Talk:Sovereign class starship

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
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

A great deal of non-canon and contradictory information seems to have been added to this article, most noticeably to the specifications section which now no longer matches what is canonically known about this starship class.

Since neither party can conclusively prove or convince the other of the existence of the rear torpedo launcher in question and given the preponderance of canon information, I have edited the torpedo count as indicated. Further attempts to revert the count will be corrected to the current version unless proven otherwise.

User:E_Pluribus_Anthony 06-Feb-2005 1538 UTC

There is currently a debate about how many additional torpedo launchers the refitted (Nemesis) Sovereign class ship has. One party believes that a single, aft torpedo launcher is found (in the deck) underneath the shuttlebay on the engineering hull; another party disbelieves this. Related production diagrams and close inspection of the ship in Nemesis seem to indicate the former, but a negative can also be argued. Assistance and resolution are required; thanks!

User:E_Pluribus_Anthony 30-Jan-2005 1738 UTC


Full explanations with photos and original blueprints can be found here [1]

Please do NOT add non-canon info to these articles. This includes novelizations and fandom. -- Famartin 16-Dec-2004 0538 UTC

Contents

[edit] Original research my ass

Observing the movies is not original research; going out and finding documentation is not original research. By the definition of OR used to justify removing the specs, we might as well remove most of the articles on the 'Pedia, since someone had to look that stuff up at some point. Rogue 9 22:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

As you can see at Talk:Akira class starship, this is not the only justification put forth for removing Alyeska's specs. The TMs are not canon (and that includes the Starship Spotter). As you can see directly above, this is not wanted on a Wikipedia article as a great deal of it is not verifiable. As well as this, his specs are provably incorrect in some regards and mere speculation in others. He mentions two warp drive engines - in Insurrection, Geordi specifically says the Enterprise has only one warp core. There is a difference between a nacelle and an engine. As well as this, there's nothing to suggest Sovereigns cannot be built at facilities other than San Francisco (just because the Enterprise was doesn't mean they all were) and there is no canon data to suggest how many workbees the class carries. Because Alyeska has deemed the canonicity of data irrlevant does not make it so. It's also worth mention that his specs disagree with those posted on the Featured Article at Memory Alpha (which also does not claim to know how many workbees the thing carries).
And finally, when posting, try and be civil towards fellow editors. - Hayter 09:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Specs

So only you get to decide what goes in the article now? Every single spec I added was from the Star Trek Starship Spotter TM, was dialogue, or met your arbitrary line in the sand on visuals. That meets the Original Research and Verifiability rules to the dot. That some are non-canon is completely irrelevent. Other non-canon information has also been posted and has not been removed. Either you allow this information, or you prove absolutely your cherry picking enforcement of the rules. Alyeska 16:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Alyeska, you're not listening. I don't decide what is canon - Paramount do. Paramount say that is only what is shown onscreen minus TAS. Paramount say this means the TMs are not canon. Paramount ordain that what is not canon is not to be considered factual for Star Trek. If you really have derived some stats from dialogue then please share them and cite the episode or movie - I would suggest that such information would be better presented in a paragraph rather than any sort of table or bullet formatting - but stuff taken solely from the TMs is. not. verifiable. Because the TMs are not canon, they are not to be used as a factual source when writing about something such as starship specs and design. Backstage anecdotes about producers thoughts? Cool, interesting. If you've read an interview where Berman said he thought the Ent-E might have carried about ten workbees then include it as something like, "series producer Rick Berman once suggested in an interview with ST:M that the new Enterprise-E might have carried around ten workbees," but don't just stick on the article that the class carries ten and say "this information was taken from a Rick Berman interview;" that's a misrepresentation of what you have read. It's the same with the TMs. KNow why? They're not canon. - Hayter 16:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
And you seem to have a very hard time understanding that what is canon does not determine what can or can not go in this article. Please point me the Wiki rule that states the TMs can not be posted in this article clearly labeled as non-canon material. Simply calling it non-canon and erassing it doesn't qualify bub. Your going to have to find me a Wiki rule. BTW, don't even think about citing verifiable on me. They are very verifiable. Just open the book and read it. Its as verifiable a source as you can get. A published book with the approval of the franchise owner itself. Thats more reliable then the quotes you have of the Akira class designer. The Specifications are clearly labeled with the statement they are derived from the TMs or a visual accounting. What you are now doing is cherry picking rules enforcement and a POV violation. I have jumped through every hoop thrown at me and have even decided to back down on the visuals, but you absolutely refuse to compromise on anything. Who is being dishonest here. You accuse me of it, you claim my position is absurd. I've backed up my statements with detailed analysis and examination of the rules, and I've gone so far as to follow the Wiki rules to the letter. You have not. Alyeska 16:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

This can get murky. As a party who has been involved in prior aspects regarding specifications (!), the issue shouldn't be whether they are cited or verifiable: proper references to Paramount works (e.g.,series, technical manuals) et al. should satisfy those burdens and are general Wp guidelines that should override all others. The issue is more of canonicity. Specs from fanon sources are, by extension, largely original research and should be scrutinised and nixed if necessary. Arguably, however, most of the specs cited herein and elsewhere are non-canon or semi-canon (not fanon); thus, anything canon or non-canon sources needs to be properly sourced and referenced. For example, glance at the infobox for the Enterprise-D (and its talk page), which was added with some rigour along the way. It isn't perfect, and still requires refinement – particularly when source information contradicts, in which case discussion might be warranted – but is a reasonable approach that should satisfy concerns all-around. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 17:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Just a little correction. The Technical Manuals are not Paramount works. They are written by people who also happen to work at Paramount and Paramount gave permission to ?Pocket Books? to publish them, but they are not Paramount works. AlistairMcMillan 18:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
The material was cited specificaly were it came from, but both Hayter and Allistair McMillian outright refuse to allow such material posted. Hayter has the odd notion that the material can't be posted bullet style but must be put in paragraph notion (if thats the case Hayter, don't remove the information, format it to your preference) while AM just deletes it outright while citing the wrong Wiki rules. Alyeska 17:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I've had similar issues with users regarding subjective or unequal evocation/implementation of Wp standards. There's nothing in the above that precludes inclusion/citation of information, yet verification and (if needed) removal of it. The infobox approach noted above should satisfy these concerns, and others should be discussed as anything in Wp should be. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 17:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I compliment you on misrepresenting me as you have done McMillan, Alyeska. I did not say you had to format it in a paragraph - I said that was, in my opnion, the best way to do it. I'm curious now as to whether you really read my talk page contributions at all.
Regardless, take note of the fact that an edit in conflict with your own is not by nature, vandalism. If you care to read WP:VAND, you will find this out. Now, here are things in short. Paramount say what is not canon is not fact. Wikipedia deals in facts. Therefore to submit something which is not canon as fact (as inserting it into an article sans a "this has not been confirmed to be accurate" disclaimer) is misleading. And even if you do include the disclaimer, the question is only raised more colourfully; what is this doing on the article if it hasn't been confirmed? WP:V very much applies here. The stats in the book were made up to make a bit of money off the back of the shows' success. Paramount approved the publication of the book - they never confirmed the accuracy of it. The stats in the book often do not relate to the show except through name. If a friend of mine uses cafépress to publish a book saying the Akira is three metres long, that doesn't make it so because the book is not canon. It's the same with the TMs, regardless of author. If Paramount release a TM in the future and state that it's all canon, throw the data into the article. But don't add speculation. There's a reason List of Starfleet ship classes doesn't have the classes or additional specifications revealed in novels and games. This reason is not as you seem to want to think, me. It is Paramount's (and previously Roddenberry's) decision and the majority of Wikipedia editors adhere to that decision. Why should you be the exception?
Lastly, either you're mistaken, or you've gotten to the point where you just don't care anymore. I refer first to this, posted by you above,
"I have jumped through every hoop thrown at me and have even decided to back down on the visuals, but you absolutely refuse to compromise on anything. Who is being dishonest here."
and then to this, currently shown on the article,
"These specifications are from Star Trek Technical Manuals and other official but non-canon sources. Weapons counts have been determined by observing on-screen footage as well as examining pictures of official models."
So have you left your visual analysis behind or are you stil using it? Where have you compromised on this issue?
And just to clarify this for you because your wording would suggest you're unaware of the situation, I am not the only one who has issues with you making this type of edit. Judging by talk page contributions, Famartin does not want your non-canon data on the articles. I believe User:E_Pluribus_Anthony has disagreed with some of your visual interpretations of the Sovereign as has AlistairMcMillan who I believe you are aware, also disagrees with the inclusion of non-canon data. As does Adam Bishop who has edited a number of trek articles and if you'll check Talk:Galaxy class starship and other related pages you'll see that a number of other people work to keep non-canon data out of these articles. Unless you believe these are all my sockpuppets, whether something is or is not canon is clearly quite pertinant, regardless of your individual view on the issue. - Hayter 17:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
For the Sovereign and Akira pages every single piece of information I posted met your arbitary requirements. The weapons and shuttle specs as well as warp figures come straight from a TM. Since you allow generic atributes of a ship to be catalogued, the warp engine counts are allowed. Some detailed information is canon through dialogue purposes or the spotting of the Captains yacht. For the prometheus page one can list Regenerative shields because that was dialogue. I removed every single piece of visualy gleaned weapon count (which is the sole area of contention in regards to what I've added in the past) and used specificaly what came from the TMs. So you can not use your earlier arguments against it. And once again, that the information is non-canon is IRRELEVENT. Its published material authorized by the franchise owner. If the material is suitably labeled, its legitimate. You yourself have posted non-canon material in the Akira page and have openly admitted it. You have no place arguing against the posting of TMs.

PS, you accused me of vandalism first. RV stands for Revert Vandalism. So don't get all high and mighty on me when I accused you of vandalism in turn.Alyeska 17:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I was under the belief that rv was simply short for 'revision.' If I am incorrect in that I apologise (to a number of others besides you). But you make it exceptionally hard not to violate WP:NPA, you know? Just to work from the basis for now that my 'arbitary requirements" are the standard to which data must be held, this means that your posted TM data is inadmissable - I've been pretty clear on my opinion here so I have no idea what you're thinking when you say you've met all my requirements because you quite clearly haven't. Not that it matters, because as I am trying to tell you, it is not my requirements that matter. And the difference between interviews with designers and producers about an aspect of the show and something printed in a TM has been explained to you on more than one occassion by more than one person. My Jaeger addition to the Akira article simply quoted what he thought of whilst designing the ship - I did not take what he said and try and pass it off as the specs of the class. Jaeger's quote is not non-canon - it's information relating to the real-life design of the class. The specs he provides are non-canon because they have not been confirmed onscreen, nor for that matter, has the role of the vessel as his suggested 'carrier.' That's why they're very clearly not presented as canonical data. You need to understand this distinction.
Now, I'm logging off Wikipedia for the day and may not be back for a few more. When I do return, I'm going to review our discussion and if upon reflection, I find that I've been unreasonable or illogical on a particular aspect of this, then I'll address that with you. I don't expect you to believe me in this, but I'm remarkably good at reading over my past statements and casting a critical eye over them. I would humbly suggest you do the same. If it turns out however, that I still believe I am correct in my current assessment of believing you are attempting to input data that you have accepted to be correct regardless of others opinions, and to the ends of reaching this goal you have deliberately been incivil towards those who disagree with you (referring to such people as "stupid" and the like), you have refused to properly engage in debate on the issue and you have willfully disrupted wikipedia in order to make your point, then I will be going for an Rfc. Truthfully, I hope I'm incorrect.- Hayter 18:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't necessarily disagree with this assessment, H. My main point is that, in Wp, it's not necessarily about 'truth' but verifiability: there's no reason to preclude tidbits of information from sources that have been approved by Paramount (canon or not) without including the necessary provisos and through consensus/agreement. Arguably, even the later series have been construed as being "cash cows". Given the various viewpoints here and elsewhere, I think the infobox is the best approach: it doesn't muddy the article text (i.e., it's discrete), is used for other 'devices' in Wp, and is also the approach taken by the Star Trek wiki (for which I'm surprised doesn't include more information). E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 18:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
That would still include information in Wikipedia that we all know is unreliable. We all know that Paramount has ignored the Technical Manuals in the past. We all know that whenever new series/movies are produced, that Paramount will contradict the Technical Manuals without even a second of hesitation. Information on Wikipedia is supposed to be reliable. AlistairMcMillan 19:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
"[W]e all know is unreliable" is rather carte blanche: this is an argument for diligence, not exclusion. Any ambiguities (and I don't deny them) can be discussed and cited ... if, for anything, to highlight them (I think this is well done down below in the Defiant article), just as they would be for other elements of information for any number of topics (e.g. Americas). And reliability is an issue with non-fictional topic matter as well – at least we have a body of film and literature here (considering canonicity, full or partial) that we can draw upon to sort it out. Verifiability should trump anything else – as long as information is accompanied by source information, this shouldn't be an issue. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 19:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Might as well erase all the Trek pages. Paramount is known to ignore their own established canon as well. Arguing that Paramount will ignore the TMs is a red herring argument. Until they do, and if they do, the TMs can provide an insight of information that we otherwise would not have. If contradictions occur, simply side with the canon material. Its not a very hard concept. Just because one source is canon does not invalidate the other. You can use TMs to backstop canon material or use TMs when no canon on the subject exists. Its just when contradictions occur, you side with the higher level material. Relatively little is known about many ships in Trek, some of them with considerably screen time but very little dialogue or internal visuals was bothered with. For ships like the Akira, the Miranda, the Nebula, or even the Excelsior, the TMs can provide a valuable insight of information. Contradictions can and will exist. Stating that because contradictions will exist, thus the material is inadmissable is intelectualy dishonest and ignores that such contradictions will exist in the canon source material as well. Alyeska 19:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

You are both talking as if we must have a complete set of information on each page. If the information does not exist from the authoritative source (the series/movies) then we shouldn't start looking elsewhere. If you are writing a biography of someone and you don't know what they did during a certain period of their life, you don't just start adding guesswork or adding information from the National Inquirer because that is the best that is available. AlistairMcMillan 23:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Yours is an incorrect analogy, as is the parallel of Pararmount-sanctioned works with the Enquirer, and please refrain from carte blanche statements. I don't partake in guesswork, as you apparently do when grouping Wikipedians together. We're not writing biographies: even if we were, we needn't include information from just official biographies but from unofficial ones too ... which is more apt. My point is that as long as information can be cited from a reliable source and verified (and there's no reason to believe that 'semi-canon' publications bearing the Paramount moniker are not, even given contradictions), there shouldn't be an issue. If it is, discuss. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 00:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

And my point is that the Technical Manuals et al are not reliable sources. Do you seriously believe that Paramount would make any effort to stick to the material in the Technical Manuals if they produced another series/movie? When they have no problem contradicting themselves for even minor plot points? Just how many decks does the Sovereign class have again? AlistairMcMillan 00:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

And that is your opinion. How much non-fictional information can contradict, and I mean not only dealing with Star Trek but beyond it? In Wp, this is obviated – or should be minimised – by adherence to the five pillars. Regardless of information in the technical manuals, numerous canon sources/references contradict. For instance, the Sovereign-class deck issue was (I believe) addressed in an issue of Star Trek: The Magazine: 24 decks (correctly) are noted by Picard (and exhibited in numerous concomitant diagrams) in Star Trek: First Contact, 26 decks were later cited by Lt. Daniels (stressed security guard?) in ST:FC, 29 by Data (for unknown reason) in Star Trek: Nemesis. Do you suggest tossing those references out as well as unreliable? No, they should be treated in the appopriate articles with relevant citations and appropriate analysis. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 00:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
You never answered my main point: do you seriously believe that Paramount would make any effort to stick to the material in the Technical Manuals if they produced another series/movie? AlistairMcMillan 01:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
That was intentional: an answer – my guess (sound familiar?) – would be fruitless opining: they may or may not. And that's not the point. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 01:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Specs Intro

These specifications are from Star Trek Technical Manuals and other official and canon sources.

FYI, I removed "and other official" from this for the following reasons. All canon sources are official so it is not needed for the latter, and the use here could be easily interpreted as the TMs being canon when they are clearly not. I feel,

These specifications are from Star Trek Technical Manuals and canon sources.

is more accurate.- Hayter 18:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

One little question. Which Technical Manual covers the Sovereign class? AlistairMcMillan 18:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Star Trek Starship Spotter by Adam Lebowitz and Robert Bonchune. Its not actualy a TM, but just like other tech sources for Trek, its been produced by people who actively worked on the series. Interestintingly enough, its also the most accurate Tech book to date to match observed visuals (sly grin). Alyeska 19:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

And by most accurate, I'm assuming you mean the stats match up with your personal opinions better than other publications. AlistairMcMillan 23:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't act like a jerk. The information is more consistent with observed capabilities and stated information from backstage information. As you have made quite clear, Paramount can and does ignore the TMs at whim. Because of this observed weapon counts have come in conflict with stated figures in the TM. This new TM has information that is far more accurate then past TMs. Its the only TM that even listed the 15 torpedo launchers for the Akira. Alyeska 01:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Saucer Sep

"Like the Galaxy class, the Sovereign class was capable of saucer separation; however, this ability has not yet been observed."

I do recall some very rough sketches from the star trek fan club mag showing the ship seperated, but there is no evidence from the movies the ship can actually do that. Can anyone provide a reasonable source for this? This belongs in a different paragraph regardless, as being able to saucer seperate would certainly not be part of the upgrade the class (or enterprise alone) recieved prior to Nemesis.

Based on those sketches by Eaves, I initially added that tidbit way back when. I've tweaked mention in the article to address this. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 14:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] USS Sovereign

Should the USS Sovereign be listed as appearing in Bridge Commander? Wouldn't a note that it is presumed to exist because of the name 'Sovereign-class' but hasn't been seen on sceen be more appropriate?

I agree, and have changed this section somewhat. At the same time, I removed USS Sentinel because that has only appeared in non-canon games, with no 'real' indication of existence (wheras with the E-E being Sov class, Sovereign must have existed) Mnemeson 19:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blueprints link

So someone produces a set of blueprints of the Ent-E and offers them for sale on the internet. [2] Someone else buys a set, scans them in and posts them online. Is it right for us to link to the site? Just wondering. AlistairMcMillan 17:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

No. They look quite cool, but the website offers nothing that can't be found via an official site or something that goes in depth a la Memory Alpha or EAS. - Hayter 19:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Also since posting this I noticed that an anonymous users (without a single other edit) has been spamming links to this site all over the place. AlistairMcMillan 21:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Seems like blatant ad spamming then. - Hayter 10:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Most powerful Starfleet ship

the most advanced and powerful type of ship in Starfleet from the mid-2370s onward. I thought it was the Prometheus-class starship.--Arado 19:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I think the Prometheus-class starship just seemed highly advanced because of its ability to use the Multi-Vector Assault mode and because of its formidable looking design, but it doesn't seem to be more advanced than the Sovereign-class.72.92.153.26 18:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Relevance?

Can we add some real world relevance to this article... i.e. what fictional work we are referencing here? (Film title or TV episode this ship appears in?) Halfblue 05:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/o/v/Talk%7ESovereign_class_starship_3cee.html"