Talk:Starship Enterprise

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.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Article milestones
January 13, 2007 Articles for deletion Speedily kept

Contents

[edit] The F, G, H, I

I deleted individual listings for these vessels because the introduction to the ship list says it is to only include vessels actually seen on film or TV (in other words, in canon). The line saying the existence of a J suggests an F-I is sufficient. I believe the articles of the F and G Enterprises should be submitted to Votes for Deletion since both are based upon non-canon material. 23skidoo 15:16, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Once again I have deleted links to these vessels. Based upon Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Trek, we're supposed to only feature canonical vessels, and while the appearance of the ENT-J implies the others will exist, the fact no canonical information has been presented means there is, basically, nothing to write about for these vessels other than what is already here. 23skidoo 04:20, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I agree. Non-canon should, at most, be in a trivia section in articles (perhaps at this article saying F-I are used in fanon) NOT whole articles upon themselves. Not even memory alpha has articles on them: F, G, H, & I. Cburnett 16:26, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
I did the articles about the H and I because F and G were already there or something like that (for continuity), but if you feel that they really should not exist I will not oppose too, but there is no indication that the J did not in fact exist, where would Daniels come from? --Astrowob 01:34, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) (copied from Cburnett's talk page)
Understandable for why you created F & G. As of right now, F-I aren't used in canon and the way I hear the franchise isn't going anywhere for a while....doesn't seem like F-I will likely ever come to fruition in canon. That leaves fanon to fill up the articles and I think fanon deserves some space, but not an artile per ship. I think some space at the bottom of this article should be it only because someone could ask basically what your posing: "If There's an -E and -J....then where's F through I?" Cburnett 01:52, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Enterprise-F and online episodes

I agree with Alistair that we need to be careful about letting fan cruft into the articles. However the rather sudden rise of made-for-Internet fan productions, some of which have been (in the opinion of some) legitimized by the involvement of TOS and TNG veterans, seem to fall into a special category. I think they should be treated as novels -- clearly defined as being non-canon, but mentioned where applicable. I don't think we should start seeing character or episode articles, mind you, but when an online series can in some way add a bit of interest to an article like this, I see no problem -- within reason. If it hasn't already been covered, maybe this is a topic to bring up at the Wikiproject page and see if a consensus can be reached. 23skidoo 21:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I still stand by my "If There's an -E and -J....then where's F through I?" from the section above. I don't see the harm in putting a little about F or other ships on this article...even if fannon, so long as it's designated as fannon. Cburnett 01:13, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Enterprise-D : All Good Things

it is generally accepted that Admiral Riker's flagship is a modified-D. i was just wondering where do we find the proof of this?

does the cast mention it or does it show on the hull-markings? ps, the tri-warp nacelles design is awesome!

IIRC it is indicated on-screen that the vessel is the ENT-D (i.e. the name is visible) and the fact it has been modified is self-evident from the presence of the third nacelle. 23skidoo 05:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Last time I saw AGT, the name clearly states: USS Enterprise but the hull number stated NCC-1701-? the letter was darker in external views of the ship then I remember from the first airing, it might have been altered\changed for reairings after Generation came out?

Unlikely that the money would be invested in modifying that, it's quite a bit more expensive to do than, say, edit Wikipedia. There is no definite violation of story issue here as Picard's actions certainly changed the future. No visit to Veridian IV, no hot Duras sister trickery, etc etc etc. The tri-nacelled 1701-D must be classified as an artifact of a future that could have been, but wasn't. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removed image

Any particular reason why only the image for the 1701-B was removed as opposed to the others? Kinda makes the photo gallery a bit incomplete now... 23skidoo 05:19, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

The photo did not have a good copyright tag. It also looked pretty scratchy/low quality, so no big loss until a replacement (with a good license) is acquired. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removing Robert April

As anyone can see from looking at the screenshot above, nowhere is there any reference to Robert April or "Robert Ap..." as has been suggested. I just checked my own copy of the DVD and likewise I cannot find any reference to this. There has been some talk of additional information being written but not appearing on screen, but that doesn't make it canon. Since no one came forward with additional evidence, I have removed Robert April from the official captains list. If someone wants to make a case for putting him back, we need a screenshot that explicitly shows the text that's being referred to. 23skidoo 21:07, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi there! Thanks for this: I don't dispute your position, but I didn't attempt to confirm that tidbit of info when editing recently. I was merely making edits to fix up grammar, punctuation, etc. (and adding a much-needed pic for the Enterprise-B!) without validating the information added by someone else. Actually, I was suprised to see it was stated as canon, though I know it to possibly be at least 'semi-canon' (e.g., April is mentioned in the Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual). E Pluribus Anthony 23:11, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
It certainly wasn't directed your way. If you scroll up this talk page you'll see a screenshot that was submitted as proof, however I pointed out a couple months ago that it showed nothing to support the idea, and no one has responded so I decided it was time to put the disputed information back to where it was. If for some reason I missed a scene that shows a different screenshot, I'm certainly more than willing to be corrected (and reverted!). 23skidoo 00:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your note. No offence at all perceived. :) I understand completely ... interesting shot/bio! I gathered that the prior mention of April in the article seemed to indicate 'Ap...' was mentioned in dialogue, not from the screen shot, with Sato reading a part of the bio not depicted on-screen or otherwise elaborating. In all of this, I guess a point can be made that there may be sufficient 'semi-canon' evidence to include April here. As well, is he noted at all on the official website? If he is, I'd probably include it here.
Then again, perhaps I need to connect with my "animal guide"? ;)
This isn't based upon dialogue - no one says "Robert Ap..." in the episode. It's allegedly a piece of information visible on a screenshot in the Defiant's captain's quarters. 23skidoo 01:16, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
OK; the note read like it was. It should be removed until (if at all) this can be verified.
Separate question: do you think there'd be any value in adding birthdates, deathdates, and serial numbers (but not much more) to the Star Trek character infobox template? I think so. Anyhow, let me know whatyathink! E Pluribus Anthony 01:11, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
There's very little of that information that is considered canon (for example there is no on-screen source to provide either a birth or death date for Spock), so I would advise against it. 23skidoo 01:16, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
I hear ya; there seems to be a wealth of related information (almost canon, again on startrek.com) for various characters. But, yes: this information may be unavailable for many. Merci! E Pluribus Anthony 01:20, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Enterprise 1701-A, Constitution refit?

Can anyone explain why Enterprise 1701-A is called a Constitution class refit. I don't remember any mention of this in the movies?--Raynethackery 09:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I think this is covered in one of the articles. I believe someone connected with STIV made this statement and it has been adopted as fanon, that the ENT-A was a refitted older vessel. Technically that isn't canon. The fact it's a Constitution refit, however, is correct because it is the same type of vessel the original 1701 was from TMP to STIII -- a refitted Constitution class. 23skidoo 16:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

BUT IT WAS NEVER STATED ON TV OR MOVIE, SO LIKE APRIL IT'S NOT CANON!!! IT WAS ALSO CALLED ENTERPRISE CLASS BY SOME


  • The original Enterprise was confirmed by Captain Picard as being a Constitution Class vessel in STAR TREK: "The Naked Now" 6/26/87 Scene 45;

PICARD "The Constitution class Enterprise, Captain James T. Kirk commanding..."

http://www.twiztv.com/scripts/nextgeneration/season1/tng-103.txt

Further, the Motion Picture Enterprise, is stated to be a refit. Redesigned technology was refitted onto the Enterprise- a Constitution class...

SCOTT (carefully) "Admiral, the Enterprise has just finished eighteen months redesign-ing and refitting. She needs testing, a shakedown..."

Decker continues to confirm that it is indeed the same ship by stating that it almost a new ship.

DECKER "Admiral, this is an almost totally new enterprise. You don't know her a tenth as well as I do."

http://www.imsdb.com/scripts/Star-Trek-The-Motion-Picture.html

So the question becomes: because the fact that the Constitution Class was refitted without mention of a class name change, does that mean that it no longer is a Constitution Class? And, if 1701-A looked just like 1701, and again, no mention was made of a class name change, does that mean it has lost it's designation as a Constitution Class? Until new evidence is provided, we can't assume that anything, like the class designation, HAS changed. Though I understand the point Mr. Uppercase Letter's was making.

So, I would simply suggest that for now, it be just be refered to as a Refitted Constitution Class, until further evidence is revealed.--ScotchWhisky 21:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I could make a screen cap of ST:VI where Scotty is shown looking at plans of the Enterprise 1701-A and the plans are labeled Constitution Class, but I'll let you check for yourselves. The 1701 and 1701-A are both Constitution Class ships. The issue of where 1701-A came from was never dealt with in the movies. It either is a new ship or a refitted ship. Either way it would have been nearing completion when 1701 was destroyed and likely had a name before and was renamed and numbered as Enterprise 1701-A. This issue was beatten to death before ST:VI and I am surprised that anyone is still bandying it about. Yotsuya48

It is the same configuration as the other Enterprise, and the Encyclopedia says it is.

[edit] Defiant class named "Enterprise"

I remember reading in a novel that there was a defiant ship names "Enterprise" - not "USS Enteprise", I can't remember much else, but I do remember the ship was totally black (I think it was a section 31 covert ops ship), and that a captain on another ship was shown the name when the defiant class tilted its hull to reflect the local star's light. Anyone else read this book?

ITs the Return and not even accepted as being belivable non cannon. Candle 86 16:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Data added to CO list, Worf taken out

shouldn't Data be listed as a CO of the Enterprise D? he took command of the ship in the episodes Gambit part I & II. He deserves to be on that list more so than Worf. Worf was just pretending to be CO, he wasn't actually.--Geedubber 19:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

No more than we should list La Forge ("Arsenal of Freedom"), Troi ("Disaster") or Crusher ("Descent") -- in none of these instances did Starfleet actually transfer command to these folks, or have some admiral say, "okay, it's your ship now"; for lack of a clear expression, there was no rubber stamp to make it "official." The line must be drawn here -- this far and no farther. 11:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] cleanup, added discussions into contents

The list of captains of the Enterprise could use some work... stardates and episode numbers would be nice, as well as throwing in those random people who captained the ship for half an episode or so. --Dante Alighieri 10:01 May 14, 2003 (UTC)

My interest in ST is not TOS, TOS-derived films, and Starfleet official stuff (history of Starfleet, of the ship; the technical designs of the ships), so I have never seen those specific info you requested before.
I googled just now and only found this half-decent web page on biographies of Starfleet captain. Its years are not Stardate, but Gregorian calendar though. And I though Roddenberry said that Stardate makes no sense. --Menchi 05:24 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Should Captains from the "future" be listed? I'm thinking here of Picard's stint in the "future" in All Good Things.... --Dante Alighieri 22:57 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)

If Riker, being captain only in two episodes, is listed, Picard in the finale can work too. Although having seen it as a re-run three years ago, I do not remember that Picard commanded another Enterprise. --Menchi 05:24 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Was the 1701-E actually destroyed in Nemesis? It was certainly badly damaged, but I haven't heard that it was destroyed.--Paul Musgrave 07:55, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Response: No, the 1701-E was not destroyed in Star Trek: Nemesis. It was taken to a shipyard at the end for repairs, which is where Picard talks to B4 in his ready-room aboard the 1701-E. -- tjdw

This page should be a disambiguation page. Discuss. ;) Morwen 23:44, Dec 26, 2003 (UTC)

Are you sure that the space shuttle was named in honour of the Star Trek ship? I thought that there were a number of other ships named enterprise? The Trolls of Navarone 14:34, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No, there was a letter-writing campaign by Trekkies to name the shuttle "Enterprise". Philwelch 15:41, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
There is a long-standing naval tradition of re-using the names of ships. Since the 18th century, ten ships in the Royal Navy have been called HMS Enterprise; perhaps as a consequence of this tradition, eight ships in the United States Navy have been called USS Enterprise, including the famous WW2 aircraft carrier USS Enterprise (CV-6). So it's not surprising that the writers of Star Trek should have imagined that this tradition should be carried on by Starfleet.
A brief account of the write-in campaign by Star Trek fans appears on NASA's web site [1]. Gdr 16:03, 2004 Apr 19 (UTC)

Great! Thanks The Trolls of Navarone 07:10, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I am trying to find the separate articles on each individual enterprise, having linked one already, but am having trouble - I think the names of the ships on this page should link to the individual articles. Can anyone help? Thanks! The Trolls of Navarone 07:10, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It is my understanding that those articles were merged into the current article on "Starship Enterprise"; that's why all the links redirect here. I don't know why this was done, but it was. -Branddobbe 07:40, Apr 21, 2004 (UTC)

That's a REALLY terrible picture of the seven Enterprises in the article. Not only are they all terribly dark, small, and pixellated, but they're also vastly out of scale with each other. A better picture would be much appreciated. Brian Kendig 22:38, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I made some adjustments to the captains list - April isn't canon so needed to be moved into a special category. In which book is it stated that Demora Sulu becomes captain of the Enterprise-B? 23skidoo 05:22, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Demora Sulu became the captain of the Enterprise-B in the second book of the Lost Era series: Serpents Among the Ruins, which talks about the Tomed Incident. PlasticBeat 00:43, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What is the ship in the "future" timeline of All Good Things...? Is that an alternate E or a modified D? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:57, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

It is a modified D. PlasticBeat 00:40, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Although I know that technically everything in Enterprise after "Twilight" is an "altered timeline" I believe to use this terminology here is a bit too confusing. I'm going to switch things back so that "Twilight" is listed as an "alternate" timeline. Otherwise things get really confusing once you factor in "E2". 23skidoo 16:42, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

April IS Canon: http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/library/character/bio/1119568.html

The Enterprise in All Good Things was a modified D, apparently "Admiral" Riker's personal flagship. And I agree, that picture is really not very good. --PGawtry 05:45, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, April is NOT canon. Reference on the Startrek.com website is not considered canonical as it is considered a print source, with a fair amount of information copied from the Encyclopedias anyway. The strict canon rule from Paramount is it has to be on screen in live action for it to be considered canon. The 11th Star Trek film could identify the first captain of the NCC-1701 as Lucy RIcardo and that would become canon. 23skidoo 13:27, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

NO, APRIL IS CANON: the Star Trek Magazine that was endorsed by Paramount Pictures as being part of the Star Trek Universe the USS Enterprise NCC-1701 (“No bloody A, B, C or D”, We miss you Scotty) had the following Captains/Admrials: 1. Robert April – 2245 to 2250 (1*5 year mission) 2. Christopher Pike – 2251 to 2264 (2*5 year missions + refit) 3. James T. Kirk – 2264 to 2269 (1*5 year mission) 4. William Decker – 2269 to 2271 (refit captain only) 5. Adm. James T. Kirk – 2271 (V’ger Mission only, TMP) 6. Spock – 2277 to 2285 (Training at Starfleet) 7. Adm. James T. Kirk – 2285 (Project Genesis mission, TWOK) 8. 2285 --- Per Fleet Adm. Morrow Enterprise was 40 years old (2245 + 40= 2285) an was to be decommissioned (TSFS) 9. Destroyed by Adm. Kirk in 2285 saving Spock’s body since his “life” was in McCoy’s mind

If you remove April from the timeline then Morrow’s line is wrong or the Enterprise had no Captian for 5 years ?

Please sign your comments. Actually, Morrow said the Enterprise was only 20 years old, which is clearly wrong. In any event, Paramount has made it clear that no print source, no matter how authorized it may be, is canon. That means Jeri Taylor's Voyager novels, Roddenberry's TMP novelization (which IIRC revealed that the unidentified woman killed on the transporter was his fiancee or something like that), the websites, the Chronology ... none of it counts as canon. It's crappy, I agree, but there you go. The only way for April to become canon is for Paramount to reference him in a future movie or TV series. 23skidoo 17:50, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Howdy! Captain April is in a touchy place. See, canon is not determined by math or facts, it's determined by what the currently exec staff at Paramount decide it is. Startrek.com is just as (if not more) paramount "endorsed" (since they own it) as the magazine you describe, but that doesn't mean that either is canon. Until they say on screen that April was captain, it's just a "we all agree that he was captain" item, but it's not canon. Remember, Berman/Braga could say that Barney the dinosaur was captain in that 5 year period, and it would be officially canon, even if we all thought it was idiotic. Canon does not equal logical, it equals "that which has been on screen". I'm not arguing that April wasn't the captain, don't get me wrong, just correcting the 'canon' misunderstanding. BTW, remember, this is fiction, so there is no absolute "truth" to the matter, as frustrating as it might be. CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:19, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

To defend the April case, if it has to be shown on TV or a movie then we have proof that April was a Captain of the NCC-1701, in the Enterprise Episode "In the Mirror Darkly" as Hoshi reads the information off the Defiant's screen in the Captain's room;If you zoom in on the screen it states that the real Archer "....died at his home in upstate New York in the year 2245, exactly one day after attending the christening ceremony of the first Federation Starship Enterprise under Captain Robert Ap..." it trails off but April's first name was Robert and Ap is the first 2 letters of this Captain's last name, and on top of that if Paramount states it has to be on TV or in a Movie then why is the Animated show not counted if it is then April was in the last episode of that Star Trek? --Marc 21:09, 13 October 2005 (UTC)-

Ah! I forgot about 'In a mirror, darkly'. I think that counts as a canon reference, even if it was alternate universe (arguing that point would be lawyerball at this point, I believe). Rock on. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:19, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

So I'll Add Robert April, and for the lawyerballs the Defiant in that episode was from the real Star Trek Universe not the mirror universe it's the same ship as the one in TOS: "The Tholian Web" --Marc 21:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Can someone upload a screen capture of this? I heard about the on-screen info about other Trek trivia however this is the first I've heard of an April reference. In fact I remember hearing people complaining that the IAMD computer screen only said 2245 which annoyed people that April could have been mentioned, but wasn't. I think it is probably a good idea to include the screen capture in the article itself (not to mention the Robert April article, to avoid potential reverting by people who either don't believe it or don't treat Enterprise as canon. (BTW watch the spelling of "canon" - it's not "cannon" ;-) ) Incidentally, and to make matters worse, both Mike Sussman and Manny Coto have stated that they don't consider the computer screen information to be canon, either! 23skidoo 21:30, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Don't treat Enterprise as canon??? Paramount treats it as Canon if Fan's don't think so WHO CARES, It's part of Star Trek History (Sorry I thought Enterprise was better then Voyager by a Quantum Leap pun intended) --Marc 02:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC) see picture to the right it's the best one I can find It states:

"Archer was considered by John Gill as being "the greatest explorer of the 22nd century", and was an integral part of the formation of the United Federation of Planets.The Federation named several planets after him, in honor of his contributions: Archer's Planet in the Gamma Trianguli sector, and all the planets of the Archer system, which includes Archer IV, the first M-class planet explored by Enterprise. The USS Archer was named in his honor, died at his home in upstate New York in the year 2245, exactly one day after attending the christening ceremony of the first Federation Starship Enterprise under Captain Robert Ap..."

Data was created by Mike Sussman the writer and producer the Star Trek: Enterprise episodes

Granted the writer tossed together anything with the name "Archer" from the other Star Trek shows to let Fans know that Enterprise is Canon and did not think anyone could read it but my parents have a 60" HDTV screen and digatal recording (TVo) so under Paramount's Canon rules it was on-air?--Marc 03:28, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I can't see any reference to "Captain Robert Ap...." on the screenshot here, and I checked out the high-res version. 23skidoo 04:46, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Enterprise-F

I have removed the following text from the section on the 1701-F:

* Another non-canon version of the NCC-1701-F is the USS Enterprise from an on-line episodic series called Star Trek: Delta Fleet that takes place twenty years after the USS Voyager returns from the Delta Quadrant. This Enterprise-F is commanded by Captain Harry Kim (formerly an ensign on Voyager.) However this is if Harry Kim didn't still end up gaining command of the USS Rhode Island.

Unless someone can find a wiki-consensus I don't believe we should be referencing fanfic here (and like it or not that's what the online series are). It's borderline enough to be discussing the novel reference to the F, but at least that was from a licensed spin-off. If someone reverts this, the Harry Kim/Rhode Island reference has to go. Dicussion? 23skidoo 18:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Existance of Enterprises

Why wouldn't the Enterprise-J exist? The events should happen, as that the Sphere Builders are defeated in the past. Also, the USS Enterprise (XCV 330) (as shown in TMP) should be included on this page. Although nothing is known about the craft, it is canon, as Commander Decker says that it is a ship named Enterprise, and that it isn't replaced by the NX-01 in the Director's Edition of TMP. --myselfalso 01:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The Enterprise mentioned in TMP has always been mentioned on this page. 23skidoo 04:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] USS Enterprise XCV 330

The cannon information available is:

  • The ship is the USS Enterprise XCV 330 — Visible in the blown-up image from the film.
  • The class existed before 2143 — A painting of the class is on the wall of the 602 Club. (so this ship/class was a milestone.)
  • Pre 2143 the USA still exists, and USS currently means United States Ship. (so this Enterprise is probably Americain.)
  • The first Earth ship to exceed warp 2 was the NX-Alpha in 2143. (so this ship/class was probably the first that could reach warp 2.)

—MJBurrage 20:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Should Data be added to the list of COs?

Data is not currently listed as a CO of Enterprise D. I believe he should be. During the episodes Gambit part I & II he was the CO. Data assumed command because Picard was assumed dead, Riker was missing in action, and Data was the senior officer on board. Memory Alpha, a Star Trek canon wiki, lists Data as a CO on its Enterpise entry so I think it is considered canon. If no one has any serious objections, I will add Data to the list. --Geedubber 02:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Saavik

Among other edits, I removed reference to Saavik commanding the Enterprise-B. I remember the old Enterprise-D cuttaway poster alluded to in the text, and while I remember Thomas Johnson Jr. being listed, Saavik wasn't on it. Is there some other source I'm forgetting about? If so, go ahead and put it back in, but please don't connote that the Johnson and Saaavik sources are the same (unless, of course, there was some reprint of that cutaway poster that added her). EEMeltonIV 11:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shuttle image

It looks awkward and confusing to have a shot of a real-life space shuttle leading the article on the fictional spacecraft. I recommend removing it since the shuttle has its own article and is not a fictional craft. Additional: under the "be bold" credo I have removed it. I really feel it has no place in this particular article. 23skidoo 18:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] April redux

I see April snuck his way onto the list of canonical captains again. I think I've figured a way around this by stating that the first captain of the NCC-1701 is officially unidentified, and then making the discussion about April into a footnote. Although there are rumors that April is mentioned on one of the IAMD screens, actual examination of the episode suggests otherwise (and per Paramount's rules, what's on-screen counts, so if Manny Coto did write something about April, and it didn't actually appear on screen, it doesn't count). 23skidoo 17:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Of reference, Robert April describes an on-screen mention of April, albeit in TAS with all that entails. Not a refutation, but of relevance to the conversation. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
A thought, perhaps a baseball like asterisk would be appropriate, considering that April was both in Roddenberry's original pitch, was shown on the animated series, and so on. While technically not canon, it's information that would seem to meet the minimum burden required for mention, at least in passing. Thoughts? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not saying we can't mention April. It's just that Paramount and Roddenberry put it fairly strict rules regarding canon, so we need to be clear what is canon and what isn't. The list of captains in this article starts with a clear criteria that only canonical captains would be listed, with non-canon captains mentioned afterwards. As you say, TAS does mention April -- in fact an entire episode is devoted to him -- but at some point in the 1980s both Roddenberry and Paramount "decanonized" TAS (a decision that remains controversial to this day). So unfortunately until someone does a movie or live-action episode that mentions April (just as Enterprise canonized elements of the TAS episode "Yesteryear" by including them), it's officially not canon. With TAS coming to DVD this fall and a lot of people seeing those episodes for the first time, I fully expect this issue to heat up in the coming months which is why we should have something fairly strong on the subject now to avoid revert wars later. 23skidoo 18:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

April should be mentioned as being generally accepted to be the first captian and the footnote linking to something with this discussion. Since April is the only generally accepted name for the first captain of 1701, especially in light of TAS where it is explicitly stated, his name should not be left off. I'm thinking of the many historical pages on wikipedia where the information in not known for sure but the best educated guess is included. This would be the one instance in the captain list where we do have the information, but it is not found in the official canon. I will change to page to the wording I am thinking of and if it is not acceptable change it back. Yotsuya48

There seems to be a popular myth that the Animated Series is not canon. But I have not been able to find any canonical source stating that it is not canon. Until anyone can provide one, we should take it as canon. Macduff 19:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

No. [2] -- if you can provide a source to counter that.. feel free.. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Paramount themselves do not declare TAS non-canon. They state that traditionally it hasn't been "considered canon," but do not state that it isn't canon. Further, from your link:

..canon is not something set in stone; even events in some of the movies have been called into question as to whether they should be considered canon! Ultimately, the fans, the writers and the producers may all differ on what is considered canon and the very idea of what is canon has become more fluid, especially as there isn't a single voice or arbiter to decide.

To me, that means April should be mentioned. Macduff 21:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I belive he should be included along with other non cannon information. As has been said we are not Memory Alpha and I belive that putting all the information we have on the subjects into Wikipedia would be a good idea. The way I few things in Star Trek is simple as long as it does not contradict the cannon I can tend to belive it. We havnt been given much of a back story and I belive that filling in holes will help us, we just need to make a note that the item is non cannon, unless of course Paramount is in charge of all Star Trek Wiki's that is. Candle 86 00:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Further, the canon argument is spurious. It is not Wikipedia's job to determine what is canon or what isn't canon - it is Wikipedia's job to report all known information in an object manner. In the Real World, Robert April has been shown on the Animated Series and in various other sources as being a captain of the Enterprise. How valuable that information may or may not be is up to the reader. Our job is to provide the pertinent info so that he or she may make that decision for themselves. -- Macduff 16:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. So perhaps you should be telling your self off for doing just that, Wikipedia goes by what's verifiable, a copyright holders canon determines what is part of that storyline if it isn't part of the copyright holders storyline it is thus unverifiable. You're going to need to cite a source that TAS is now considered canon, I believe. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Thats not really the point here now is it. The books are licencsed and so are the games, yet we dont include any information from them. We should be more like Memory beta in the respect we give all the information, not just what paramount says is cannon, because paramount has abdoned trek anyway. Candle 86 16:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CO list

Any particular reason why the list of commanding officers was deleted? 23skidoo 19:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

A previous editor cut the page to a simple gallery style disambiguation. When that was undone some material was not put back. —MJBurrage • TALK • 16:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image of NCC 1701

The image of the "original" Enterprise, the 1701, has no source or copyright data and is currently scheduled to be deleted. Does anyone have a fair-use picture that we can use? Macduff 19:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The image (at a lower resolution) is fair use but the poster did not explain it at all. Both issues have been taken care of. —MJBurrage • TALK • 16:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Missing enterprise

The list jumps from NX-01 enterprise to NCC-1701-A completely skipping the original NCC-1701--Energman 16:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

When the image discussed above was removed, the editor removed the text that went with it. My last edit fixed both issues. —MJBurrage • TALK • 16:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New page setup

I am going to restore my work on this page, please do not just remove it again. I checked my work in both Firefox, and Internet Explorer to make sure it would flow well in both despite the resolution of the users screen. It is specifically set up to put ships side-by-side if there is room (800px +) and one above the other if there is not. If you have some constructive criticism I would welcome it. But just removing my input fixes nothing.…
—MJBurrage • TALK • 16:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

…You may discuss your changes, pages should certainly not be formatted like that, and certainly when they don't render well for everybody, so you could say I dispute your edit, and hence you must discuss this first with the other editors on the talk page, thanking you very muchely. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Addendum: I've also checked with a fellow Wikipedian who tells me they render poorly for him as well. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

How can anyone discuss my edits if they cannot see them? Please at least leave them long enough for other users to see, comment, and possibly improve. That is the whole point of not just reverting someone else’s work as you have done twice now.
I would be happy to respond to any specific feedback and improve the page. For example, what do you mean by “renders poorly”? What is the issue that is causing a problem? I am sure that it can be addressed given a little time. —MJBurrage • TALK • 16:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It looks fine for me, and I like the idea of seeing two ships side by side. My only issue is that the 1701-A was never in "The Original Series," plus using the term "Lost Years" for the period between A and D is a bit misleading since it has traditionally been used to refer to the time between the Original Series and STTMP. There's even a series of books about it by that name. Macduff 16:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
What's this about then? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Good catch on Lost Years, I had meant Lost Era, which is the title for a series of six novels written to cover some key details between Kirk’s captaincy, and Picard’s. I realize that said novels are not cannon, but books 2–4 do provide some licensed background material. That gives us four eras with two ships per era, which is what gave me the idea for the paired ships.

  • pre-Federation (pre-2161)
  • Star Trek (The Original Series) Era (series & films, 2265–2293)
    I suppose, you could call this the Kirk Era.
  • Star Trek: The Lost Era
    1. 2298 The Sundered ISBN 074346401X (covers the USS Excelsior)
    2. 2311 Serpents Among the Ruins ISBN 0743464036 (covers the Enterprise B)
    3. 2328–2346 The Art of the Impossible ISBN 0743464052 (covers Cmdr. Rachel Garrett, and many others)
    4. 2336 Well of Souls ISBN 0743463757 (covers the Enterprise C)
    5. 2355–2357 Deny Thy Father ISBN 0743464095 (covers Kyle and William Riker)
    6. 2360 Catalyst of Sorrows ISBN 0743464079 (covers Adm. Uhura, Dr. Crusher, Lt. Sisko, and Lt. Tuvok)
  • Star Trek: The Next Generation Era (series & films, 2363–2379)

As for the layout: I wanted to put the ships in pairs by era, but a four-column table covering two ships would be much harder for future editors to modify, so I went with separate tables that can (if required flow past each other)
The first table in each pair floats left, and the second floats right. This means that on a low resolution screen the second table can slip below the first (which was intentional) On wider screens the tables expand to fill the available space so that there will not be a lot of empty space to the right of the tables themselves. This does mean that on a widescreen display (like mine and Matthew Fenton’s) that the images (fixed at 250 pixels wide) do not fill the table’s width. I could easily center the pictures in the tables to balance the spacing. The table lengths do vary, and while it would be nice if they did not, I am not sure how to fix that, especially as other users add information. Further I thought that that minor issue was preferable to a page where the pictures location has little to do with the text about it.
I could also remove the tables and float each picture to the right of its information, but I really do think that the side by side presentation works well. Regardless—as noted many places in Wikipedia—no article belongs to any editor, and if consensus is that the tables were a bad choice, I will do exactly that. —MJBurrage • TALK • 21:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Like you said, it belongs to no editor and so you will get a consensus to implement your idea, at present I dispute it as it is fugly. WP:TABLE#When_tables_are_appropriate - A table is also clearly not appropriate here (especially a multitude of them) - there is no reason why the data needs to be tabulated. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I would not have done anything this drastic to a well formatted, or stable article, but this article has been in particular flux recently, with much of its content removed. On top of that it has been tagged as “being a mess” for a month, and so I was bold in trying to fix that. We are now having an appropriate discussion about the changes, so that the article can continue to improve. (And now, both of us should sit back for a day or so to see what others think) —MJBurrage • TALK • 21:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

No comments since the 19th, but I was looking at ways to accomplish the same organization with out tables, and wondered what is thought of the following? (P.S. The word Notes: is not accidentally missing for the second ship, I am not sure which reads better and was hoping for feedback on that as well.) —MJBurrage • TALK • 07:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sample section

Two ships predate the Federation of Planets.



Can I just note that I find the layout at present, with tables, really painful to read, and hope this gets fixed. Wikipedia prefers straight prose, using tables only for tabular data, and the sentences about the narrative role of a ship really are not tabular data. Morwen - Talk 17:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Scroll up Morwen, he just wouldn't listen and I intend to revert him again as I left it to get fixed, MJ: honestly dude get a consensus to implement something awful. They could easily all be merged properly here and with effort create a decently sized goodish article. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 17:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Thing is, Wikipedia prefers straight prose, using tables only for tabular data, and the sentences about the narrative role of a ship really are not tabular data. Also, I prefer my order of grouping the ships by narrative role and famousness: group 1701, Enterprise-D (and NX-01) first, as they are the settings of TV shows, and then mention -A and -E as they appear in movies only, and then mention the miscellenous ones. Morwen - Talk 17:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Based on constructive feedback, I have removed the tables, but retained the picture-text connection. I also reordered the sections based on notability rather than timeline. —MJBurrage • TALK • 14:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I still don't like it in the slightest in my self, we should be writing content not little boxes to hold a finite ammt. of data, the old images floated to right seemed to flow best to me, I think you have had enough time to flaunt your ideas live now, I'm going to reimplement the old way soon. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

There are no longer any “boxes”, and an editor could add as much text as they care to under any of the entries, and it would flow neatly past and below the image. This all started because I (and whomever tagged the page as being a mess) thought there was a disconnect between having all of the images in one division, and all the text in another. This made it hard for someone scrolling on a small display to correlate the text to its ship. I really am sorry that this got you so upset, as that was not my intention. All of my edits were done with the best of intentions, and in good faith. I really do believe that having each ships image with the text describing it works well, as did Macduff. Do you think the images would look better floating right instead of left? The only reason I put them on the left was to reduce the gaps that might appear on high-resolution screens. —MJBurrage • TALK • 15:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

This looks somewhat better now. However, the data is still presented in a tabular format with headers and data. It should be in prose. If you look back some months, the article was formatted reasonably well then, but it ended up weird due to people mucking about with the images. What we can do is have a meaty paragraph of text for each one, including the class as part of a sentence. The "service" information is problematic, in that we are putting firmly established dates (2151) alongside Okuda reasonable deductions (2371) alongside Okuda guesses (2245) alongside info from novels (2220s/2330s) alongside what appears to be your own speculation (2130s), with no differentiation made between these. I suggest the solution to this is to simply not to present this data in such a way.
I should also note that I like the present ordering. Morwen - Talk 16:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I believe the past system was best, images at right etc, the article needs a lot of work, it doesn't need to be tabular though. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't much like that either: associating the images and the text about the Enterprise makes for easier reading. Some months before that, I remember, it was all lovely and perfect (or I am just imagining things). Morwen - Talk 16:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Tagged for cleanup, I'll try tasking the re-structure my self if I get enough free time. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 15:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mergers

I moved the merger comments out of the New page setup section (above), and into this Merger section to facilitate further discussion. —MJBurrage • TALK • 21:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

…With regards to the merger tags, whoever put them there did not give any reasons on the talk pages, and with out any arguments for merger, I felt no need to argue for the existing separate pages.
—MJBurrage • TALK • 16:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Merges are discussed, you are welcome to discuss them… thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Side note: When a merge is not opposed on the talk page in some time on an active page it generally indicates an endorsement. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Seeing no comments here, I assumed that no one but the editor who added the tags wanted the mergers. I personally think it would be a mistake since in all three cases the pages involved are more than just a simple paragraph, and would make for a convoluted single article. —MJBurrage • TALK • 16:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

After looking at the articles again, I still think it would be a mistake, to merge USS Enterprise (XCV 330) and USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-C). The former would be probably be merger-able if we only had the one line from Star Trek: The Motion Picture as a source, but the XCV 330's multiple background appearances in Star Trek: Enterprise add enough for a separate article. The latter was the main subject of one of the more famous episodes, and has since been the subject of multiple novels, making it more than notable enough for it own article.
However I would concur that the USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-J) would be a good candidate for merger here since only a couple short paragraphs are actually about the ship. (the rest is about the episode, and covered well in that article.) —MJBurrage • TALK • 16:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I am still somewhat concerned about the verifiability of all the information about the weird TMP Enterprise, but that's a moot point. If I were merging USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-C) anywhere, I would rather see it merged with Ambassador class starship, as the real-world information about these two are inextricably linked. -J, yes. Morwen - Talk 16:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
A merge to Ambassador class seems reasonable to me. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Given the apparent consensus on merging the Enterprise-J, I have done that. I do not have time to do much else until late this week. —MJBurrage • TALK • 15:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1701-C

I think the 1701-C can stand as its own . . . but I'm going to suggest merging the material on Rachel Garrett into the 1701-C article. Thoughts? --EEMeltonIV 00:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Garret should be left to have her own articleCandle 86 00:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1701-M

Anyone have any thoughts yay or nay on whether or not it would be appropriate to add the NCC-1701-M (picture [3]) from Star Trek: Of Gods and Men? --Macduff 18:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Not notable --EEMeltonIV 18:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Given the cast and crew I would say this is at least as notable as the other non canon Enterprises that each currently have a line or two. (but not more than that here) The article on Of Gods and Men would be the proper place for a longer entry (fair-use picture and more details). —MJBurrage • TALK • 21:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Of Gods and Men was even written-up at startrek.com.[4] --Macduff 18:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't Enterprise M simply refer to the Enterprise as being a "M-useum"? So I do not think including it is that important, at the very least just making a quick reference to it. --Samuel.ordonia —Preceding comment was added at 01:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Excelsior class

The USS Excelsior is the original ship. The USS Enterprise-B is an Excelsior-class, but it is also different, therefore it is by simple English definition a variant of some type. To call it specifically a "refit" or "upgrade" would be to assume facts unknown to us, but it is a variant. —MJBurrage • TALK • 04:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, the bridges of the Odyssey and the Enterprise are different, yet I don't see them referred to as variants of each other. Some runabouts have a rollbar at the top, and others don't, but they all get the Danube-class label -- not "variants of." The replacement Defiant has a purple carpet -- does that make it a variant? I'd prefer a citation to a secondary source (the Encyclopedia probably articulates it; I don't have my copy any more) that concretely labels it a "variant." --EEMeltonIV 04:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Variant just means different, so variant configuration, means different hull. All ships have slight differences, especially on the interior, but obvious hull variations are notable enough to be mentioned. As for the runabout, I was under the impression that the differences were various equipment modules, that could be swapped out depending on the mission. Note that calling it a variant does not mean nor imply that Starfleet calls it a "Variant", only that it is in fact different. —MJBurrage • TALK • 04:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I just saw that you found a source for "upgrade", I am pretty sure that was not how it was described last time I was there, but it works for me as a citation. However it does raise the question (with no cannon answer), that if the E-B variation is an "upgrade" (meaning improved or better) than why do they still makes the original configuration in large numbers after Generations. —MJBurrage • TALK • 04:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--Stwalkerbot 16:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Awful state

This page (as it has been for some time) is still in an awful state. So much so that I can't foresee a viable way to fix - except a complete rewrite. I'm going to stubify this page soon, lay the foundations for a better article -- thus allowing the article to be built upon (and making it easier to manage if people add crap). Matthew 17:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to perform this action soon as I believe a reasonable amount of time has passed. Are there any objections to this bold stubification? Matthew 16:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

What do you envision? While I do not think the page is great now, it was worse before. Some points I would want to see in any version are: 1) keeping the image of each ship with the text that describes it, and 2) including the class, service lifetime, main appearance(s), and captain(s). Much more than that on any one ship and we might as well direct them to the specific article. Now I could see a much more detailed first section describing the Starship Enterprise in general, such as cultural references, and its influence etc. —MJBurrage • TALK • 20:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't see "service lifetime" being particularly significant from an out-of-universe perspective, although the series/episode in which it appears would be worthwhile. Captains, too, some editors (myself) have gone back and forth on -- *all* captains or just the major ones? I'd opt for the latter, with a See also link to minor COs (e.g. Riker, Jellico (or Chain of Command), etc. Class worth mentioning in the prose. But, in general, the gallery-esque presentation for most of the article is too in-universe and not especially informative.
Probably a good direction to take it is, first of all, make it less in-universe. A Design/Development section could look at how the 1701 came about -- engines reminiscent of rockets but, Roddenberry adamantly said, no sparks or fire or anything. The TMP/1701-A design modified from Phase II's updated look. The 1701-D a "natural progression" from the TOS era, while the NX-01 meant to look like a predecessor. Interviews and whatnot with Jeffries et al. are floating around and cited, at least, in the TNG tech. manual (for the material germane to that era). As for the 1701-B and -C, token mention would appropriate -- the -B an Excelsior class mostly in fitting with the set dressing from TNG, but modified to make it easy to appear Nexus-damaged without harming the basic model. The 1701-C, per the TNG Companion, supposed to suggest a bridge between the 1701-D and a TOS-ish predecessor. Now, if only we had the references...
My two strips of latinum. --EEMeltonIV 20:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree, minor captains probably shouldn't be represented (like Jellico), but where do we draw the line in the Major vs Minor captains debate? Do we do captains that were major according to Star Trek or Major according to the real world. No one knows who Captain Robert April is, but he served for at least one 5-year mission. Pike might be more familiar, and served twice as long as Kirk, but we really only get 1 episode about him. Those are my two slips of latinum. McKay 21:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay, Matthew -- get started ;-) --EEMeltonIV 20:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Article is now a blank slate (well, it still has a lead). What I think the first step needs to be is deciding a structure best for this article. Anyone got an opinions on that? Matthew 22:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I like the Real World POV approach suggested by EEMeltonIV. Especially citable info on why the ships were designed the way they were, what makes them iconic etc. Although I think a stripped down version of the old sections with images should still be included at the end. —MJBurrage • TALK • 22:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
So do I, and I also agree that we shouldn't chuck the images. Does anybody have access to the encyclopaedias/tech. manuals? Google News looks like it may be a good place to locate secondary sources as well. Matthew 22:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Anyone have any sources on the design process that lead to the original NCC-1701? (as in the real world design but in-universe). Failing that sources on the design of any of the other later enterprises? WAIT - I have the next generation big black coffee table book somewhere - that's got lots of information in it - now where is the bloody thing... --Fredrick day 23:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Ah found it - it's got lots of lovely picture of the design process (which of course we cannot use - let me see what's in the text (the book is actually the tenth anniversary tribute - picked it up for £4 a number of years ago - nice heavy book). --Fredrick day 23:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Maybe we need a sandbox? --Fredrick day 23:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Starship_Enterprise/sandbox Matthew 23:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

OK have a look and see if this sort of material is useful and/or helpful. Oh and since this is a new start - archive old material on here? --Fredrick day 00:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look at the TNG season 1 DVD special features -- certainly there'll be some material there. --EEMeltonIV 00:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I've added various bits to the sandbox. hope it's helpful and I'll keep looking. --Fredrick day 00:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] disambig?

Isn't this page effectively a disambiguation page repeating information that is found at the individual ships' pages? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 15:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd call it an "overview" page. It gives a brief summary of each type, and allows readers to quickly understand the different types of ships, but without overwhelming the reader with too much info. It also enables a reader to look for a particular ship when they aren't sure which one they want, and then go th the main article for further info. It could perhaps use some tightening and clean-up, but it does serve a purpose beyond just being a DAB page. - -- BillCJ (talk) 17:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Reason for name "Enterprise"

I guess it was a non-national name that was cool to say aloud, but any cited reasons for this recurring name would be neat. Thanks Mdiamante (talk) 20:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Ent-E pic

Also, it seems to me that a pic of the E not firing should replace this one. For a primarily peaceful ship, this doesn't really seem the best representative image. Thanks Mdiamante (talk) 20:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course the Enterprise-E is a leaner and meaner version than the Enterprise-D, with a smaller hull, and better weapons. Also Sovereign—the E's class—means supreme lawmaking authority, subject to no other. Compared to previous class names such as Constitution, Ambassador, and Galaxy, the Sovereign-class Enterprise is a warship. —MJBurrage • TALK • 00:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Canon"

I see that the references to what is "canon" and what is not "canon" are creeping back in. I believe that Wikipedia is intended to be free of any POV and that it is not Wikipedia's job to decree what is canon. I believe that if sources of information are merely stated, then it can be up to the reader to determine what is or isn't canon for him/herself. Macduff (talk) 22:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Three cheers for Macduff; I occasionally harp on this and it's nice to see someone like-minded around. --EEMIV (talk) 04:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
well we are going to end up with some fairly bloated articles then. What did James T Kirk do between the decomissioning of 1701-A and the launch of 1701-b? there are less three different stories of what he got upto - all novel length. That's just one example. So from an editoral point of view, we are going to have to take some stance. --Fredrick day (talk) 08:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Just note all three story arcs, and mention their respective novels. The reader can decide whether to accept the stories as "canon" or not. --Samuel.ordonia —Preceding comment was added at 01:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)