Talk:Enterprise (NX-01)

message: I know the Enterprise has a number of Phase cannons, but 12 seems over excessive for a ship it's size and for the time period of Star Trek. Enzo Aquarius 22:17, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the number reflects the augmentations made to the vessel for the Xindi mission. Presumably subsequent ships scaled this back as the weapons became more sophisticated and powerful and the UFP's establishment allowed for more peaceful exploration. 23skidoo 02:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phase cannons 

message: Which episodes are the data in the template taken from?  If actual episodes cannot be cited, the information should not be here.  Please see WP:VERIFY.  AlistairMcMillan 10:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A few.. ENT: Silent Enemy, ENT: The Expanse, ENT: Azati Prime and ENT: Fallen Hero--Matthew Fenton (TALK - CONTRIBS) 10:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: Removed the ship table as we dont know much about the XCV and also the Starfleets are diffrent, so.. dont add it back thank you. Matthew Fenton (TALK - CONTRIBS) 09:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the XCV anyway? Is that the test craft from "First Flight"? 23skidoo 15:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ship table 

message: The "Starships named Enterprise" template was removed earlier tonight, purportedly because it was "speculative". This is not a valid rationale - the template is intended to facilitate movement between articles about Star Trek ships named "Enterprise", and as such is perfectly appropriate for an article such as this one. Thoughts? --Ckatzchatspy 09:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was actually added this morning and removed this morning. Deus Sum (Matthew Fenton) (talk) 09:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine, Matthew... the links between previous and subsequent articles, present since May 1, 2006 and [most recently presented] in the form of the template "Starships named Enterprise", were removed [just after midnight (Pacific Standard Time)], or [just after 8 AM (UTC)]. It doesn't alter the fact that you removed a useful set of links. --Ckatzchatspy 09:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How is it useful? There's a big honking category :Category:Enterprise Ships (Star Trek). Deus Sum (Matthew Fenton) (talk) 09:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For what's it worth, other implementations of the template include the years, and where there is a gap, it reads "unknown" (and the span) before listing the next known vessel. To answer MatthewFenton's question, the point of a succession box seems to be to make it easy to move linearly between related entries. Same idea behind successor/predecessor entries for TV episodes, elected officials, etc. --EEMeltonIV 12:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Removed again per "Another common type of template, succession boxes, should not be used to describe in-universe relationships in articles about fictional entities. Succession boxes assume continuity, which may not exist. Even if it does exist, the fiction's creators may choose to rewrite it later, invalidating any previous canon" at WP:WAF. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To address your concerns, I've relabelled the headers "Previous article" and "Next article" - otherwise you're going to have to remove them from ALL of the "Enterprise" articles. --Ckatzchatspy 22:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding headers doesn't fix it. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It does address the problem - the template is now a navigation guide, and NOT an indication of succession. If you like, we can arrange the articles in any order that is satisfactory. --Ckatzchatspy 22:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another option would be to drop the display of the article name, so that one clicks on "next article". That might also address your concerns over indicating succession. Thoughts? --Ckatzchatspy 22:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

text:  It's not a navigation guide as it only covers prev. and next; so it is still a succession box. To answer your second reply it would still be a succession box. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Now it is *not* a succession box. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

text: One possibility might be to do what I did with the Trek ranks "succession" box, which is to splat them onto one table so they're all visible at once. The idea of succession isn't an issue since "next" and "previous" aren't there. *shrug*. It agree with Ckatz that is dumb to remove the box alltogether, though. --EEMeltonIV 22:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nicely done, folks. That should address everyone's concerns - it maintains the ability to move between related articles, while avoiding the question of "succession" in fictional works. Thanks! --Ckatzchatspy 00:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Enterprise" template 

message: This time I included citations to prove that the content I added was true and correct yet someone still saw fit to arbitrarily remove what I'd posted, what can I do about this while stil ensuring that I'm not blocked from future editing? Allan  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radio-commander (talk • contribs) 02:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The reference you provided is inappropriate (see WP:RS). I think your best option is to discuss this on the article's talk page and see what others think about it. Since your edits have been opposed, a discussion should take place on why it should or should not be included. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 03:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, please don't ask question here if you plan on completely ignoring the advice you get.  That's four people who have recommended you use the talk page, but instead you've reverted to your version for the fifth or sixth time, and made exactly zero edits to the talk page.  One more and you're very likely to get blocked. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The "true and correct content" that you attempted to add to the article came from an unreliable source and cannot be used.  As I suspected, the reference you used was not canonical, so it is invalid to use here.  ArcAngel (talk) 09:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article edit was again removed 

message: IN the episode "The Council" Archer is seen receiving the information that Degra is dead, on the monitor panel are 8 status indicators. The one to the top right is called "Ziggy". This would seem to refer to the handheld information device in the Quantum Leap series staring Scott Bakula.
Claytog (talk) 02:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Odd Information 

message: I've posed a few questions at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Star_Trek#Starship_article_ruminations, and I'd appreciate feedback from anyone who has this article watchlisted. Thanks! --EEMIV (talk) 16:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Input requested 

message: Looking through the article, but not wanting to do the GA review, I see:
*Lead
**"...the in-universe registration prefix..." - Is it a prefix, or a suffix? "Enterprise NX-01" is used later on in the article.
***I've removed "prefix"... it isn't really a suffix either, as certainly in-universe they never used it as such. I just tended to use it in the article to easily differentiate between the ship and the series name. Miyagawa (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Chris857 (talk) 03:31, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks - I appreciate the feedback. I'll work through it now. Miyagawa (talk) 21:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It's cool to see someone working at improving articles like this. Another thing I thought of is: the infobox indicates some in-universe ship stats, but some (like top speed, shuttlepod complement, defense) aren't described in the article, nor do they have a ref attached. They all seem correct to me, but would it be appropriate for some more involved discussion of some of those points? Do refs exist discussing them? Chris857 (talk) 23:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll see if I can dig some out - you're right though, there should be an "in-universe description" subsection or something. I'll give it some thought. I'm just trying to expand a little what we have at the ST project for Good Articles as right now we have a lot of episode articles but only a handful of other things. There wasn't really a fictional vehicle article to base it on, so I just kinda went with my gut on what should be in it within the context of Wikipedia. I decided to start with the NX-01 rather than one of the other Enterprises as there is virtually no printed material for ST:ENT and it's all on the web - although I did find out while doing this that there is a production chapter at the back of the Broken Bow novelization. Miyagawa (talk) 23:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA-esque comments 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Enterprise (NX-01). 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131230232306/http://www.qmxonline.com/news/stid-history-of-starflight-models/ to http://www.qmxonline.com/news/stid-history-of-starflight-models/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:09, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Enterprise (NX-01). 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120606094846/http://trekweb.com/stories.php?aid=xCW9imJ8mIzUQ to http://www.trekweb.com/stories.php?aid=xCW9imJ8mIzUQ
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:43, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Enterprise (NX-01). 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130808004801/http://www.diamondselecttoys.com/store.asp?p=subcategory.asp%3FCategoryID%3D335%26SubcategoryID%3D269 to http://www.diamondselecttoys.com/store.asp?p=subcategory.asp%3FCategoryID%3D335%26SubcategoryID%3D269
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130808004801/http://www.diamondselecttoys.com/store.asp?p=subcategory.asp%3FCategoryID%3D335%26SubcategoryID%3D269 to http://www.diamondselecttoys.com/store.asp?p=subcategory.asp%3FCategoryID%3D335%26SubcategoryID%3D269
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: Fellow Treksters: I have an idea that would affect this and other articles about various starships Enterprise. I'd appreciate your input at the WikiProject talk page at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Star_Trek#Dammit._Very_complicated,_head-scratching_idea_to_consider. Thanks! --EEMIV (talk) 01:23, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Input requested: name-change proposal that would affect this article

message: Doug Drexler said the design was inspired by the P-38 Lightning. Interview with Drexler explains a bit more about how the design came about, that might also be of interest. I found the interview while looking for other information to edit other articles, but I do not have time work on this article too. -- 109.78.197.28 (talk) 00:52, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  P-38 Lightning