Talk:USS Enterprise (NCC-1701)

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: A while ago, I proposed merging the 1701-A article into this one. It wasn't a slam dunk proposal, and the work to properly line them up hasn't quite happened. For now, I'm pulling some 1701-A-specific information and dropping it here -- either to restore later, or to merge over to the 1701-A article (if it isn't there already...I just haven't looked...).
:Although the original bridge set had been refurbished and repainted to serve as the bridge for the Enterprise-A, it was scrapped in favor of a completely new bridge set for Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (1989). The sleek "Okudagrams" created for this Enterprise-A bridge were adopted in subsequent films and television spin-offs. Some Next Generation sets, such as the Enterprise-D's engine room and conference room, were later modified to depict interiors of the Enterprise-A..
--EEMIV (talk) 20:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Something we can transplant" 

message: This line is from the article:  "... he eventually reasoned the Enterprise was the first vessel of Starfleet's 17th starship design, hence 1701."   In the TOS episode The Doomsday Machine, Matt Decker was in command of the USS Constellation, NCC-1017.  The sentence quoted from the article would imply that ship is the 17th of the 10th design. But, it's a sister ship of the USS Enterprise -- the same design. So, I have to question the reliability of the source about NCC-1701. SlowJog (talk) 20:05, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The source accurately reflects the perspective of someone involved in designing/thinking about the ship and it's in-universe history, and it's a reliable source. Plenty of on-screen contradictions about the ship's fictional in-universe history have cropped up since almost the first episode aired. They are overwhelmingly trivial, although I'm sure Memory Alpha has them thoroughly catalogued and speculated on. --EEMIV (talk) 03:18, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately it is made-up history to fit reality. They bought an AMT model of the enterprise and just switched the numbers around of the decals that were included in the box to make it different from Enterprise. StarHOG (Talk) 23:04, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. I realized after writing that, it was a discussion that occurred during the creation of Star Trek. But, that discussion never resulted in it becoming an official hull numbering scheme in the fictional Star Trek universe. In other words, I was confusing our universe with Star Trek's. SlowJog (talk) 21:19, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  NCC-1701 

message: I'd like some comments: which of two candidate fair-use images would make the better lead image?
#:File:USS Enterprise (NCC-1701), ENT1231.jpg, or
#:File:STIn Beauty.jpg
I'm considering replacing #1 with #2. Does it more clearly display features of the ship (e.g. the Bussard collectors on front of the warp nacelles?) Do the fireworks of "the Great Barrier" make too busy / distracting a background?
What say you all? JustinTime55 (talk) 21:40, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I'd lean towards an image of the original ship in the broadcast series where possible. If the objective is visual identification, though, I'm not sure either are particularly great—the remastered one hides the silhouette somewhat as mentioned. Something like the remastered shot of the second might be a bit clearer. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 23:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

text: Neither is all that great. If you know the Enterprises shape, the other one is a bit brighter and clearer .... but if the shape is alien to you, the foreground and background kind of jumble and it's harder to discern the components' arrangement. --EEMIV (talk) 19:09, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

text: Where the article's prose needs copyrighted material to be understood (WP:NFCC#8), it seems to already have it in abundance; nothing in the infobox itself seems to need illustration to be understood, and so my recommendation would to eschew extraneous non-free material.  However, if consensus cannot abide an infobox without yet more copyrighted media, then a third option is needed, or these images need to be edited: WP:NFCC#3b means that unless we're needing to specifically illustrate the planet or extragalactic morass, they shouldn't be in the media we use.  —  Fourthords | =Λ= | 18:11, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead image

message: *   —  Fourthords | =Λ= | 16:23, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. A monograph by Weitekamp about this topic is already in the article. I've had this video on my YT watchlist for a couple of months meaning to see if there's something more worth adding, but bah I haven't made time to watch the whole thing yet. --EEMIV (talk) 02:32, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: sources