Talk:USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-E)

Untitled

What is the difference between the USS Enterprise E Insurrection and the USS Enterprise E First Contact by Playmates?

Another image

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

USS Enterprise 1st & 6th

Several years?

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)

Warp Speed

Please do not post a maximum warp speed without a source. Indeed warp 8 was heard as a command, but it was not said it was the maximum speed and there are no ready sources saying warp 8 is the max. (a warp 8 max speed would also make flagship E as one of the slowest ships in the Federation) Please cite your references, thank you.

Wikipedia is out of universe - the maximum observed speed by the viewer *is* warp 8. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 10:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Jesus -- what is it about this one page that has wingnuts changing the speed thing? --EEMeltonIV 19:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The official Paramount specs guide titled, "Star Trek: Ships of the Line" , ISBN: 1416532439, lists the Enterprise-E's maximum sustainable warp at 9.985.

That's licensed merchandise, and as Paramount have stated that sort of stuff is non-canon (ala unverifiable) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 08:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The author, Michael Okuda was a graphic design and technical consultant on the staff for Star Trek TNG. He and Rick Sternbach advised the script-writers of on various TNG-era Star Trek series on the technology used throughout the Star Trek universe such as the transporters and the warp drive. To me that is VERY "verifiable". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.126.182.19 (talk) 10:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

Still remains non-canon till the copyright holders say different. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 10:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Judging by the credibility of the source, it conforms with the Wikipedia citation and reference guidelines. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.126.182.19 (talk) 10:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

No. It does not, the copyright holder has denied verifiability of the books, you are welcome to communicate with Paramount maybe, but doubtfully, they would be willing to make it known what is and what is and isn't canon. At present there is apparently no agreement to if the reference books are canon: Canon_(Star_Trek)#Reference_books. Also as I dispute this information you must get a consensus to add it. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 11:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Michael Okuda can be found on Star Trek OFFICIAL website. Michael Okuda's Star Trek.com Bio If Paramount finds him credible, it's safe to say that he's right.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.126.182.19 (talk) 11:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

Rather then edit war with you I'll give you a day to find a verifiable source. If you can't do so by tomorrow I will re-remove the speculation. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 11:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

If you even bothered to LOOK and READ information on the link you posted, Canon_(Star_Trek)#Reference_books you will see that all the reference guides listed are the are writen by Michael Okuda and are noted as "pretty official." I don't need to justify my soucres any more. All the information is there. Get off your ass, read and get your facts straight before making accusations about credibility. If it is TRUELY debatable, then cite your accusations with your own research.

P.S. Star Trek.com there's your VERIFIABLE source. Also if you're going to make war out if it, I'm, prepared to take this all the way to arbitration if I have to if all other options fail me.

I'm unsure as to what you think starting a vote will do, Wikipedia operates under consensus not votes. Also if you wish to take this to arbcom then you are certainly welcome to, but I imagine it will be declined because you've failed to proceed through DR. Also, lots of sources meet Wikipedias verifiability guideline, doesn't mean they are acceptable sources. If you wish to add disputed text then you must get consensus to do such a thing as: a) I dispute the text its self and b) I dispute the verifiability (WP:V) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 08:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

If as general consensus wants to keep it at Warp 8, then I'll agree to the consensus HOWEVER, a solution that all of us can likely agree is to just leave the Enterprise-E's maximun warp off the main page like most other ships who's warp information is unknown. For example we've seen the USS Hood go into warp, but we don't know it's max warp seed. The Wiki-Star Trek page doesn't have Enterprise's Warp Speed listed. I think this page should follow suite as well. Neovu79 23:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Enterprise-E's Maximum Warp is 9.985, stated by Michael Okuda, a major techinical consultant on the staff of Star Trek dealing with ship specifications. Many official Star Trek ship guides that he has authored and/or co-authored has also list it as such. Neovu79 (Talk) 23:44, 07 February 2007 (EST)

Survey: Maximum Warp Speed

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. 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.

Neovu79 04:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support Okuda is given what amounts to a 'rubber canon stamp' for Star Trek so I support the speed. However I agree with the layout now, pointing out that the observed speed is 8 in Nemesis, but the 'real' top speed is probably 9.985

Survey - Oppose votes

1. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

*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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I've posted a compromise in the discussion. Please read it before posting anything more here. Acalamari 17:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

• Canon or not, if it is the official word from inside Star Trek, it is taken as common consensus until it is proven false. Neovu79 (Talk) 23:44, 07 February 2007 (EST)
• Point me toward a published secondary source -- e.g. Encyclopedia -- and I'm fine with it. But "Mike Okuda said it", without something more substantial concrete, doesn't cut it in terms of verifiability. (And I don't give a hoot about canon; deciding whether to include material based on whether it's canon strikes me as being non-npov.) --EEMeltonIV 20:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

So an Official Star Trek Encyolpedia isn't enough basis? That contradicts your statement right there? Neovu79 23:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you misread, or I missed something. If the Encyclopedia says warp blah point blah, then put it in the article. But in my perusing*, all I've noticed is ambiguous, "Okuda said it"s. If Okuda printed it in the Encyclopedia, then go for it. (*I haven't been all that eagle-eyed; I don't even think "maximum speed" for a made-up ship like this on a made-up velocity scale is all that significant. I'm more interested in dispelling this notion that non-canon is non-encyclopedic.) --EEMeltonIV 03:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I just took a closer look. I would vote to support this if the phrasing were changed from "Enterprise-E's Maximum Warp is 9.985, stated by Michael Okuda, a major techinical consultant on the staff of Star Trek dealing with ship specifications." to "Enterprise-E's maximum speed is warp 9.985 as published in licensed material." I don't care about Okuda's job on the show; I care that the information is in a verifiable and published secondary source. --EEMeltonIV 03:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I had the main page stated as such before but it kept getting reverted. Neovu79 05:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• I have written what I hope is a compromise for this problem. I will post it below and let other users read it. Please find the sources you all states. I am hoping this will be good enough:

New section: Warp Speed and Saucer Separation.

The (Neovu79's source) states that the Enterprise-E has the capability of Warp 9.985, making it faster than Voyager or the Enterprise-D. However, this feature has not yet been shown onscreen. The highest speed the Enterprise has been observed to travel at is Warp 8.

According to a designer of the Enterprise-E, John Eaves, the vessel is also capable of saucer separation like its predecessors.(Source this here) This ability has also not yet been shown onscreen.

How does that sound? If you have any suggestions on how to improve it, go ahead and list them. I admit it's not perfect, and I think it can be improved a bit if necessary. Acalamari 17:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me. Neovu79 20:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Reasonable for me as long as we are not stating any particular speed in the infobox. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Nothing needs to be put in the infobox. That would contradict my compromoise offer. Acalamari 21:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Seems good for me the (-: thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

However, after I put it in, I will need Neovu79 to put in the source about the 9.985 speed. Otherwise the explanation will be unsourced. Acalamari 22:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Okuda, Michael (November 2006). Star Trek: Ships of the Line. Simon & Schuster Adult Publishing Group. ISBN 1-416-53243-9. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: year (link) --> It came from his latest book. Neovu79 01:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I've put the new section in. I would be really grateful if you replaced my "citation needed" with your source please, Neovu79. Acalamari 03:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Someone removed the "citation needed," but I would still be grateful if you added your source in. Acalamari 03:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Design and abilities

It seems that the Enterprise Schematics links are now dead. Neovu79 06:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

That's not good. What do we do now? Acalamari 17:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

What Matthew Fenton said. (Although, FYI, they're not dead; the site has merely prevented hotlinking). --EEMeltonIV 18:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Humans have always found a faster way.

References

Recently (29 May 07) removed Ex Astris link . . .

. . . 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)

Ship of the Line citation

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)

Potential source

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)

Input requested

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)

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)

Ship's officers - inclusion of Lt Hawk

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)