Talk:USS Enterprise

message: 65.128.226.144 (talk) 02:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shouldn't there be a TOC thing 

message: Does anyone here have an answer to this question? ... We all know the USS Enterprise is both a starship on Star Trek as well as a entire linage of US Navy ships. What I want to know is, in a fictional movie (or other creative production) involving a futuristic United States Space Navy force, would it be in violation of Paramount's trademark if a starship in that US Space Navy was named "USS Enterprise"? I mean, the US Navy's USS Enterprise came first, and it would be pretty logical that the lineage of the USS Enterprise continued if the US expanded her Navy into space.
: I don't believe there is any issue. Trademark - A name, symbol, or other device identifying a product, officially registered and legally restricted to the use of the owner or manufacturer. The key word there is identifying - as long as the ship is unique it will be fine. If the futuristic ship had two large nacelles and a saucer section - then it would be an issue because it resembles the trademark of Paramount and could confuse the consumer - thats what trademarks are all about. Allowing a consumer to easily identify what product they are buying. Fosnez 11:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  In practice, I don't believe it would be allowed.  At best, the writers of the other show would be able to refer to it obliquely (q.v. Stargate SG-1 and Prometheus (Stargate)).  The use of a starship named Enterprise in another sci-fi TV series would probably be judged to be unacceptably infringing of Paramount's trademark and in order to maintain the strength of their IP, Paramount would be forced to challenge it. Iceberg3k 20:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If there was a show about a future U.S. space force, it would be free to use the name Enterprise as one of a number of ships (based solely on the Navy/NASA lineage).  But if the ship looked at all like a Star Trek design, or if the ship named Enterprise was the focal point of the series, then it would become a trademark issue.
Just the name "USS Enterprise" can be trademarked. Trademarks allow for names and graphic symbols to be protected where copyright law lacks enforcement. Since the first ship was named the Enterprise back in 1775, I would think that any trademark would long be expired by now. There were 8 versions of the Big "E" and, I would think that if anyone violated any trademarks, it would be NASA, as the starship USS Enterprise was written long before the space shuttle was named. GeorgeMcGinn (talk) 09:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

text: Trademarks don't expire. Coke has had theirs for a very long time.  The navy (or nasa) are not prohibited from naming their actual physical ships this because it would not create brand confusion. Star Trek likely has trademarks that only cover television, and perhaps toys. They would fail in their defense if they tried to also restrict boats named such, as other entities had been in that space earlier. McKay (talk) 23:09, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  US Navy vs Star Trek trademark 

message: This page—like HMS Enterprise—is a disambiguation page.  As such it should be as short as possible when listing items that have their own detailed pages.
So I cut each entry down to the ships Name, Dates of use, and one key detail for identification purposes.  If anyone wants the extra details that were removed, they can click on the links and read the articles in all of their glory.  The only entries I did not cut down were the ones for ships with no other page.
As for the list of sources in the Trek section, I was trying to improve readability and some redundant links.
If you have an issue with any particular change I have made feel free (of course) to change it, but please do not do a blanket revert to fix one thing.  —MJBurrage • TALK • 05:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, you are not kidding!  This dab page appears to be way off the guidelines for disambiguation pages.  If I can find a good block of time in the next few days, I will try to strip the page down and bring it back into standards.  --Kralizec! (talk) 16:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, the dates and numbers style manual specifically states that dab pages are one of the exceptions to this rule: "There are some exceptions to the rule that dates with a month and a day should always be linked" ... "On disambiguation pages, only the disambiguated articles should be linked, not explanatory text." --Kralizec! (talk) 04:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This page is a type of disambiguation

message: Aren't there some Enterprise ships in the Star Trek Mirror Universe?Albmont 01:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean the ISS Enterprise (Star Trek)?  --Kralizec! (talk) 03:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. The text only mentions the canonical Enterprises, not the Mirror-Enterprises.Albmont 13:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Star Trek Mirror Universe Enterprise(s) 

message: Once again, this page is in need of some cleaning to adhere more to the guidelines for ship index pages. The idea is that a ship article should contain as much information as possible and the index page is to serve only to help people find a particular ship. If a ship history is very small, say, less then one paragraph, then it's ok to leave the information on the index page rather than create a separate article. Essentially this is a "heads up" as I will be going through List of United States Navy ships, E in the coming few weeks. --Brad (talk) 18:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: New page is in place. --Brad (talk) 22:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oooh, looks nice!  I think the bloated entries on the first several E's were a legacy from when we did not have articles on each of the ships.  Regardless, thanks for all of your hard work in cleaning up this page!  --Kralizec! (talk) 23:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  There should still be something on the meaning of USS, covering what it means, and why it is not used on all American ships.   Also not all Star Trek ships are Federation ships. —MJBurrage(T•C) 06:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ship Index page guidelines 

message: As noted multiple times above, this page is not a regular entry.  It is a ship index (a type of Wikipedia:Disambiguation), and as such is meant to be as short as possible, with only one link per entry.  Also S.S. has nothing to do with "State Ship" and is not restricted to American use.  It originally meant a screw-driven steamship (Screw Steamer) but can be used by anyone and may just imply "Surface Ship", "Seagoing Ship" or whatever the owner wants. —MJBurrage(T•C) 20:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent anon edits/reverts

message: Again, S.S. has nothing specifically to do with the United States.  It has stood for "Sailing Ship", "Steam Ship", or "Screw Ship" (as in screw driven).  None of the uses are restricted by the ship's registration or nationality. —MJBurrage(T•C) 01:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: S.S.

message: Should USS Enterprise (BLDG 7115) be described as a stone frigate ? 184.144.161.173 (talk) 13:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No, because that is a term only used in Great Britain and Commonwealth nations. SeanNovack (talk) 20:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  USS Enterprise (BLDG 7115) 

message: The new sentence about CVN-79 adds a "cite error" because the page has no . Since this is a ship index page I am removing it, rather than adding the reflist. Perhaps the new material belongs at USS John F. Kennedy (CVN-79)#Naming? -- John of Reading (talk) 17:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  CVN-79 

message: in regard to your revert, the only non-ship I see is the building that is a ship simulator.  So all it would take, technically, to make this a set index would be to put that building in the See also section.  Also, even that building has been set in italics, so why not italicize the page title?  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 17:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The list consists of naval vessels as well as fictional spacecraft. These do not constitute a set AFAICT. And besides, links to this name can and should be disambiguated. older ≠ wiser 18:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

text: PS, only one of the wikiprojects (and likely the least relevant) has this marked as SIA. The more relevant projects have it tagged as dab class. older ≠ wiser 18:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

text: Also, FWIW, the set index for this title is List of ships of the United States Navy named Enterprise. older ≠ wiser 18:14, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, older ≠ wiser, that all makes very good sense.  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 00:31, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Set index vs. dab 

message: I'm just wondering if this page is disambiguating "USS Enterprise" or "Enterprise". If the former, as the title would imply, then why the many "Enterprises" that aren't "USS Enterprise"? If the latter, then why are the HMS Enterprises relegated to a separate page? JKeck (talk) 15:33, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It is disambiguating USS Enterprise. If you search by typing "enterprise" it takes you to a completely different disambiguation page, just as typing HMS Enterprise takes you to that disambiguation page. The reason there are ships listed on this disambiguation page without the "USS" in front is because they are American ships named Enterprise that people may have assumed had the USS designation. Clear as mud? StarHOG (Talk) 02:50, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: From what you say, it's not simply disambiguating "USS Enterprise" but rather "USS Enterprise and American ships named Enterprise". A change of title to reflect that focus might be appropriate. JKeck (talk) 21:30, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It does that inherently by listing ships as USS Enterprise or just Enterprise. StarHOG (Talk) 02:39, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  What exactly is this page disambiguating?