Talk:Excelsior class starship
|WikiProject Star Trek||(Rated Redirect-class)|
Lexington naming conflict
Hi. I wrote on this page that the USS Lexington (NCC-14427) conflicts with the Nebula class USS Lexington (NCC-61832). There can only be one starship with the name as no two ships can have the same name at the same time. So, who is right? --Blue387 21:35, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Are you sure there can only be one of a name at a time? I don't believe I've ever heard anything canon that indicates that. In fact, I remember an episode of TNG (the one with the doctor in the warp bubble, maybe?) where the computer responded that the Enterprise-D was the only "USS Enterprise" in service, which could be taken to imply that having two simultaneously wasn't impossible. -- Djinn112 22:23, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Starfleet does not operate the same ship name at the same time. This creates confussion. What likely happened is the Lexington issue is one ship was destroyed and the other was built or recomissioned as a replacement. -Alyeska
The recommissioning idea is probably true. Wasn't the Nebula-class Lexington shown before the Excelsior-class Lexington? NCC-14427 would have been commissioned around the turn of the 24rd century, and replaced by NCC-61832 in the mid-2350s, making her around 50 years old at decommissioning. If NCC-61832 were destroyed in the early 2370s, the old Lexington could have been pulled out of mothballs to temporarily replace her. (see the Farragut thread below). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 00:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Somebody need to write somethinng about the second upgrade (Lakota). At the very least it had several weaopns upgrades compared to the original and E-B refit.
- I rewrote the end of Fictional History some, because what was there was unsourced. We know Lakota had been equipped with quantum torpedoes, but I don't remember things like maximum speed being stated in the episode. --Mnemeson 12:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- O'Brien specifically mentions that he doesn't know if the Lakota's engines had been uprated or not, but that it was likely, given her other modifications. In other words, no canonical verification either way.--Raguleader 08:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
The Farragut was not reactivated for the Dominion war. A third Farragut of the Nebula-class was constructed and subsequently destroyed during the war. --18.104.22.168 02:09, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
- Who's to say it wasn't? A Farragut was mentioned in "Chrysalis" and an Excelsior-classs hip was seen at DS9 during that episode. Given that the Nebula Farragut had been destroyed, and Starfleet was short of ships, it seems perfectly reasonable that it was reactivated.
- From what i read any starship hull that was still spaceworthy was reactivated to fight in the war. So with the destruction of the Nebula class one, they could have easily just used the old one against the Dominion. Pr1983 10:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
i remember a quote somewhere saying the ship, which was originally designed as a "bad guy" ship for star trek III, was designed to look evil. it would be good if we could dredge that out from somewhere. Morwen - Talk 11:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Known Excelsior-class vessels?
I'm pretty sure Al-Batani never appeared on screen and was never identified as Excelsior-class in the series. How many ships in this list are ret-conned Excelsior-class? AlistairMcMillan 22:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Did I just see a tumbleweed roll across this page?
- Anyway. Two suggestions.
- (1) We remove the Excelsior class content from List of Starfleet starships ordered by class and just have the list here, with a link back here under the Excelsior class heading.
- (2) We shorten the list here so instead of having "Known Excelsior-class vessels" which includes vessels that were never identified in the series as Excelsior-class (Melbourne, Al-Batani, etc) and those that just appeared on bridge display for seconds if that (Roosevelt, Gorkon), we have "Notable Excelsior-class vessels" featuring things like Excelsior, Enterprise-B, and Hood (for being Riker's pre-D assignment and for appearing throughout TNG).
- Thoughts? AlistairMcMillan 19:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Excelsior07.jpg
Image:Excelsior07.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
Usage of "named after"
There are numerous references to some starship being named after a particular historical figure, place or vessel; some of these are rather dubious. For example, U.S.S. Tecumseh is allegedly "[n]amed after [the] Shawnee leader, an American ship, or the Canadian base." Which is it, if any? Ideally, we should be citing a real-world source (such as the writer who included the ship in an episode), and/or a canonical in-universe source (such as dialogue establishing a ship's history). Also, real-world vs. in-universe explanations for names ought to be distinguished (see U.S.S. Livingston, for example). TheFeds 21:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- Some of the  tags on the name origins seem pretty superfluous, as there is only one obvious notable thing they could possibly be a reference to, e.g. al-Battānī, Crazy Horse, Lakota, etc. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Merge and redirect
I've started working on a merge-and-redirect to an amalgamated list of Starfleet starship classes; you can track the work in progress here. I've explained the rationale for a merge/redirect, and solicited responses to a few questions, on the Star Trek wikiproject talk page here; if you're at all interested, please take a moment to read and respond. --EEMIV (talk) 02:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
This article does not contain a significant real-world treatment of the subject, and fails an assertion/evidence of notability. I have redirected to a broader article that, while not delving as much into in-universe detail as this, is an appropriate playground in which to offer the subject coverage from a real-world perspective. --EEMIV (talk) 18:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)