Talk:USS Enterprise (NCC-1701)

Input requested: name-change proposal that would affect this article

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)

Decommissioned?

Sources support use of the term "decommissioned", both as a referenced claim, and under the usage of the term itself. Of course we wouldn't use the term "sold", because the vessel wasn't sold - but it was decommissioned.

Ship decommissioning supports the context of usage, and it's sourced as per startrek.com - "Shortly before its decommissioning in 2285, Kirk took the Enterprise -- against orders -- to the Genesis Planet..."

Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:50, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, let's get back to basics. Can you give a source on screen that says she was decommissioned? At the beginning of ST:III they say she is going to be decommissioned, but the crew steals her. Startrek.com mixes canon with non-canon in their descriptions, so I'm not sure about that. Starfleet is also not a contemporary navy, so we don't know what their rules about destruction and decommissioning are, so the wikipedia article you list isn't of any help. Then she is destroyed over the genesis planet; That is not decommissioning. So, if you can't provide a canon reference, decommissioning has no place in this article. StarHOG (Talk) 14:05, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Even if you go by Startrek.com, "shortly before..." means it didn't happen, right? StarHOG (Talk) 15:53, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

While we discuss it, the original stays in place. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:54, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

It only "didn't happen" because it was destroyed before the act. Intent to decommission was clearly made with a specific date, so it's a valid parameter. And let's just clarify something else - are you somehow suggesting that startrek.com is not a valid source of references for Star Trek data?

How about a compromise of the decommission date with a qualifier to say that it was destroyed before the actual event occurred?

| decommissioned = 2285<ref>Enterprise destroyed over the Genesis Planet prior to actual decommission</ref>

Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:04, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

The startrek.com website is not canon. Paramount says that it is a print source, and therefore not canon. Just because you post edit war banners on my talk page and make authoratative statements like "until we discuss this, my edit stays put", doesn't make you right. "Due to be decommissioned" is not the same as decommissioning. Nothing in canon says that the ship was decommissioned before being destroyed, so the article doesn't say it. If you would like the article to say something, please provide a reference. StarHOG (Talk) 17:16, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I placed an edit war template on your page because instead of WP:BRD you were edit warring. And your quote above is not what I said. I said "the original stays in place." That the two happen to be the same is just the way it goes. People not adhering to BRD, or insisting that the "new" version stays while its merits are discussed is one of my pet peeves.

Why does a print source suddenly cease to be canon? Where is the evidence to support the claim that startrek.com is not a reliable source for Star Trek material? Do Paramount actually say "...it is a print source, and therefore not canon." Just because you say that, does not make you right either. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:26, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with removing the "decommissioned" line. The adding/restoring editor should cite a reliable and compelling third-party source that asserts the vessel is decommissioned in the fictional universe (or, more precisely, that there was an intent to depict the make-believe Enterprise as having been decommissioned). In isolation, one can infer from the one sentence at startrek.com that the ship was decommissioned at some later date. However, the sentence that immediately follows really does seem to undercut any such inference -- along with the preponderance of material (scripts, the producers talking about the fate of the ship, the final film, the novelization, etc. etc.) -- that all pretty much seem to agree that the ship didn't stick around long enough "to be" decommissioned (for whatever rite that involves) and its plan for "decommissioned"ness became moot since it went kablooey before decommissioning could happen. Leaning solely on the startrek.com line while ignoring pretty much everything else seems like cherrypicking. While well-intentioned, the proposed compromise that adds a footnote 1) undermines the idea that it was "actually" decommissioned and 2) introduces clutter to the infobox. Perhaps the adding/restoring editor can go to the vehicle template talk page and propose adding a field for "decommissioning was planned but something else happened" field ;-]. As a total sidenote, this discussion has a few times invoked canon. Canon doesn't really mean anything at Wikipedia -- we're instead concerned with verifiability and notability, which is why e.g. James T. Kirk references fan productions. And remember: "canon" only describes the in-universe "truth" of a subject, but well-written Wikipedia content should mainly focus on the real-world aspects of a topic. --EEMIV (talk) 00:16, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Because the decommissioned-ness doesn't seem clearcut -- again, the restoring editor themselves is proposing a footnote qualifier -- perhaps we omit the not-cut-and-dry date from the infobox, and instead make sure the depiction section points out that the ship was intended to be decommissioned in 2285, but went to smithereens before it could happen? --EEMIV (talk) 00:58, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm in favor of that. As long as it doesn't appear in the info box, that, to me, is totally misleading. Thanks for your analysis, BTW. StarHOG (Talk) 12:58, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

My point is that decommissioning is not something that happens overnight. Enterprise was taken out of service and left in dry dock for the crew to be removed and to be left languishing long enough for Kirk to stroll up and take off with her. If she was still in active service there would have been crew, security - and she would have been out on a mission, not in berth.

Also, I have to take issue with StarHOG's utter arrogance in ignoring and flouting BRD, to such an extent when I felt it necessary to template them. As an apparently experienced editor they should be aware of the etiquette surrounding edits and reversions and await an agreed outcome - consensus - before forcing their version onto a page. It would be apparent from my editing history that I've been away a while and would be responding when I had chance. At the moment their behaviour weakens the argument by simply editwarring their version in place, however, it's also obvious that regardless of a decision StarHog will just edit their version in place anyway, so let it be. Chaheel Riens (talk) 05:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Chaheel Riens, perhaps it'd be worthwhile to ping the Wikiproject talk page and invite more input? Also, I agree that StarHog should not have rushed to again remove the content -- especially considering the recent back-and-forth over it just a few days ago. --EEMIV (talk) 15:40, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, before my name gets dragged through the mud here, let's look at what happened. Wildlover22 added the "decommissioned" info. I changed it to "struck" trying to work with the editor rather than just revert their stuff. Chaheel Riens changed it back to decommissioned without, IMO, giving any effort to find better wording. I then deleted "decommissioned" from the info box since, if it didn't fit and no other parameters were valid, better to not have it. I then got reverted and was told in the summary that I was edit warring, and a banner got placed on my talk page warning me of edit warring. EEMIV posted on May 17 a statement opposing the use of decommissioned. Three days later on May 20 is when I removed decommissioned again, because no other editors were showing up to offer opinions and some days 2 out of 3 happens to be a consensus. For doing this I was subjected to ad hominem attacks in both the edit summary and this talk page. I find it laughable that BRD was mentioned and used against me when I was the one who reverted Wildlover22's Bold edit and Chaheel Riens did nothing to discuss. But mostly I am outraged by the blatant personal attacks in Chaheel Riens' above post and that they are somehow acceptable in an argument to other editors that I am somehow in the wrong. StarHOG (Talk) 22:26, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I didn't need to find any better wording, because as I clearly stated, I believed "decommissioned" to be the best word. It was certainly better than "struck" - not least for the fact that "struck" isn't even a valid parameter for the infobox.

2 out of 3 may be a majority, but it is not necessarily a consensus - and claiming consensus as soon as you have said majority and effectively ending the discussion is not great etiquette. If you're so confident of your version being chosen, waiting a few more days wouldn't hurt would it? Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

However, you're right about BRD - and for that I apologise. Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:59, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

"Something we can transplant"

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)

NCC-1701

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)

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)

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)

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)

Lead image

I'd like some comments: which of two candidate fair-use images would make the better lead image?

1. File:USS Enterprise (NCC-1701), ENT1231.jpg, or
2. 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)

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)

Neither is all that great. If you know the Enterprise's 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)

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)

sources

• Savage, Adam; Weitekamp, Margaret A.; Coleman, Cady (2022-11-17), "The Original Star Trek USS Enterprise Filming Model!", Tested, National Air and Space Museum, archived from the original on 2022-12-19 – via YouTube — Fourthords | =Λ= | 16:23, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

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)