Talk:USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-E)

message: :Image:EnterpriseE.jpg --Christopherlin 08:21, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another image 

message: Someone rewrote the section detailed the gap between the events of Generations and First Contact to several years, but wasn't it merely two years, as Generations was set in 2371 (the TNG events), and First Contact set in 2373? PlasticBeat 18:13, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Several years?

message: :Add  # Support  or  # Oppose  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
====Survey - Support votes====
*Support For the reasons stated above, the source comes directly from a credible source inside Star Trek. In the Wikipedia's own Star Trek-pedia, Canon Refercence Books, Star Trek writer and co-producer Ronald D. Moore dismisses such official material as "speculation", and says that the writing staff did not consider it canon."You have to remember that things like CD-ROMs and the various "official" manuals put out by Paramount are not done in conjunction with the writing/producing staffs and that the authors are usually simply extrapolating information based on what's actually been seen on screen." - Ronald D. Moore, AOL's "Ask Ron D. Moore" message board, July 1998"We do use things like the Encyclopedia, the Chronology, the Technical Manual etc. for reference, but unless it was explicitly mentioned on screen, we won't feel bound by anything stated even in those books." - Ronald D. Moore, "Star Trek Continuum" message board posting, September 1998. However, Viacom, the parent company of Paramount, seems to believe differently. In a series of posts to the official Star Trek website's forums, Viacom Senior Director Harry Lang left no doubt that he considers the reference books as canon."The tech manuals are written by ST production staff, same as the Encyclopedia (Mike Okuda). Since their contents report on what is canon, they are technically canon." - Harry Lang, Senior Director of Viacom Consumer Products Interactive division, posts on StarTrek.com forum, January 2005.
Neovu79 04:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we can "assume" that the Enterprise-E's Max Warp speed is Warp 8, then why can't we "assume" it's max speed is Warp 9? That's like assuming that there wasn't an Enterprise-F or G, etc. Just because it's not shown on screen doesn't mean that it's not there. Neovu79 23:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Obviously you are confused, the parameter doesn't mean maximum as in as fast as it will ever go it basically means "the maximum speed seen" - Wikipedia is an out of universe source, we've seen it go to warp 8, therefore it's the maximum we've seen. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 23:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not confused as you maybe believe. Let me ask you this, do you "assume" that the Enterprise-E can go faster than its "on screne" statement? If the answer is yes, then the warp speed is wrong. It needs to be changed or removed completely. Neovu79 00:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When the Wiki template asks for Maximum speed, people aren't going to think "Oh well this means Maximum Speed seen of TV or Movie", their very first thought is going to be "Maximum Possible Speed". Think out of the box if you will, in the perspective of someone who is not a Star Trek fan or a Trekkie. They aren't you to think like a fan who's been following the show for years. Neovu79 23:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The top speed should remain at Warp 8. Until it's been shown onscreen that the Enterprise-E can go at Warp 9.985, we have to leave it as it is. Acalamari 03:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *shakes head* You still haven't answered my question. What you're trying to enforce it not viable as well. It's like having a prosecutor asking experts to give their "expert opinion" on something in their field. There's always room for doubt in their opinion but you can't deny their experience in the subject, aka Michael Okuda . Also, no, it should not be listed as Warp 8; the field should remain blank. Just because it's the only number stated in "canon" doesn't mean Enterprise-E can go faster. I don't believe her Max Warp is 8, especially considering that she is a more advanced starship than the Galaxy-class and the Intrepid-class. Look, I understand you point-of-view. I agree that Warp 8 is the only number stated in "canon", however, the Average Joe isn't going to see it that way or agree with it. In a lot of people's minds, when they think Enterprise-E, they think, an advanced warship. Neovu79 05:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your failing to see the big point though, your manual's canon status is unclear. If it's not canon then it is inheritly unverifiable, due to Paramount/Viacom denying them as being part of the "universe" thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 07:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm aware of that, and I agree that there is always room to refut it, but my point is that seeing Warp 8 in the Maximum Warp template-field looks dubious. It makes it "appear" that you're stating the Maximum Warp is 8. Neovu79 20:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One more thing to note is on the main page, it states Enterprise-E's ability to saucer seperate. Since it's not seen in "canon", why is it listed? And also the Background Information, it's not stated in canon either. You can't have the glass half full. Neovu79 06:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  More then likely because it's worded as such "the following information is apocryphal however x says y" - you word it as if it's fact. Which it blatantly is not. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 07:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've posted a compromise in the discussion. Please read it before posting anything more here. Acalamari 17:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey: Maximum Warp Speed

message: *Support For the reasons stated above, the source comes directly from a credible source inside Star Trek. In the Wikipedia's own Star Trek-pedia, Canon Refercence Books, Star Trek writer and co-producer Ronald D. Moore dismisses such official material as "speculation", and says that the writing staff did not consider it canon."You have to remember that things like CD-ROMs and the various "official" manuals put out by Paramount are not done in conjunction with the writing/producing staffs and that the authors are usually simply extrapolating information based on what's actually been seen on screen." - Ronald D. Moore, AOL's "Ask Ron D. Moore" message board, July 1998"We do use things like the Encyclopedia, the Chronology, the Technical Manual etc. for reference, but unless it was explicitly mentioned on screen, we won't feel bound by anything stated even in those books." - Ronald D. Moore, "Star Trek Continuum" message board posting, September 1998. However, Viacom, the parent company of Paramount, seems to believe differently. In a series of posts to the official Star Trek website's forums, Viacom Senior Director Harry Lang left no doubt that he considers the reference books as canon."The tech manuals are written by ST production staff, same as the Encyclopedia (Mike Okuda). Since their contents report on what is canon, they are technically canon." - Harry Lang, Senior Director of Viacom Consumer Products Interactive division, posts on StarTrek.com forum, January 2005.
Neovu79 04:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - Support votes

message: # Oppose The fastest speed the Enterprise-E was seen to travel at was Warp 8. Even though it's top speed is "probably" Warp 9.985, this hasn't been seen. Until the Star Trek universe shows the Enterprise-E or another Sovereign-class starship go at Warp 9.985 onscreen, we have to assume that the top speed is Warp 8 until proven otherwise. Acalamari 20:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we can "assume" that the Enterprise-E's Max Warp speed is Warp 8, then why can't we "assume" it's max speed is Warp 9? That's like assuming that there wasn't an Enterprise-F or G, etc. Just because it's not shown on screen doesn't mean that it's not there. Neovu79 23:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Obviously you are confused, the parameter doesn't mean maximum as in as fast as it will ever go it basically means "the maximum speed seen" - Wikipedia is an out of universe source, we've seen it go to warp 8, therefore it's the maximum we've seen. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 23:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not confused as you maybe believe. Let me ask you this, do you "assume" that the Enterprise-E can go faster than its "on screne" statement? If the answer is yes, then the warp speed is wrong. It needs to be changed or removed completely. Neovu79 00:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When the Wiki template asks for Maximum speed, people aren't going to think "Oh well this means Maximum Speed seen of TV or Movie", their very first thought is going to be "Maximum Possible Speed". Think out of the box if you will, in the perspective of someone who is not a Star Trek fan or a Trekkie. They aren't you to think like a fan who's been following the show for years. Neovu79 23:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The top speed should remain at Warp 8. Until it's been shown onscreen that the Enterprise-E can go at Warp 9.985, we have to leave it as it is. Acalamari 03:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *shakes head* You still haven't answered my question. What you're trying to enforce it not viable as well. It's like having a prosecutor asking experts to give their "expert opinion" on something in their field. There's always room for doubt in their opinion but you can't deny their experience in the subject, aka Michael Okuda . Also, no, it should not be listed as Warp 8; the field should remain blank. Just because it's the only number stated in "canon" doesn't mean Enterprise-E can go faster. I don't believe her Max Warp is 8, especially considering that she is a more advanced starship than the Galaxy-class and the Intrepid-class. Look, I understand you point-of-view. I agree that Warp 8 is the only number stated in "canon", however, the Average Joe isn't going to see it that way or agree with it. In a lot of people's minds, when they think Enterprise-E, they think, an advanced warship. Neovu79 05:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your failing to see the big point though, your manual's canon status is unclear. If it's not canon then it is inheritly unverifiable, due to Paramount/Viacom denying them as being part of the "universe" thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 07:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm aware of that, and I agree that there is always room to refut it, but my point is that seeing Warp 8 in the Maximum Warp template-field looks dubious. It makes it "appear" that you're stating the Maximum Warp is 8. Neovu79 20:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One more thing to note is on the main page, it states Enterprise-E's ability to saucer seperate. Since it's not seen in "canon", why is it listed? And also the Background Information, it's not stated in canon either. You can't have the glass half full. Neovu79 06:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  More then likely because it's worded as such "the following information is apocryphal however x says y" - you word it as if it's fact. Which it blatantly is not. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 07:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've posted a compromise in the discussion. Please read it before posting anything more here. Acalamari 17:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - Oppose votes

message: It seems that the Enterprise Schematics links are now dead. Neovu79 06:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not good. What do we do now? Acalamari 17:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The ex astris images are fan created.. not a reliable source. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 17:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What Matthew Fenton said. (Although, FYI, they're not dead; the site has merely prevented hotlinking). --EEMeltonIV 18:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Design and abilities

message: . . . is not dead; the site simply rejects "hot linking", i.e. if you type the URL by hand or copy-and-paste it into your address line, it'll show up just fine. --EEMeltonIV 19:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recently (29 May 07) removed Ex Astris link  . . . 

message: Ship of the Line does not give the original name of the Enteprise-E, though it does have Scotty comment none of them knew what ship they were working on until the D was downed. http://startrek.wikia.com/wiki/Talk:USS_Honorius -- 208.60.60.254 18:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ship of the Line citation 

message: I bookmarked this back in March . . . and haven't done anything with it. Maybe someone else who keeps an eyeball on this article can cull it for additional information. --EEMIV (talk) 23:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential source 

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: 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: In the "Ship's officers" section the last entry is Lieutenant Hawk. However I wonder if he really is a major enough character to be included with the others who all are well-known Star Trek characters. Hawk is the only character listed  here who made only one appearance in a Star Trek film or television series and I note the article Hawk links toList of Star Trek characters (G–M) does not mention the character. If Hawk is to be included should Ensign Perim,  from Star Trek: Insurrection, and the Security Chief Lt. Daniels, who appears  in both  Star Trek: First Contact (albeit unnamed) and Insurrection, also be included? Dunarc (talk) 21:59, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ship's officers - inclusion of Lt Hawk