Talk:Enterprise (NX-01)
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. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
I know the Enterprise has a number of Phase cannons, but 12 seems over excessive for a ship it's size and for the time period of Star Trek. Enzo Aquarius 22:17, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
- I believe the number reflects the augmentations made to the vessel for the Xindi mission. Presumably subsequent ships scaled this back as the weapons became more sophisticated and powerful and the UFP's establishment allowed for more peaceful exploration. 23skidoo 02:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
12 cannon ports can be visually verified and the ship fired from a minimum of 10 of those 12 ports throught the series, meaing it used most or possibly even all of them at some point or another. --Atrahasis 23:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Sources
Which episodes are the data in the template taken from? If actual episodes cannot be cited, the information should not be here. Please see WP:VERIFY. AlistairMcMillan 10:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- A few.. ENT: Silent Enemy, ENT: The Expanse, ENT: Azati Prime and ENT: Fallen Hero--Matthew Fenton (TALK - CONTRIBS) 10:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Ship table
Removed the ship table as we dont know much about the XCV and also the Starfleets are diffrent, so.. dont add it back thank you. Matthew Fenton (TALK - CONTRIBS) 09:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- What is the XCV anyway? Is that the test craft from "First Flight"? 23skidoo 15:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
USS Enterprise (XCV 330) - Matthew Fenton (TALK - CONTRIBS) 15:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "Enterprise" template
The "Starships named Enterprise" template was removed earlier tonight, purportedly because it was "speculative". This is not a valid rationale - the template is intended to facilitate movement between articles about Star Trek ships named "Enterprise", and as such is perfectly appropriate for an article such as this one. Thoughts? --Ckatzchatspy 09:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- It was actually added this morning and removed this morning. Deus Sum (Matthew Fenton) (talk) 09:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Fine, Matthew... the links between previous and subsequent articles, present since May 1, 2006 and [most recently presented] in the form of the template "Starships named Enterprise", were removed [just after midnight (Pacific Standard Time)], or [just after 8 AM (UTC)]. It doesn't alter the fact that you removed a useful set of links. --Ckatzchatspy 09:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- How is it useful? There's a big honking category Category:Enterprise Ships (Star Trek). Deus Sum (Matthew Fenton) (talk) 09:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- For what's it worth, other implementations of the template include the years, and where there is a gap, it reads "unknown" (and the span) before listing the next known vessel. To answer MatthewFenton's question, the point of a succession box seems to be to make it easy to move linearly between related entries. Same idea behind successor/predecessor entries for TV episodes, elected officials, etc. --EEMeltonIV 12:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Removed again per "Another common type of template, succession boxes, should not be used to describe in-universe relationships in articles about fictional entities. Succession boxes assume continuity, which may not exist. Even if it does exist, the fiction's creators may choose to rewrite it later, invalidating any previous canon" at WP:WAF. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- To address your concerns, I've relabelled the headers "Previous article" and "Next article" - otherwise you're going to have to remove them from ALL of the "Enterprise" articles. --Ckatzchatspy 22:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Adding headers doesn't fix it. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- It does address the problem - the template is now a navigation guide, and NOT an indication of succession. If you like, we can arrange the articles in any order that is satisfactory. --Ckatzchatspy 22:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Another option would be to drop the display of the article name, so that one clicks on "next article". That might also address your concerns over indicating succession. Thoughts? --Ckatzchatspy 22:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- It's not a navigation guide as it only covers prev. and next; so it is still a succession box. To answer your second reply it would still be a succession box. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Now it is *not* a succession box. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- It does address the problem - the template is now a navigation guide, and NOT an indication of succession. If you like, we can arrange the articles in any order that is satisfactory. --Ckatzchatspy 22:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Adding headers doesn't fix it. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- To address your concerns, I've relabelled the headers "Previous article" and "Next article" - otherwise you're going to have to remove them from ALL of the "Enterprise" articles. --Ckatzchatspy 22:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Removed again per "Another common type of template, succession boxes, should not be used to describe in-universe relationships in articles about fictional entities. Succession boxes assume continuity, which may not exist. Even if it does exist, the fiction's creators may choose to rewrite it later, invalidating any previous canon" at WP:WAF. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- For what's it worth, other implementations of the template include the years, and where there is a gap, it reads "unknown" (and the span) before listing the next known vessel. To answer MatthewFenton's question, the point of a succession box seems to be to make it easy to move linearly between related entries. Same idea behind successor/predecessor entries for TV episodes, elected officials, etc. --EEMeltonIV 12:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- How is it useful? There's a big honking category Category:Enterprise Ships (Star Trek). Deus Sum (Matthew Fenton) (talk) 09:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Fine, Matthew... the links between previous and subsequent articles, present since May 1, 2006 and [most recently presented] in the form of the template "Starships named Enterprise", were removed [just after midnight (Pacific Standard Time)], or [just after 8 AM (UTC)]. It doesn't alter the fact that you removed a useful set of links. --Ckatzchatspy 09:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- One possibility might be to do what I did with the Trek ranks "succession" box, which is to splat them onto one table so they're all visible at once. The idea of succession isn't an issue since "next" and "previous" aren't there. *shrug*. It agree with Ckatz that is dumb to remove the box alltogether, though. --EEMeltonIV 22:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Spatial Torpedoes
Someone keeps removing spatial torpedoes from the Armaments section of the General Characteristics. Considering that they only had photonic torpedos for half the time plus the fact that spatial torpedoes are seen in the ship's storage bays all the way to the fourth season, spatial torpedoes should remain on the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.122.223.89 (talk) 19:05, August 24, 2007 (UTC)
