We aren't Paramount, nor are we we a fan encyclopedia writing about thigns in an in-universe style, we are a real encyclopedia writing about fictional things and thus discussions of what counts as real or not in Star Trek is fundamentally irrelevant to our mission, beyond perhaps influencing which information we should give first and how much we include. That's memory alpha's job, and they do it well. You seem not to understand the reasons for WP:WAF. I suggest you study it closely, compare it to the dreck which is the general average standard of the Star Trek articles here and pitch-in and help. By the way, it is 'canon', not 'cannon'. The guideline you point to notes that it is not acceptable to portray non-canon information as fact. Well, yes. It is fictional. So is "Encounter at Farpoint". It isn't acceptable to portray that as fact either. Do you have a point? Morwen - Talk 21:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Should wee include the "USS Pepsi" - My ship.. I thought of it my self.. No of course not.. where not going to include every unofficial ship.. it would be preposterous.. if you wish to start including non-cannon info then get a consensus at the project :-) Matthew Fenton (talk) 21:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Non-cannon information isn't fact and is known to be very unreliable.. it is written by fans who get published.. Wikipedia is supposed to be verifiable including non-cannon information is unverifiable as like I have said its fan stuff and hence portraying it here as "fact" within the fictional universe would be futile as the copyright holder has acknowledged it is not. Matthew Fenton (talk) 21:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, but per WP:WAF, we should not portray anything as "fact" within the fictional universe. Because, you know, it is a fictional universe, and we aren't writing an in-universe Encyclopedia. Once you acknowledge that key point, this nonsense about canon or non-canon simply goes away. You seem to have a fundamental disagreement with WP:WAF, having alleged elsewhere that it is there to make your life harder, rather than to provide a guideline that can be pointed to when challenging the very poor quality of Trek articles. It's a shame anyone is willing to defend the rampant garbage that is the current state of the Trek articles.
"including non-cannon information is unverifiable" - eh? It is really easy to verify. You just go to the bookshop or your library and read. Thus you have verified. Morwen - Talk 21:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Lord help us.. Anyone can write a book.. It does not _however_ make it correct.. If you would care to explain what is hard to understand about that? - Please read Canon (Star Trek), on the assumption you do not care to read "According to the editors at Pocket Books, current rights holders for publishing Star Trek fiction books, no novels or other printed stories are considered canon by Paramount." - These articles are specifically relating to the official works.. If you do want to though no one is stopping you from creating List of non-canon Star Trek starships. Matthew Fenton (talk) 21:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Believe me, I am fully aware of this concept. You making your text bigger, really does not help, nor does sarcasm. As I noted, though, this distinction between canon and non-canon is not a useful distinction to make when writing a real-world Encyclopedia, beyond giving priority to information. For example, obviously Zefram Cochrane would give most information to the backstory shown in Star Trek: First Contact and Enterprise, and then in a later section would say "OTher versions" and give a brief summary of the events of Spaceflight Chronology version and the Federation version. These latter versions obviously would not be portrayed as fact, because Zefram Cochrane is a made up character.
"These articles are specifically relating to the official works." - where does this come from? We aren't writing in an in-universe style, we shouldn't be portraying any of this as fact, because it's all made up, so as long as we are giving in the body text sources for everything and noting non-canon things are non-canon then what is the problem? Morwen - Talk 21:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
We better add the USS Pepsi then, eh? We better add everybody else's fan ship as well? Matthew Fenton (talk) 21:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
No, of course not. Because they aren't verifiable. Morwen - Talk 21:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes it is, the USS Pepsi was published in The Daily Mail.. very easy to get published.. see.. and if you say a news paper is unciteable then tough luck as it is just as "verifiable" as a book. Matthew Fenton (talk) 22:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
There's also notability to bear in mind, as well. Can I suggest, if, as it seems, you have a fundmental objection to WP:WAF you take it to that guideline's talkpage, rather than try to obliquely undermine it here with your unconstructive comments and sarcasm? Morwen - Talk 22:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Then quit the blasphemy, I understand you don't like Star Trek (the TV series/films), trying to call something unofficial as verifiable is almost revolting. Matthew Fenton (talk) 22:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
"blasphemy"??? "revolting"? "disgusting"? This sort of language (a) verging on incivility and (b) really is very strange. I don't understand your claim that I "don't like Star Trek". What have I done to make you think that? Please check out who created the articles Encounter at Farpoint (TNG episode), Mirror, Mirror (TOS episode) and Amok Time (TOS episode) (hint: it was me). Morwen - Talk 22:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Blasphemy = Trying to call non-canon ships canon, revolting/disgusting = as a Trekkie those terms best describe how I feel about the way you talk about the canon, also the articles you presented violate several of the "gospel guidelines" Matthew Fenton (talk) 22:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I have not called them canon. Please find a single statement where I have said that. All I have noted is that canon information needs citing too, and that being non-canon shouldn't rule it out for a minor mention or a cross-reference. If you are getting emotionally involved with an encyclopedia article about a fictional starship; then I can only suggest you need to find detachment somehow.
If you look at the articles when I started them, you will see they indeed conformed with good practice, as it was then, and as it is now. Morwen - Talk 22:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Meh. Whatever you say, I can't really be bothered to argue this as I've stated my points. Matthew Fenton (talk) 22:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/a/l/Talk%7EGalaxy_class_starship_%28Star_Trek%29_490a.html"