Talk:Starship Enterprise

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
January 13, 2007 Articles for deletion Speedily kept
WikiProject Star Trek (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Enterprise F (STO)[edit]

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 ... --188.107.6.82 (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)
Is the Enterprise-F in any way more notable than other non-canon designs from ST Online, or is it just because of the name? Oh it's the Enterprise!! It has to be an important ship I'm not an ST Online player and I do acknowledge that ST Online is notable, but notability doesn't automatically include everything found in the game. Carpe carpam (talk) 18:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Name inspiration[edit]

USS Enterprise (CVN-65)#In popular culture elaborates on the inspiration for the name USS Enterprise. This should be mentioned here, shouldn't it? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:22, 30 May 2014 (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)


In the original "Star Trek Engineers Manuel" (issued in the mid-seventies,) the Enterprise was said to be 1200-feet long(363.64-meters). I suppose the propulsion nacelles were extended an extra 100, to 200-feet to clear their warp and propulsion field further from the body of the engine section!!! --184.248.3.83 (talk) 23:52, 27 December 2015 (UTC)Veryverser

Merge[edit]

I suggessted a merge from USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-E) and USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-A). Those two movie-only versions have not received significant independent coverage and pretty clearly fail Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Keep No never all of the Enterprise ships are notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by MightyDinoPower15 (talkcontribs) 01:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Have it your way. AfD started. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep, of course keep the page, all of the Enterprise ships are notable and should have their own articles. Did you put any more of these on AfD, I seldom look at those sad pages and am lucky I came across this one. And please italicize the ship names in your nom, have some respect shipmate. Randy Kryn 04:58, Star Date 25 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The Afd is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-E). Randy Kryn 21:16, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Kelvin Timeline[edit]

In the above named section, it's stated that the black hole and Romulan appearance created a "new reality."

This is COMPLETELY WRONG! ! !

The black hole created a pathway to an ALTERNATE, but extremely similar, universe.

My proof --- Check any bio of/on Capt. James Tiberius Kirk printed before the 2009 movie and you'll read that Kirk WAS BORN ON EARTH in IOWA - - - NOT IN SPACE ! ! !

Also, notice in the 2009 movie WHERE the starship is being constructed - - - HERE ON EARTH ! ! !

Nero coming through a black hole an untold distance away would not effect how/where starships are constructed.

Given the complexity of the construction set-up in the 2009 movie, the earthbound way of building starships appears to be a long established 'tradition' and the shipyards at Utopia Planetia have probably never existed.

Also, given that Nimoy's Spock character has no memory change --- remember the episode The City on the Edge of Forever and the "Guardian of Forever" after McCoy went through and no one recognized Spock? --- that would happen if it was the same universe.

Given all this, I think the section's intro sentence of --

"The 2009 Star Trek film takes place in a new reality created when the Romulan character Nero traveled through time via an artificial black hole."
should be changed to read something like --
"The 2009 Star Trek film takes place in an alternate universe that the Romulan character Nero and the Vulcan character Spock both reach by traveling back in time through a "Red Matter" artificially created black hole."

What do all of you think? 2600:8800:50B:6700:C23F:D5FF:FEC5:89B6 (talk) 07:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Using "the" with ship's names[edit]

A discussion relevant to the most recently added/reverted edits to the mainpage has started here: Talk:USS Enterprise (NCC-1701). Thanks.Jabberjawjapan (talk) 07:11, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Starship Enterprise. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:47, 24 April 2017 (UTC)