Talk:Prometheus class starship

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Star Trek Portal
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 have to say that having read through the below in its entirety, I find the fact that 2 'adults' (?) are able to argue so heatedly over something as fictitious as this. Puerile, and inane, if you're going to argue over something, make it something worthwhile

Contents

[edit] Children, Children

This squabble is looking extremely childish. Might I suggest the following compromise: We keep the specifications section, but call it "Specifications (not confirmed on screen)", along with text explaining the source of these specifications. This would seem to satisfy Alyeska's desire to include the specifications, with AlistairMcMillan's desire to keep to strict canon sources. For what it's worth, I have absolutely no point of view of their canonicity whatsover, I'm simply trying to reach a compromise that is acceptable to both halves Bluap 15:40, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

And, for what it's worth, I do not regard removing the list as "vandalism", nor do I regard inserting it as "original research" Bluap 15:40, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
I've decided to be bold, and have inserted my suggested compromise. If anyone objects to the compromise, could you please detail your objects in this talk page before editing the article Bluap 15:52, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Please read Talk:Nebula class starship and explain how we decide which non-canon source to base the figures on. AlistairMcMillan 16:09, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Attention AlistairMcMillan

Do not remove the specifications from this article again. I have researched the ship and looked at CGI pictures of the Prometheus and made the detailed count on its weapon systems. Much of what you see in the specifications comes directly from canon or from offical sources. -Alyeska

Please list your "official sources" then. Keeping in mind that the only canon sources are the movies and the television series. Which episode tells us the Prometheus class was built on Antares? AlistairMcMillan 14:55, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You've outright removed the specifications without even bothering to research whether or not they are canon. Did you even bother to do a weapon count on the Prometheus? Replace them NOW. -Alyeska


Lets see Alistair. The specifications give the ships construction location, its propulsion, its weapons, and it defenses. The propulsion information is blantantly obvious on screen. Its defenses were stated on screen. Its weapon counts can be derived by examining the model. Every piece of that information is correct. As to its construction. Star Trek Encyclopedia has its dedication plaque. "Starfleet Registry NX-74913 - First ship of Her Class - Launched Stardate 50749.5 - Beta Antares Shipyard - Antares Sector - United Federation of Planets". This information in the STE comes right off the physical plaque that was on the bridge durring the episode Message in a Bottle.

So Alistair, every single item in the specifications is 100% correct. I am replacing that information now. If you remove it again I am going to report you for vandalism of the article.

-Alyeska


As you are well aware, the Star Trek Encyclopedia and bridge plaques are not canon. The people producing Star Trek would quite happily deviant from the ST:Encyclopedia content without even a second thought. And if we are going to take the bridge plaques serious, which are notorious for their in-joke content, then we better adjust the Gene Roddenberry page to inform readers of his career as a Starfleet Admiral, which I seem to recall the Enterprise-D bridge plaque proves. AlistairMcMillan 13:30, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What the hell is wrong with you? Bridge plaques ARE CANON because they are in the damned show. 99% of the information from the STE is also canon. Furthermore you are outright removing data that is VERY canon (number of warp engines, weapon counts, defensive capabilities, etc...). I warned you. You are vandalizing the article and you are being reported. -Alyeska

It was stated ON SCREEN that the Prometheus has regenerative shields and ablative armor. It is visible ON SCREEN that the Prometheus has 6 warp nacelles. It is visible ON THE CGI MODEL what weapons the Prometheus has. This is all CANON INFORMATION. You are hanging up on the shipyard issue and outright deleting KNOWN CANON INFORMATION. -Alyeska

Bridge plaques are created as set decoration, every single piece of text on them is simply for the amusement of the production staff and fans. They contain tons of information that is quite simply nonsense (Starfleet Chief of Staff Gene Roddenberry on the Prometheus plaque for example). If new episodes were produced tomorrow, the production staff would not hesitate to deviate from the plaque information. Therefore you can not depend on anything on them. And the Encyclopedia is not canon... the only things that are canon are things that the production staff would count as series continuity, the production staff have already deviated from Encyclopedia content on numerous occassions. AlistairMcMillan 21:47, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)


The dedication plaques are indeed canon. Unless your also going to argue that some of the ship names are non-canon because they are ALSO production jokes. The names of the people on the plaques are not reasonably visible, but the statements about the ship and their motos are more then valid. We even get to see close ups of SEVERAL of these plaques. You also ignore the point that you are outright removing a section of text that has several canon statements of fact. -Alyeska

The few canon statements of fact can be incorporated into the article text. And we have never (as far as my memory goes) seen any plaques close up on screen, just photos or reproductions in books or magazines. AlistairMcMillan 02:44, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You are violating established formatting for the Trek ships. Specification sections exist for almost every ship. Furthermore your calling my weapon counts speculation which is absurd. It comes straight from canon visuals of the ship. Stop removing the information. -Alyeska

When you say "established format" you are referring to your "established format" right? If there is some standard that has been discussed and agreed upon then please direct me to it.
Please give your source for the weapon counts? Which episode? Remembering the rule about original research and the fact that Star Trek Magazine/etc are not considered canon. AlistairMcMillan 02:50, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Are you being intentionaly dense? The Star Trek Magazine displayed the CGI models USED IN THE EPISODE. A simple count on the model tells you exactly how many weapons the ship has. If someone has a very nice DVD image capture program and the proper VOyager DVD they could get this information as well, and it would match mine EXACTLY. Are you going to start erassing specifications on all the other ships as well? Your going to piss off a lot of people if you start doing that. I looked at the canon data available and gave correct information. Alyeska 02:53, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I did not establish a format. I followed a format of information other people had already established on the ships pages. Just look at all the other Trek ships and you will see a specifications section which just so happens to include warp engines, shields, and weapon information. Hell, I didn't even FORMAT the weapon count data in the Prometheus section. Research in the history section will show someone ELSE formatted it. Alyeska 02:54, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)


http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/scans/sfvarious1.htm The above link contains the STM images of the Prometheus.

http://www.shiporama.org/prometheus.htm This link has both the STM images as well as screen captures from the episode as well. The screen captures agree with my weapon count assesments. Alyeska 03:01, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Okay, so you can count the phaser strips. Thats fine, but where on these images does it say the phaser strips are "type-ten"? How do you work out that each section has only one torpedo tube? AlistairMcMillan 03:16, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I never called them Type-10, I merely put down the weapon counts. However Type-10 is the standard array on the Galaxy class. Each new system progresses in number from the previous. The Prometheus is a prototype warship and testbed warship. It has a double spiral in its phaser beams, the Sovereign class has a single spiral as does DS9 (both have Type-12 arrays). Older ships don't even have a spiral in their beams. We also know since the Galaxy class came out the Type-10 has become the new standard for arrays. According to the DS9 ships near the time frame of the Galaxy (Akira, Nebula, Intrepid, etc...) are armed with Type-10 weapons. So logic tells us the Prometheus has something equal or better to the current standard. Hence someone writing down "Type-10 or better". Alyeska 03:26, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How very cowardly of you Alistair. Now your not even responding to my posts, you haven't countered my information, and your deleting canon information. Alyeska 03:25, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We discussed the issue, you've made clear that most of the list is based on your own or other people's speculations. "logic tells us". What else is there to discuss? Oh yeah and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. AlistairMcMillan 07:44, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Answer the points raised, please. Iceberg3k 00:53, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
What points should I answer? Alyeska has made clear that he is using guesswork to determine the weapon systems. Based on the weapons systems on the Galaxy and Sovereign classes, he is making a guess at the Prometheus class weapon systems. I'm not even sure whether it is a canon source he is using for the information on the Galaxy and Sovereign classes. Anyway Wikipedia is not the place for fandom flights of fancy. It's that simple. AlistairMcMillan 01:57, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
In case you are not aware, this user has already added a bunch of fan speculation to other articles under this username and a bunch of IP addresses. All stuff that was disputed and deleted. User:64.91.56.39 who added stuff about fan speculation about special Dominion War Galaxy class starships which is all based on fan speculation. User:209.206.231.42 who added stuff about a Prometheus-B class to this article, which is entirely fan speculation. Wikipedia is not Memory-Alpha, if we are going to have pages on this stuff (which many would like to delete entirely) we can at least make sure we are based the articles on canon information and not fan speculation. AlistairMcMillan 02:06, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Guess what I just found, it was you Iceberg who originally added the War Galaxy stuff. [1] AlistairMcMillan 02:10, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
So you're one of Alyeska's buddies. [2] :) AlistairMcMillan 02:13, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

One again you prove just how stupid you are. We can COUNT THE NUMBER OF WEAPONS. We know facts about the ship. Logic is a wonderful thing, something you lack. This is not an insult. This is a statement of fact. Alyeska 00:05, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You have not countered my points, only discarded them outright. You are being dishonest and trollish. Alyeska 00:23, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Way to go Alistair. Those were mine, not Iceberg's. Where did the Type-12 information come from? www.ditl.org. Type-12 has been mentioned in backstage information regarding the Sovereign class. The information on the Prometheus-B came from an interview with Rick Sternbach on the future of the Prometheus class. Though that is more conjecture because he wasn't given any offical standing on that. The War Galaxy is a term given to the various wartime modifications and upgrades to the Galaxy class that are quite apparent in DS9. I can show you plenty of information showing the vast improvements the Galaxy class recieved between TNG and late DS9. I've heard that War Galaxy was used in a handful of novels, but its more commonly used by fans to describe the improvements the ship recieved.

And I would like to point out that you haven't actualy countered my information regarding the Type-10. The TNG TM pegs the Type-10 as the best phasers to date. We know the Prometheus is a newer class of ship and is dedicated for war. Weapon designators progress in a linear fashion. The evidence is obvious.

Alyeska 03:32, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is real simple. All the stuff you are adding is speculation. As much as I admire Rick and Mike, the stuff they say in interviews, in their books, on forums, is not canon. The only stuff that is accepted as canon is the actual movies and series. DITL.ORG is NOT canon. "backstage information" is NOT canon. Rick Sternbach interviews (while interesting reading) are NOT canon. Terms that are commonly used by fans are NOT canon. Star Trek novels are not even considered canon. The Star Trek TNG Technical Manual (a copy of which I own) is NOT canon. The information you keep adding is speculation plain and simple. Please go back to your debates on spacebattle.com where this kind of speculation belongs. AlistairMcMillan 03:44, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Star Trek canon AlistairMcMillan 03:45, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Now your being a complete troll. You delete the weapon counts, leave them, delete them, leave them. Just leave us alone Alistair. Alyeska 04:40, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Alistair, please tell me how my WEAPON COUNTS are non-canon. Please tell me why you've not attacked the Constitution, Sovereign, Galaxy, Intrepid, or Defiant pages? Is it because these just so happen to have been featured as main ships and you know you would be slapped down by angry fans? Alyeska 04:45, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Every piece of information on Wikipedia is supposed to be sourced, so that other editors can go back and check your edits to make sure they are correct. No original research. You can't just add information that you think is correct without proof. As you've demonstrated yourself, on your own Talk pages, certain weapon positions are non-obvious, so you can't just go and study screen captures. You can't just make guesses and stick them up here.
The reason I haven't touched the Galaxy etc pages is because these ships were featured on numerous episodes, so we've seen these ships from all angles, we've heard the characters talking about them continuously, we know a hell of a lot about them. For example, we've not only heard Utopia Planitia repeated mentioned as the yard where the Galaxy class is constructed, but we've actually seen it. The ONLY place the Antares yards were mentioned was on the Prometheus dedication plaque which is known to contain a great big pile of nonsense.

Alistair, your behavior has become unacceptable. Appealing to unfalsifiable personal opinions regarding information observable on-screen, such as "the bridge plaques are made for amusement" is unacceptable and irrational argumentation. I will submit this to arbitration and ask that it be closed to editing due to dispute if you do not cease and desist. Illuminatus Primus

Another editor from stardestroyer.net. With a less than twenty edits. Wonderful. AlistairMcMillan 19:41, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Any credible editors have an opinion?

So far we've heard from three editors who all visit sites like spacebattles.com or stardestroyer.net, who concentrate their edits on enlightened stuff like the number and size of fictional spaceship's weapon systems. Are there any more credible editors with an opinion on this issue? Am I demonstrating "unacceptable behaviour" or being a "complete troll"? AlistairMcMillan 19:41, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would vote for "complete troll." Studying the shooting model (whether physical or CGI) is a valid method, at least in conjunction with other evidence, of determining capabilities. BTW, ad hominem attacks on other posters are a REALLY great way to win friends and influence people.
Oh, and the Prometheus dedication plaque was seen in the tee vee episode. Oh gee, guess what that makes it? That's right, canon. Iceberg3k 20:28, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
So Gene Roddenberry is Starfleet Chief of Staff? [3] AlistairMcMillan 22:00, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oh yeah, and I wasn't asking for opinions from spacebattles.com editors. Particularly not from the guy who added the "War Galaxy" flight of fancy to the Galaxy class starship page. [4] AlistairMcMillan 22:09, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Now you're just plain trolling. Again. Iceberg3k 00:17, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Are you blind? I put the War Galaxy edits into that page. Alyeska 23:19, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The first time the phrase "War Galaxy" appeared on that page, it was added by Iceberg. You do understand that all edits are recorded right. [5] AlistairMcMillan 01:54, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Since your now going to let the weapon statistics stand, are you going to revert those changes on the other pages as well? Almost every single one has weapon counts from onscreen information or the CGI model. Alyeska 23:43, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Who says I'm going to let the weapons stats stand? I'm waiting for another credible editor to comment. AlistairMcMillan 01:54, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Of course, you're defining "credible editor" as someone who agrees with you. The images of the ships clearly show that Alyeska's weapon counts are correct. - Vermilion 03:21, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You've not proven my weapon counts incorrect. You have no position to stand on. I have provided evidence to prove my assertations, you have not. Care to try again Alistair? Alyeska 02:15, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)


You are not going to get away with trying to make your ignorance private.

== No original research ==
Who is being intentionally dense now? Please study the following pages.
I hope that is clear enough for you. AlistairMcMillan 02:40, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The phrase "original research" in this context refers to untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts or ideas that, in the words of Wikipedia's founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation". - No original research
What that means is "Wikipedia is not a science journal," not "you are not allowed to count phaser strips on a picture of a Star Trek spaceship and use that in an article on said spaceship." The count of phaser strips is not "original research," it is simply reporting. If we take "no original research" as you would have us take it, Wikipedia would not exist because all Wikipedia entries require inspection and collation of previously published data. So in conclusion, you're wrong. Iceberg3k 19:25, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
Cool. So what about the count of torpedo tubes? AlistairMcMillan 19:50, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You are being incredibly dense Alistair. The information is canon and visible on screen. To call that a rules violation is grossly absurd. No research has been conducted, only an evaluation of canon information. The conclussions are obvious. Alyeska 04:04, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is becoming ridiculous. First you poison the well by stating a priori that no editor who frequents Stardestroyer.net and/or Spacebattles.net is "credible" which constitutes an unjustified and unsubstanciated attack on a grossly overgeneralized group. Including an attack to me personally. Sorry, but waving off editors as inferiors and green editors or whatever you imagine them as and lambasting their other choices of Internet exchange is a complete and utter red herring to anything. This is about the specifications. This is NOT about Alyeska's prefered Internet forum's, or mine, or Iceburg's. So stop with the personal attacks. Moreover, your only reply to "this is what the ship looks like on screen, and these are the phase strips." Simply having disagreement on the empirical evidence does not mean it is not evidence. By your quite frankly farcical standard of proof, the lion's share of science would not have any explanatory value. Different analysts stress different things. You know there is a model, and you know it looks a certain way. If Alyeska gives you the images and labels them clearly, than other analyses, unless demonstrated a higher standard of proof, must be wrong. You did not even attempt to criticize his actual methodology or evidence - all you did was say "Persons X, Y, and Z all list other things." You have precisely no argument that this is a disproof of the authoritative value of in-episode imagery. You do not even attempt to establish that Persons X, Y, and Z used the same method and evidence as Alyeska. For all you know they divined it with a dowser and tarot cards. You have not refuted his remark at all. And all research can have both visible and textual content. Releasing the used-in-episode model is releasing visual evidence regarding the Prometheus-class starship. Quite frankly, the visual content of a media is FAR more objective than textual content anyway, which at length is invariably exposed to all sorts of unfalsifiable garbage. Look at the number of movie reviews which are incongruent as opposed to Alyeska's spat (which may or may not exist - we're waiting on that) with others on the weapons system content revealed by images of the model. Illuminatus Primus 18:42, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Okay. From Rick Sternbach: "Thinner sensor strips and new pop-up photon torpedo launchers were added." [6] Tell me again, how you determine the number of torpedo launchers from the Foundation Imaging scans? AlistairMcMillan 18:52, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

That's very cute, Alistair. You're using non-canon sources to prove ths invalidity of canon sources. Did you not rail at Alyeska for using evidence from magazines? Anyhow, this is a nitpick. First of all its non-canon unless weapons fire is observed at some point from the in-episode starship from unidentifiable phaser strips or torpedo tubes. Second, let's say Sternbach is right. Congratulations - standard, observed torpedo and phase strip counts from an examination of the model will at least yield a lower limit. I do not see why not have a specification list including, "at least 19 phase strips according to visual analysis" and then an "apocryphal" section on TMs or magazine data. And this is just the Prometheus - how does this apply to every other Trek starship entry you've truncated? Do not be intellectually dishonest; you are not using Sternbach's quote on the Prometheus to merge and truncate all the Klingon starship entries, or the Nebula, etc. Now let's get to the general dispute, and you lay out your general argument for why you really think its inadmissible. Illuminatus Primus 19:01, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

I don't know why I should waste my time justifying my edits to someone who, until he jumped into this argument, only had about twenty. But anyway... the problem is that it is not "19 phase strips according to visual analysis" but "at least 19 phase strings according to Christopher Fontaine's visual analysis". And if we include one fan's analysis, then why shouldn't we include other people's analysis...
All the starship pages that I recently truncated, were truncated because we know very little about them and it is unlikely (seeing as Trek production recently ended) that we will find out more. This is actually an established practice here, just see pages like Bynar, Denobulan and Hirogen. AlistairMcMillan 19:21, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

So once again you have no actual argument other then "because!". Unless you can prove my information wrong, you have no case. Alyeska 21:42, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

"I don't know why I should waste my time justifying my edits to someone who, until he jumped into this argument, only had about twenty." Y'know Alistair, this is a personal attack. Whether I'm right or wrong has precisely ZERO to do with my veteran status. It is solely based on the grounding of my position. And why do you count one-count and not the other? Because the images were made available and the data precisely presented. Its as if two editors claimed a character said something in an episode and one posted a mpeg and the other did not. No brainer. Again, for all you know those myriad other analyses were divined by tarot. You've struck nothing against the methodology - you just ignore this point. Furthermore, you don't cut out just parts of the specifications due to TM divination or suspect counts, but everything generally, and then you merge the pages which prevents reverts and removes the history. I am not even sure exactly what you destroyed, and I cannot get a copy now. Illuminatus Primus 04:36, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

I don't know why I bother, because the two of you keep ignoring me when I point out problems with your photographic evidence. Please see my rebutal of the photographic evidence on Talk:Nebula class starship. BTW If the two of you were more experienced here you wouldn't go around accusing me of deleting the edit histories of the various pages I merged. That just shows your lack of experience here. And I'm sorry if that comes across as a personal attack but wandering around repeatedly accusing me of vandalism isn't exactly a friendly move. AlistairMcMillan 04:48, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Registry number error

The article claims it is using one number but then in the list of known vessels of this class, another number is listed for the lead vessel.--Will 07:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)