Talk:Nova class starship
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. |
[edit] Galaxy successor
Wasn't there dialogue between Geordi, Data, and Leah Brahms about the Nova Galaxy replacement? (Taken to be a different thing than the USS Equinox)
[edit] Relevance?
Can we add some real world relevance to this articles... i.e. what fictional work we are referencing here? (Film title or TV episode this ship appears in?) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Halfblue (talk • contribs) 01:13, 17 August 2006.
- Well, the opening sentence establishes that it's a Star Trek ship. The rest of the article cites a few published works and specific episodes for the rest of the info. What else would you like? --EEMeltonIV 21:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- What I am looking for is actual episode/plot details of the specific work fiction this ship actually comes from. For example:
- In real life, this ship is appears in (series name) (episode number) where it is piloted by (fictional character name)/attacked by/stolen by/chassed by/in the shot with/in a space battle with...ect.
- The above description should be somewhere in the first paragraph. The Wikipedia Guide to layout WP:LAYOUT asks that "first paragraph summarizes the most important points of the article". The citations of where it came from are buried and un-clear. Since this is Wikipedia and not a Star Trek tech manual the entry needs relevance for the average non-Trekie. Halfblue 14:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- What I am looking for is actual episode/plot details of the specific work fiction this ship actually comes from. For example:
[edit] Merge
I also oppose this merger.. :-\ -- WP:POINT. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 23:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- What on earth has WP:POINT have to do with anything? I am severely upset you have accused me of "disrupting Wikipedia to make a point". How does placing a merge tag on an article to suggest a merge "disrupt Wikipedia"? What point am I supposed to be proving? Morwen - Talk 00:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- I'm tired I should of typed out more of a message.. my point is you tagged 3 articles.. each with a link to a discussion page and left a message at the project.. to me it will just cause fragmented discussion.. would it not be more prudent to just have one discussion at the project :-\ thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 00:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- That would be a good reason to say something of the sort of "hey, please see the more general discussion on the issue at WT:TREK". It is not a good reason to accuse me of making mischevious edits contrary to my own beliefs in order to achieve another desired goal. Morwen - Talk 00:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- When you tagged this article it just appeared you where going through article and tagging them all. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 00:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- Even if that was true, which it wasn't - how would that be against WP:POINT? WP:POINT isn't "help! the person suggested using proper channels something I disagree with", it is about serious disruption: e.g. nominating an article for deletion that they actually think should be kept. I've not disrupted anything. Morwen - Talk 00:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- DBAD - You are getting to worked up about something insignificant, it was obviously a mistake on my part. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 00:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- Even if that was true, which it wasn't - how would that be against WP:POINT? WP:POINT isn't "help! the person suggested using proper channels something I disagree with", it is about serious disruption: e.g. nominating an article for deletion that they actually think should be kept. I've not disrupted anything. Morwen - Talk 00:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- When you tagged this article it just appeared you where going through article and tagging them all. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 00:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- That would be a good reason to say something of the sort of "hey, please see the more general discussion on the issue at WT:TREK". It is not a good reason to accuse me of making mischevious edits contrary to my own beliefs in order to achieve another desired goal. Morwen - Talk 00:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- I'm tired I should of typed out more of a message.. my point is you tagged 3 articles.. each with a link to a discussion page and left a message at the project.. to me it will just cause fragmented discussion.. would it not be more prudent to just have one discussion at the project :-\ thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 00:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
