This article is within the scope WikiProject Star Trek, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to all Star Trek-related topics. 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.
Removed claim that Enterprise E is sole member of its class
I have removed the claim that the Enterprise E has no sister ships in canon sources and therefore is the sole member of its class, for the second time. This statement shows a clear lack of understanding of the procedure for naming of ship classes. Both in Star Trek and in the real world, the name of a class of ships is derived from the name of the first ship of that design. Therefore, regardless of any other ships of the Sovereign class that have been or have not been named in canon sources, it must be assumed that the Sovereign-class Enterprise E must have at least one sister ship, namely the USS Sovereign. TDiNardo (talk) 04:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
The interpretation of a "discrepancy" and the "assumption" re. a sister-ship class are both original research and inappropriate for inclusion. --EEMIV (talk) 13:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
A ludicrous argument, considering the assumption that the Enterprise E has no sister ship is original research, with no basis other than the lack of explicit mention of one (and lack of evidence for something's existence is not a logically valid proof of its NON-existence), whereas the assumption that she has a sister ship in the USS Sovereign can be reasonably inferred from established facts both within Trek and in the real world. TDiNardo (talk) 09:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
If in doubt (as evidenced by a lack of reliable sources stating either that the Enterprise E is or is not the only ship in its class), the corect approach is to omit this "fact" entirely. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
My point exactly. At no point did I attempt to edit the article to say that the Enterprise E isn't the only ship of its class, I merely removed the unsubstantiated claim that it is the only ship of it's class. What EEMIV has failed to realize is that at no point did I claim that the assumption that the Enterprise E has a sister ship in the USS Sovereign was worthy of inclusion in the article, nor did I ever attempt to put said assumption in the article itself, merely pointed it out in the DISCUSSION PAGE. TDiNardo (talk) 13:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
There are no canon sources which explicitly feature other Sovereign-class ships. That is why the wording goes as such: "Unlike her predecessors who bore the Enterprise name, Enterprise-E has no confirmed sister ships in canon sources, which would make her the solo member of her class." A similar arguement goes for USS Voyager, as the lead ship of her class, USS Intrepid, has never appeared in any canon sources. Alternatively, we could state that "so far the Enterprise E is the only confirmed member of the Sovereign class in cannon courses". Demon Hill (talk) 16:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
The canon or non-canon status of sources doesn't carry much weight at Wikipedia. It is ultimately an utterly trivial in-universe "point" better relegated to the bowels of e.g. the Memory Alpha web site. --EEMIV (talk) 18:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
In my opinion this article should make no mention of sister ships for any version of the Enterprise. That is why we have hyperlinks to articles about the individual ship classes when there is related detail. In the realm of official Star Trek fiction there are many Sovereign-class ships. The fact that only one of them has been directly shown on film or TV, and the second fact that CBS currently considers film/TV to be more canonical than book/comics has nothing to do with this article. The list of other Sovereigns belongs at that article, and the whole canon/non-canon distinction should be a section at the Star Trek franchise article. People who want more than that should be following links to Memory Alpha in the External Links section of each article. —MJBurrage(T•C) 12:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I accidentally rolled back an edit and then undid it on the article. I am not involving myself in this little quibble. It was an honest slip with huggle. However the edit warring needs to stop. All contributors are expected to contribute in a positive if not mannerly fashion. This back and forth behavior will only result in blocks and page protection. Then no one gets any work done and an admins time is wasted dealing with problems that could have been dealt with reasonably. - 4twenty42o (talk) 19:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the Enterprise-M is not canon, but Star Trek: Of Gods and Men is notable; and notability is what matters here. Therefore, there should be a section about the Enterprise-M here or at the Gods and Men article. If the section ends up at the Gods and Men article, then there should be a link to said section in this article. —MJBurrage(T•C) 03:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm working on an overhaul of this at User:EEMIV/Starship Enterprise. Feel free to jump in there or at the talk page. Objective is to ditch the overwhelming in-universe perspective and focus more on production lineage. Depending on the end product, the idea may or may not be for it to be integrated with Spacecraft in Star Trek. --EEMIV (talk) 20:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
I really like what your doing. A couple points to consider:
The various designs are essentially sculptures, and as such inherently visual. Therefore I believe that there should be a single small image of each in the article. At the very least, an image of each ship that does not have its own article.
The real-world details should come first, and should be the bulk of the article. However, with respect to those ships that do not have a separate article, there should be a brief section for each that describes where the ship fits into the fictional background of Star Trek.
If consensus is one image of each ship, they should go in the main table. If we only include images for the ships without separate articles, the images should go in the sections described under point 2.
While STO is completly non-canon, there is no realy Enterprise F. So why is thisone added and not the ~1000 other non-canon Enterprises from books and so on ... --188.8.131.52 (talk) 18:09, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I agree. There are multiple Enterprise-Fs from various non-canon Star Trek works. I will remove the Star Trek: Online Enterprise-F. Transphasic (talk) 01:09, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Canon status is not a criterion for inclusion or exclusion at Wikipedia -- it's a useful notion to deal with in-universe storyline conflicts, but Wikipedia is more concerned with production decisions, third-party coverage, and gooourcingd s.; "canonicity" isn't a hurdle content needs to clear. The STO project has received sufficient third-party coverage to warrant mention here. --EEMIV (talk) 13:35, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
So should Enterprise-F go under "alternate timelines" or "TNG" era? Cause there are still multiple non-canon Enterprise-Fs and Star Trek Online isn't exactly TNG era. Transphasic (talk) 17:07, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Note that the celebrated predecessor of the CVN-65, the CV-6, was of the Yorktown class. Remember that the NCC-1701 was originally called USS Yorktown in Roddenberry's script. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:27, 30 May 2014 (UTC)