Talk:USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-D)

message: There really needs to be some stuff about the propulsion / engineering systems on this page. Type and size reactor, power output, impulse/ warp system specs, ... any body know where to find this stuff?   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.244.22 (talk) 03:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Propulsion

message: Seems kind of strange that the design of a starship would be so vertically asymmetrical, or that the bridge would be located on the very "top".  I'd imagine that this particular starship had massive problems with center-of-gravity balancing and... well... bridges getting shot off =)  74.135.4.188 13:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Odd design

message: Can someone explain what makes this spec list authoritative?  Or was it just picked at random? AlistairMcMillan 10:21, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Spec list

message: The article mentions that Commander Riker briefly was Captain of the Enterprise-D.  During that period, he had been field-promoted to Captain (he wore four pips on his collar and everything).  Should any mention be made that he was a Captain during the time of his command of the Enterprise?--Raguleader 22:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great minds think alike, and so do we: while you were typing this up, I just removed the rank listings for both Jellico and Riker.  Anyone interested in that info. can just go to the characters' articles. --EEMeltonIV 22:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commander/Captain Riker? 

message: How big is it?--66.176.212.236 22:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size 

message: Is the asteroid field image really needed? Per WP:NFC, use of non-free content should be kept to a minimum. "Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary." Neitherday 01:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-free Image Use

message: Why does Ten Forward redirect here? Someone needs to make a disambiguation for this because I KNOW there's more definitions of this term. --TangoFett (talk) 00:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ten Forward 

message: I've re-added a legitimate point about the inconsistency of the "future" Enterprise travelling in excess of warp 10.  This is well based - it is covered in detail in the warp drive article linked to, the TNG Technical Manual, and features prominently in the Voyager episode Threshold.
And yet, somehow this is still OR.  Go figure. Crispmuncher (talk) 17:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Pease cite a source indicating this trivial plot detail and supposed discrepancy actually matters to someone in the real world, and not just tech-manual-obsessed fanboys (such as myself). The notion that it is an "inconsistency" is OR -- it may very well be consistent with eg the episode's alternate future history tech. This kind of speculation/assertion without citation to it being an "inconsistency" is inappropriate here. Take it to Memory Alpha. --EEMIV (talk) 23:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw that as well and was about to comment on it til I noticed this.  It seems to me that you can argue things one or the other - you can argue that a one-off episode is an irrelevance _or_ you can argue that one episode is significant.  What you _can't_ do is argue that one episode is significant and another irrelevant, which is what EEMIV appears to be doing from the edit log.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.22.111 (talk) 08:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warp 10+ 

message: Doing this from memory but here is the breakdown as I figure it:
  1 - NX-01 (TV Series "Star Trek Enterprise")
  2 - NCC-1701 Constitution Class (TV Series "Star Trek" original series)   
      NOTE: Includes NCC-1701 Improved Constitution Class (Star Trek Movies I, II, and III)
  3 - NCC 1701A Constitution Class (Star Trek Movies IV, V, and VI)
  4 - NCC 1701B Excelsior Class (TV Series "Star Trek TNG" referenced and shown in "Star Trek Generations")
  5 - NCC 1701C Ambassador Class ("Star Trek TNG" shown in episode "Yesterdays Enterprise")
  6 - NCC 1701D  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.43.5.154 (talk) 00:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  NCC-1701D would be at least the 6th Federation Starships named Enterprise 

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) 16:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Input requested 

message: A discussion relevant to the most recently added/reverted edits to the mainpage has started here: Talk:USS Enterprise (NCC-1701).  Thanks.  Jabberjawjapan (talk) 08:03, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Using "the" with ship's names

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-D). 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/20170118051229/http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=D307923.PN.&OS=PN%2FD307923&RS=PN%2FD307923 to http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=D307923.PN.&OS=PN%2FD307923&RS=PN%2FD307923
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) 13:03, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

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: I don't think displacement is the correct unit as it is a maritime term. The unit should be mass, surely? Tony Holkham (Talk) 20:24, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Displacement? 

message: While the Length and Width seem to be close enough to accurate, the Height can not possibly be accurate.  This height number is way too tall. --Stevegoodmansen (talk) 04:29, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length Width & Height 

message: Hey, all. I've begun an overhaul of this article. It's very much a work in progress, but I'm hoping to do here in terms of restructure, content, and sourcing that was my passion project at USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) a couple of years ago. Please do jump into the article to deposit sources and production info here. I've been skimming through old Starlogs at the Internet Archive and have been a bit surprised by some of the scant info. on the ship design itself (although there is a cool report from David Gerrold about set construction: https://archive.org/details/starlog_magazine-121/page/n13/mode/2up). --EEMIV (talk) 23:14, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Working on an overhaul 

message: "Starfleet commissions the Galaxy-class USS Enterprise in 2263 under the command of Captain Jean-Luc Picard. " - Isn't that 2363? Drsruli (talk) 08:15, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commisioned when? 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:08, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion