Talk:USS Enterprise (NCC-1701)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Merge with Starship Enterprise?

Shouldn't this be merged with starship enterprise ? I don't know the proper protocols for going about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.207.51.116 (talk • contribs)

I agree. That would make for a more comprehensive read, and could clear up certain dubious claims in this article, such as the cultural impact of the NCC-1701 specifically, and that "The USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) is the central starship in the fictional Star Trek universe, depicted in 6 network television series, 12 feature films" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.54.3 (talk) 17:54, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

DS9 Episode

Shoulden't that be listed or noted as the last appearence?

Warp 7?

I curious how come the infobox says the NCC-1701 has a maximum speed of Warp 7 when it was shown going Warp 8 and IIRC Warp 9 in some episodes? Granted these were extreme cases and Scotty complained a lot, but the show pretty much established that the 1701 could go past Warp 7 (especially after the TMP refit). Maybe "cruising speed" might be a more accurate term? 23skidoo 21:10, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

According to the Star Trek Technical Manual by Michael and Denise Okuda, the warp factor scale was redefined at some point, making the earlier warp factor scale used in the original series obsolete. So what used to be Warp 9, was probably downgraded to Warp 7, with Warp 10 as the unachievable warp factor. In other words, according to the 24th century scale, a ship could go Warp 9.99999999999+ and never reach Warp 10. This seems to resemble the modern real life thoery that nothing can go the speed of light, but can reach 99.9999999+ percent of it. Mirlin 03:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Azimov decided that if a starship could miniaturize and lose mass, it could indeed reach light speed. See his entire library of books for various ships that use that technique.

Wow. Various ships actually use that technique. Fancy!  :) 86.129.4.198 (talk) 03:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)Al

The ship goes Warp 11 in S02E03 (The Changeling), thanks to the changes made by Nomad. Check the 38m mark of the episode. 99.12.148.43 (talk) 16:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Age

Is it possible the "20 years old" is a reference to the time on her last major refit? I've always thought the "STTMP" Enterprise had undergone a Starfleet equivalent of FRAM (Fleet Rehabilitation and Modification) to extend her useful life, when she was nearing the end of her hull lifetime. Maybe she's 20 years past the expected max? In any case, it's clear she's to be retired to free up the name for the new ship; is it possible Kirk misunderstood (and wasn't told the truth, to preserve surprise)? --trekphiler, 16/11/05

And like the Okudas stated in their text commentary of ST3, it is a rather silly statement, as many of the current space shuttles are easily older than 20 years. Surely Starfleet's ships would be more long-lived than that? 84.250.41.125 11:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Answer to both: a> In real life, multiple writers means discontinuity. Simply put: The writers of Search didn't know about Pike, and a mistake was made. Ignore it. The ship is either 40+ years old or is 20 (refit) + 20 (original keel laid) or the ship is 20 years old. It's fiction, get over it. b> NASA's shuttles are not immortal and while 2 were lost, NO real life space ship has ever been in combat. Kirk's Enterprise fought a planet eating Doomsday Device. real life warships can only take so much use before they're scrapped, we have to assume the same for starships. c> the name. Viewers new to Trek make the mistake of assuming the writers knew what they were doing. They didn't. They made it up as they went, daily. Read any of the books. Originally, the crew were given Excelsior, but that didn't go over with fans, and the Enterprise A was created, at the last minute!. Seriously, the general public knew about the whales but only the die hard "fan-spies" knew about the ship (and Spock in Wrath). Again, read the behind the scenes books.

Indeed, read the Making of Star Trek authorized by Gene Roddenberry (he participated in the book!). The book clearly states that by the time of the original series Enterprise and her sister ships were already 40 years old. If the Pike Enterprise had been switched with a brand new one after the ship's damage in "Where No Man Has Gone Before", Kirk's Enterprise would be older than 17 years by the time of Star Trek III. Frank Bitterhof (talk) 22:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Class

Wasn't Enterprise Constellation -class? --trekphiler, 16/11/05

No. The USS Stargazer was constellation class. Morwen - Talk 14:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

To make matters more confusing, the TOS novel by Vonda McIntire, Enterprise: The First Adventure erroneously refers to the 1701 as Constellation class. But Constitution class was established sometime in the first season, I think. 23skidoo 15:43, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, in fact several novels incorrectly refer to NCC-1701 as Constellation class but Star Trek canon consistently insists that this was a Constitution class starship. Mirlin 03:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with it being Constitution class. Consider the meaning behind the class 'Constitution.' Star Trek:TOS had a lot of Americanized ideals (equality, diversity, liberty, and justice to name a few). In fact there was a specific episode where an alien government was based on the United States, and it was even mentioned by name. So, I always saw the name of the Enterprise's class as being a reference to the themes in the show. What does everyone else think? Dannery4 18:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

NCC should stand for "Not Constitution Class". The Matt Jefferies interview (Star Trek Sketchbook) and original sketch (Enterprise the very first in the series: 17-01) plus the statements in The Making of Star Trek by Bob Justman and Gene Roddenberry which say "Enterprise-class" should have made it abundantly clear that USS Enterprise and her sister ships had always been "Enterprise Class" if "Starship Class" isn't sufficient. The whole "Constitution Class" business started because the "star ship status" chart in "Court-Martial" showed an "NCC 1700" (read 17-00!) which was the furthest one from being "complete" (probably just being built then - no name and no final number). Curiously, 6 months after the episode had been aired, the producers finally sat down to think about about names for the 12 starships - and Constitution wasn't even one of them! Somebody who wasn't aware of the show's producers and production designer intentions assumed that "NCC 1700" should be the first ship and that probably Constitution sounded like a good name. Frank Bitterhof (talk) 22:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

USS vs. U.S.S.

It should be noted that the topic of the article is not right. All UFP starships are designated "U.S.S.", not "USS". This system has been in use very consistently, check out the insignia and official and canon source material. 62.78.201.168 13:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Saucer Separation

Yesterday, I added 'In fanon' to the item about saucer separation because the source mentioned was a novel, and novels are not canon. I have since discovered that saucer separation was mentioned in the episode The Apple. I removed the comment about fanon and replaced the link to the novel with one to the episode. Apofisu 14:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Picture

Where did the first pic on this page go. Is my computer messing up or is the link dead hence no image?

It should be noted that the first pic on the Constitution class page is also missing —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.66.212.175 (talk) 20:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

Deletion log says it was deleted. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Enterprise cameos in Galactica

The reuse of the shot as stock footage for the series has led to the Enterprise appearing in many Galactica episodes.
Besides the mini-series... In which episodes does it appear? 201.51.50.142 04:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Refit photo

Does anyone else think there should be a proper photo of the Refit version, as opposed to the photo of a model/statue/thing? 84.250.41.125 10:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Pike: 1st & 2nd captain??

Anyone notice that Pike is mentioned as the 1st AND 2nd captain of the Enterprise?Dannery4 19:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

VSS Enterprise

I added a mention of the Virgin Galactic VSS Enterprise under Cultural Influence. It seemed appropriate considering there is also the mention of the Space Shuttle. The wasd man 14:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Redesigned USS Enterprise from the 2007 Ships of the Line Calendar.

I'm wondering if the reworked USS Enterprise designed by Gabriel Koerner should be in here. It was featured in the 2007 Star Trek Ships of the Line calendar. He also made a short video clip with it flying.

Revised Enterprise Picture —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trekky0623 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Star Trek film

As mentioned above (for DS9), should the first/last appearance be adjusted in line with the ship appearing in the new JJ Abrams Star Trek (film)? TubularWorld (talk) 17:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

size of the model

The article says the movie miniature is 8 feet long or 152 centimeters. It's wrong, 8 feet equals 243 cm. I cannot correct this now, can anyone do this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.100.193.15 (talk) 21:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Layout of this article

Can I start a discussion on the focus and layout of this article?

At the moment there is a *lot* of detail about the shooting models and modifications thereof, and far less about the ship's history on screen and associated mythology. Surely for a general Wikipedia article, i.e. one that will be where the man in the street goes for info on the "Starship Enterprise", we should focus more on the ship's role in the show, the basics of its mission, a little bit on its internal layout and much more on where it has had an impact in the real world?

This page is likely one of the most frequently-searched Star Trek pages on Wikipedia, I just think it needs to work more to reach out to a broader audience's needs for info.

Oceanhopper (talk) 20:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Generally, no, this article shouldn't focus on the ship's layout. Its role in the show as a dramatic device/character in and of itself and the *basics* (i.e. a few sentences) of its mission would be appropriate. See WP:WAF. Save the in-universe perspectives and minutiae for Memory Alpha. --EEMIV (talk) 05:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the current obsessing over the fate of and tweaks to the studio model are totally trivial and should not be here. I also see that all my revisions - which I believed I had framed quite objectively - have been reversed in full with no supporting argument. Why? e.g the Orbiter Enterpise was called Constitution originally, NOT Discovery, and yet this has been reverted to the incorrect data. OK, I dont have a specific source added to support some of the new stuff, but the version you have replaced it with is euqlly unsuppoted by citations. Isn't it better to at least get the facts right and then find sources, rather than continue with an incorrect version? Oceanhopper (talk) 07:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Star Trek IV (4)

The infobox is incorrect! The last appearance of the ship was in Star Trek IV (4)! It was a rebuilt version, but the same ship, so I think someone should look into that.24.207.94.130 (talk) 16:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The ship in Star Trek IV is not NCC-1701 as that vessel is destroyed by the self destruct sequence over the Genesis Planet.. It is another Constitution class that was either built new or renamed. Roddenberry alluded to the possibility that it was the USS Yorktown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.72.153 (talk) 15:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Logically I'm assuming the first person is referring to the flashback of the Enterprise in ST IV ... hence it is the last time until the 2009 movie that this incarnation is seen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.221.51.117 (talk) 02:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Latest appearance

User:Montana Defender contends the ship in the 2009 Star Trek film is "NOT the same ship" as the NCC-1701 from TOS+. Although, yes, it's a reimagined vessel and aesthetically different, it is as much the "same" ship as the characters who crew it. A separate infobox for different iterations of the ship would be unwieldy; I'm open to the idea of leaving the fields blank, though. What do the rest of y'all think? --EEMIV (talk) 21:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Enterprise from the alternate reality is not the same ship, having same-ish crew doesn't matter. Also it isn't only aesthetically different different, but it also has vastly different capabilities and dimensions (it's huge compared to original Enterprise), so it isn't "reimagined vessel", but entirely new one. Only thing that it has same as the original Enterprise is the name and the registry. --antiXt (talk) 09:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

While Abrams & Crew keep claiming the new ship is over 2400 feet long the "reality" precludes this. They go to some effort to show us the exterior of the bridge "window/viewscreen" and the docking port on the saucer strut and the shuttle bay(in two incosistent dimensions). We know these exact dimensions and thus we can know the almost exact dimensions of the Enterprise. She's a bit larger than the TOS ship. Maybe even a touch bigger than the TMP refit. A thousand feet, that's it. ILM even admitted that, regarding the inconsistency of the shuttle scene/number of shuttles, they "made her whatever size they needed for a scene". Since then they have somewhat standardized their stories but they can't change the known sizes of objects they showed in detail. As such, between what Abrams says, what ILM has contradicted itself on and the physical "reality" of known areas of the ship any mention of size is probably best left alone. It just doesn't all add up and even if someone wants to say "well Abrams said so so that's it" no, it isn't. You can't make a 10' tall window 25' tall simply by repeating "it is it is it is it is" over and over and over again...

Chimera(too lazy to try and remember my PW and log in right now) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.62.112.54 (talk) 05:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

And what does alternate reality Enterprise's size exactly have to do with it being or not being the same ship as NCC-1701 from the universe in which rest of the franchise is being set? --antiXt (talk) 12:13, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I was replying to your specific statement "(it's huge compared to original Enterprise)" so you'll have to answer your own question since you made the issue. I was simply noting this claim is incorrect, or at least very, very much in dispute. OTOH it is established that construction of the new Constitution Class starships is delayed by events including(but perhaps not limited to) the events surrounding the Kelvin so it's really an issue of semantics. The ship was clearly intended to be the original Enterprise as would be the case in a parallel universe until something altered important events. FMChimera (talk) 15:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The DAICON III opening in Cultural_impact

Among the other "fleeting" references in Cultural_impact, why is the DAICON one of particular note?
It was made from 1980 to 1981 in Japan, so you have a foreign country that is aware of Star Trek and deems it important enough to add it to an amateur production.
It is, as best as I can tell, the ONLY non Japanese show referred to in the DAICON III opening (maybe a Gerry Anderson ref, hard to see).
The Japanese shows refer include Gundam, Starblazers (aka Space battleship Argo), Godzilla.
The creators of the DAICON short went on to form GAINAX, who made Evangelion, which has another ref in list.
Oh, and one can think it is prophetic that it depicts the Enterprise being blown up 3 years before it happened in in ST III
Cheers!--Flightsoffancy (talk) 03:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

EEMIV, it shocked me that rather then discuss my entry, you willy-nilly remove it again, AND a few other "fleeting" entry's so there is no supporting case for my entry. I thought it over for a couple of days before I put everything back.
The most surprising thing is you removed the VSS Enterprise reference. If you did that, might as well remove the Space Shuttle ref too.
Cultural impact is the title of the section, and when another show deliberately puts in references to Star Trek, it clearly shows how much ST plays in the minds of the creators. The DAICON III opener is well documented, the video is on YouTube, anyone can see and read it, and it is not Original Research, and it is NOT a fleeting image when it has equal time with all of the other ships portrayed in that fast paced animated short.--Flightsoffancy (talk) 09:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Some more sources. Here is a page on Gainax detailing the shorts, Here is one focusing on the shorts, and the FULL version of Daikon 3 (not the intro version), See 3:54, Enterprise (first nacelle version too! Intro is later nacelle type)., and to round off here is another review for JPhile.--Flightsoffancy (talk) 02:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Trivial cultural nonsense

The items below are in the "cultural impact" section. I've added comments on some of them, and added notes about inclination to remove several as unreferenced and trivial, fleeting appearances.

• Construction on the first Space Shuttle began on June 4, 1974. Designated OV-101, it was originally planned to be named Constitution. However, a write-in campaign caused it to be renamed Enterprise.
  • Cited
• According to The Making of Star Trek, by Stephen Whitfield and Gene Roddenberry, the bridge design of the NCC-1701 was once considered for use by the real-life United States Navy, because of the efficiency of its style and layout.
  • Cited
• About 50 seconds into the 1981 DAICON III Opening Animation there is a brief scene of the Enterprise being destroyed (additional Star Trek references occur in the follow up DAICON IV opening).
  • Absolutely irrelevant. A few seconds of clip show the producers' ability to splice footage. Please provide a citation that the Enterprise's appearance in Daicon actually has been observed and commented-upon by third-party sources; otherwise, this is trivial.
• The original series-era Enterprise appears on a commemorative stamp released by the United States Postal Service.
  • Clear impact, same as the space shuttle, but I couldn't find a source.
• Virgin Galactic named its first commercial spaceship the VSS Enterprise in honor of the Star Trek vessel.
  • Clearly significant -- my earlier removal was an error -- and cited.
• Vulcan, Alberta created a 31-foot model starship inspired by Star Trek's Enterprise.
  • Cited.
• In the anime Gunsmith Cats, in episode 2, there is a truck with the license plate NC1701.
  • Utter trivia. Production designers across innumerable series make gag allusions to characters, locations, catch-phrases and, yes, starship registry numbers. Please provide a citation to substantiate a claim that this bit of trivia has been the topic of some sort of grown-up third-party commentary, otherwise it's merely fanboy trivia.
• In the TV series Heroes, when George Takei makes a cameo appearance, his character's car has the license plate NCC-1701.
  • Same as above.
• William Shatner's character Denny Crane, in the legal dramedy Boston Legal references being "multi-talented" because he once "captained his very own spaceship," referring to the Enterprise.
  • Complete OR that this line is an allusion to Star Trek.
• In the "Rebuild of Evangelion" films, Shinji Ikari's NERV id is NCC1701A.
  • Ditto two above.

The ones I've placed in bold I plan to delete ~9 Aug if the claims that these indicate cultural impact are not substantiated by reliable third-party sources. If you disagree with their deletion yet fail to meet WP:BURDEN by adding sources, third-opinions are thattaway and will surely agree with removing that seemingly insignificant supposition and trivia. --EEMIV (talk) 02:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

*About 50 seconds into the 1981 DAICON III Opening Animation there is a brief scene of the Enterprise being destroyed (additional Star Trek references occur in the follow up DAICON IV opening). Absolutely irrelevant. A few seconds of clip show the producers' ability to splice footage. Please provide a citation that the Enterprise's appearance in Daicon actually has been observed and commented-upon by third-party sources; otherwise, this is trivial.

I provided 3 different 3ed party reviews on the Internet that specifically point out the Enterprise from Star Trek, in the PREVIOUS section entry, just above yours. I also linked the FULL DAICON III short (not the intro version at the beginning of DAICON IV short) and 3:54 into that one, for a few seconds, is an unmistakable USS Enterprise.
Context of the shorts is the inclusion of large array of Sci-Fi and Fantasy topics, including Star Wars, Godzilla, Gundam, Gamara, etc, and that is the key. By including Star Trek a la Enterprise the produces recognize the impact or importance of the series to their lives.
The cultural impact of ST to the world is further strengthened by being a non-English country, Japan.
It is the context of the appearance to the entire short and the location that makes this relevant.

As to the others, I agree generally with you. They are just there numbers or comments disjointed from any real significance to either show (ST or one the ref is in). Ideally all of those could be summarized into a one sentence comment like "NCC1701 has appeared in Heros, Gunsmith Cats, and Evangelion" only to show the pervasive reach of ST is with other artist.

You have provided verifiability that the video exists but not provided any citations to third-party commentators that this is evidence of the Enterprise having any sort of cultural impact, i.e. articulating that the producers did anything other than pick some arbitrary footage to fill time. (To say nothing of these videos themselves being a barely notable work by a bunch of barely notable artists.) Parsing the sources you've provided: projectharuhi mentions the article's subject one, in a passing list verifying but not commenting on the article topic; tripatlas.com does not mention the article topic at all; jphile is a self-published, non-reliable source, so whatever it says is pretty much irrelevant. --EEMIV (talk) 03:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

You completely miss the fundamental point of that video, that it is itself a reflection of the cultural impact of sci-fi and fantasy in Japan! in short, what you seeks is right in front of you. Also, those barely notable work by a bunch of barely notable artists went on to create some very notable works under the studio name of Gainax. For proof that ST was an influence in Japan prior to 1980, this page has dates, and am looking for Japanese publications that mention it. (aside, could not continue debate until now due to life issues.) --Flightsoffancy (talk) 23:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Alternate reality section: does not discuss the ship, but instead the plot line of the movie - not relevent

This should describe the ship, the diffrences and specs ect... not the plot line of the moive. this article is about the ship, not the movie, so why are we walked through the plot line? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.53.180.132 (talk) 03:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Internal arrangements?

Was it ever revealed where the different sets of the original series, apart from the bridge which is obviously in the top dome, were supposed to be located inside the Enterprise's hulk? If so, it might make sense to add this. -- 217.190.216.15 (talk) 14:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

There might've been some cutaways or somesuch, but unless coupled with development commentary/information from the designers and producers, would read as unnecessary in-universe trivia/cruft for inclusion here; Memory Alpha would be a better repository for a straight-up deck-by-deck/internal arrangement plan. --EEMIV (talk) 14:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Potential source

I bookmarked this back in February . . . and haven't done anything with it. Maybe someone else who keeps an eye on this article can peruse it for appropriate information? --EEMIV (talk) 23:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The link is no longer valid. Indeed, it appears TrekWeb.com is no longer operating, making the question moot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.104.50 (talk) 01:00, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Death of Richard Datin, Original Fabricator of Star Trek Enterprise Model

I'm not sure where to put this. My Stepmother is Richard Datin's daughter. Richard Datin passed away from complications of Alzehimer's on Monday Jan 24, 2011 www.startrekman.us His Obituary is at colin.org/RichardDatin I noticed that there is a dead link to a possible Wikipedia page for him. Perhaps a summary from this Obituary and the details at Memory Alpha can be forged into a real Wikipedia page for him at some point? I don't have the markup skills.

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)

Pato (Patricio) Guzman and the Enterprise Design

I have run into several references while researching the production of Star Trek to a Chilean, Pato (presumably "Patricio") Guzman's very significant role in the design of the original Enterprise for the pilot (see for example Whitfield and Roddenberry, The Making of Star Trek 78-86). I am still researching this, but think we should consider including at least a mention of Guzman in the article. In fact, he seems to have actually been Jeffries' boss, at least at first. And another reference: [http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Pato_Guzman Patricio Guzman. Thoughts? --HullIntegrity (talk) 20:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

2009 Enterprise - 725m?

This figure is from where, may I ask? it's from an article that doesn't provide any other sources aside from a drawing. At least 6 different figures have been given, ranging from 295 metres to 1200 metres.

Are there other sources that we can use? Perhaps the Art of Star Trek book can be used, or perhaps when the Star Trek Starships collection issue comes out, that could be used to back the figure up? ggctuk (2005) (talk) 20:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Model dimension units

Any reason why the metric units used in the description of the models are "dm" - decimetres? The dm is not very widely used. e.g. 9 dm would better be represented as 0.9 m which would be more universally and easily understood. Simon Grant (talk) 02:57, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

2009 Re-imagining

A plot summary in this section is almost completely irrelevant to the ship itself and should be removed. This is a page about the ship, not the show. Sm5574 (talk) 21:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Reboot Enterprise (Abramsverse) also the subject of this article?

Since there is a section on the 2009 reboot version of the NCC-1701 Enterprise (the alt-universe version seen in 2009 Star Trek, Into Darkness, Beyond) in this article, shouldn't we add a screen capture of that ship to the header to accompany the picture of the prime-universe version? Helmut von Moltke (talk) 00:28, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Doors / Hatches

Haven't seen this mentioned here so ... on the original Enterprise, one of the features that got a lot of attention was the doors. (Proper term on a ship would be "hatches" ?) They had no handles or buttons; as a person walked toward them they opened automatically, then shut after s/he passed through. They were split, with the two halves simultaneously opening sideways with a quiet 'whoosh' noise. Of course we were all "How do they do that ? I want those !"

They didn't. Behind the bulkheads on the set were two people, manually opening and closing the hatches as the actors would approach and pass through. I believe the gimmick was revealed in TV Guide so pretty sure I can't locate the reference.

This was revealed along with the tidbit that those skin-tight (by 1966 standards) uniforms were sewn together on the actors each day :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.22.142.82 (talk) 14:29, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Lost (33") 3 foot model

From July 1974 to March 1976 I was in the USAF, stationed at Andrews A.F.B., MD. During that time, I was one of the individuals who worked to restore the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum's P-40 Warhawk. (I helped to restore the instruments and instrument panel) The P-40 was restored to flying condition, of which, I saw the taxi test, and it's first flight after the restoration. Some time after the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum had taken delivery of the P-40, and long before the museum was opened, they invited those of us who'd worked on the restoration, to the museum, to see the P-40, and the other exhibits that were completed. They gave us a tour of the place, and along the way they showed us the early stages of a Star Trek display. In a box was the (33") 3 foot model of the USS Enterprise (NCC-1701), along with other Star Trek props. I recall the tour guide showing us the model, pointing out that there were no lights on the left side as it was only filmed from the right side. There were wires hanging from it, but I don't recall where they exited the model. When we finally got to see the P-40 we'd restored, we were a bit dismayed as it was hung from the ceiling, and none of our work on the instruments and instrument panel could be seen. I regret that I have no photos or physical proof, but I know it was there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.28.131.138 (talk) 01:59, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Recommend Removal of Inappropriate Attribution in Introductory Paragraph

I recommend the following line be removed. The ship did not have the mission, the crew did, despite the voice-over saying "...Enterprise, it's five...". As the article is specifically about the ship and not intrinsically about the crew, the line is simply filler and adds no actual understanding about the craft itself.

>>The original Star Trek series (1966-1969) features a voice-over by Enterprise captain, James T. Kirk (William Shatner), which describes the mission of Enterprise as "to explore strange new worlds; to seek out new life and new civilizations; to boldly go where no man has gone before".<<

If I'm wrong, then a discussion of each and every episode, movie, and book can be legitimately included in the article as each was part of the ship's "mission" and therefore an intrinsic aspect of the ship, itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.104.50 (talk) 00:36, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on USS Enterprise (NCC-1701). 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/blueprints/star-trek-blueprints-sheet-1.jpg
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/blueprints/star-trek-blueprints-sheet-2.jpg
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/blueprints/star-trek-blueprints-sheet-4.jpg
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/blueprints/star-trek-blueprints-sheet-1.jpg
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/blueprints/star-trek-blueprints-sheet-4.jpg
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/blueprints/star-trek-blueprints-sheet-4.jpg
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100702202215/http://www.vulcantourism.com/about-vulcan-albertas-star-ship-fx6-1995-a.html to http://www.vulcantourism.com/about-vulcan-albertas-star-ship-fx6-1995-a.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:24, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on USS Enterprise (NCC-1701). 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/20111003070909/http://www.ottens.co.uk/forgottentrek/images/TOS/Enterprise%20concept%206%20by%20Matt%20Jefferies.jpg to http://www.ottens.co.uk/forgottentrek/images/TOS/Enterprise%20concept%206%20by%20Matt%20Jefferies.jpg
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150326061638/http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/shuttle/resources/orbiters/enterprise.html to http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/shuttle/resources/orbiters/enterprise.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:20, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 25 external links on USS Enterprise (NCC-1701). 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/blueprints/star-trek-blueprints-sheet-4.jpg
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/blueprints/star-trek-blueprints-sheet-1.jpg
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.trekplace.com/fj-fjnewittint01.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.trekplace.com/fj-fjnewittint01.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/news/article/120394.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090413194413/http://www.nasm.si.edu/visit/concessions/shops/enterprise.cfm to http://www.nasm.si.edu/visit/concessions/shops/enterprise.cfm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/blueprints/star-trek-the-motion-picture-sheet-3.jpg
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/blueprints/star-trek-the-motion-picture-sheet-10.jpg
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/blueprints/star-trek-the-motion-picture-sheet-1.jpg
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/blueprints/star-trek-the-motion-picture-sheet-2.jpg
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://i.pinimg.com/originals/c5/4a/46/c54a46cd72843acb606dae61081fd0c4.jpg
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://ottens.co.uk/forgottentrek/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Matt-Jefferies-redesign.jpg
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/blueprints/shaw/jefferies-phase-II-sheet-1.jpg
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/681/21821409970_613e4e375c_o.png
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.shawcomputing.net/racerx/trek_stuff/enterprise_tmp-phase2.jpg
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.shawcomputing.net/racerx/trek_stuff/phase2_tmp_comp.jpg
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.space.com/31802-star-trek-space-tech.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.public.navy.mil/surfor/lcs2/Pages/LCS2%27sStreamlinedDesignCouldBecomeFleet%27sNewStandard.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/5343/the-navys-new-stealth-destroyer-has-watered-down-capabilities-questionable-future
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nasa.gov/topics/technology/features/star_trek.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/lp/lasdiag/enterp.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://geekandsundry.com/you-can-thank-star-trek-superfan-bjo-trimble-for-saving-the-enterprise/
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/model-starship-enterprise-television-show-star-trek
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.linns.com/news/us-stamps-postal-history/2016/august/star-trek-forever-stamps-beaming-into-united-states-post-office-september-2/basicslider-4/thirty-three-cent-star-trek-stamp-depicting-the-starship-enterprise.jpg
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://i.pinimg.com/736x/6c/e8/f5/6ce8f5bf0dcd63ebcbe52c2b8b07b78a--us-navy-ships-bridge-design.jpg

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Removal of trivia in article

Recently I edited the article with a goal of streamlining it. In that process, I eliminated a number of quasi-cultural references that I felt, in my humble opinion, had been added over time by people who thought we should cram every reference to the enterprise in to this article. There are three main components to my edit, and perhaps this was poor editing on my part to make sweeping changes in multiple sections, but my entire edit has been reverted, so that effects all three changes, when I believe the editor who is reverting only has an issue with part of my edit. Specifically, the three edits are:

• A re-wording of the depiction of the Enterprise in the third paragraph of the introduction. I removed words like "refitted" because that doesn't mean much to a wikipedia reader. I also changed an ambiguous statement about the original ship being destroyed and an arrogant reference that the NCC-1701-A was identical, when it wasn't. When my edits have been reverted, this section is not referenced by the editor.
• My second edit was to remove, what I consider, an almost original research section on how the US Navy was inspired by the Enterprise bridge when designing bridges for naval vessels. I have seen many war movies that pre-date Star Trek where the bridge of a ship has the navigator in front of the commanding officer and the other work stations are located in the room orbiting this central, command location. Star Trek was no innovator, here, and the Navy did not need to see Star Trek to think this was the way they needed to design their bridges. In one of the revert comments, I was chastised in my description of the Enterprise bridge looking like a WWI or WWII bridge because they didn't "remotely resembled the heavily computerized command bridge of the USS Enterprise, in either appearance OR capability" So perhaps my fellow editor thought that my description was linked to some millenial-style view of a world that always had computers and fancy display screens and aliens and sliding doors instead of the actual layout and configuration of a command center. The text in the section specifically mentions layout and design and does not mention computers or capabilities. Again, this section is almost original research and has nothing to do with the starship Enterprise and needs to be blanked.
• Thirdly there is a section that deals with a fellow that has written an article saying that all the pieces of a contemporary spacecraft could be stuffed inside a shell that looks like the Enterprise and sent out into space. This is similar to giving credit to people who have bought a white mini-van, painted Galileo on the side, and bolted a few PVC pipes to look like nacelles and said it was a shuttle craft. Can you do that? Yes. Is it a breakthrough in science? No. Does it deserve recognition on this page? No. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StarHOG (talk • contribs) 14:00, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

"Recently I edited the article with a goal of streamlining it."

You did not "streamline" the article so much as edit one sentence in the introduction and then remove the later segments you personally disagreed with entirely - regardless of the content being solidly referenced. Then you unilaterally reverted any edits attempting to restore what you had deleted.

"A re-wording of the depiction of the Enterprise in the third paragraph of the introduction. I removed words like "refitted" because that doesn't mean much to a wikipedia reader. I also changed an ambiguous statement about the original ship being destroyed and an arrogant reference that the NCC-1701-A was identical, when it wasn't. When my edits have been reverted, this section is not referenced by the editor."

As I mentioned in my edit summary, I ran out of room to discuss all of your changes. Thus, I only mentioned the most egregious errors you made. When you restored your edits, you unilaterally restored all of them without even countering the one statement I had room to make. You laid all this on me: I had to provide explanations for removing all of your edits in so few words, and then you used the lack of complete explanation to justify keeping all of your edits. That is borderline to abusing the edit system... but I digress.

In this case, the NCC-1701 and NCC-1701-A are the exact same filming model, and no functional differences between the ships is shown or implied aside from a minor redress of the bridge set in Star Trek 5 (The NCC-1701 went through such minor changes several times between movies). Thus, the statement that the NCC-1701-A is identical is self-evident, not arrogant. Arrogance would be assuming that a Wikipedia reader would be incapable of understanding the concept of a refit, even though they are researching a fictional military ship that has been refitted several times as a recurring plot point.

"My second edit was to remove, what I consider, an almost original research section on how the US Navy was inspired by the Enterprise bridge when designing bridges for naval vessels. I have seen many war movies that pre-date Star Trek where the bridge of a ship has the navigator in front of the commanding officer and the other work stations are located in the room orbiting this central, command location."

"Almost original research"? It's either original research, or not original research. For reference, this is a WWII era bridge contrasted against the U.S.S. Enterprise's bridge:

http://www.hmascastlemaine.org.au/new/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/BridgeSmall.jpg <- That is the HMAS Castlemaine, a WWII corvette. http://tos.trekcore.com/hd/albums/1x00hd/thecagehd0087.jpg <- This is the U.S.S. Enterprise's bridge.

The bridge of the HMAS Castlemaine, and any other military ship from that era, do not resemble the bridge of the U.S.S. Enterprise, even tangentially.

https://www.arisimulation.com/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/NI1.png?itok=SgH14M5S <- And this is a modern full mission bridge simulator. It resembles the Enterprise to a point where it could sincerely be used to film a Star Trek episode and no one outside military service would notice. Of course, you will call this original research, but this is not what you need to be arguing against to debate my edit. You need to debunk the US Navy sources I used as my references:

http://www.public.navy.mil/surfor/lcs2/Pages/LCS2%27sStreamlinedDesignCouldBecomeFleet%27sNewStandard.aspx

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/capable-full-autonomy-we-go-inside-stealth-destroyer-usn-griffin

Your watching of "seen many war movies" is the original research here, not my articles. I think it's rather telling that you don't even mention which of these movies you saw that featured a Star Trek styled bridge.

"Thirdly there is a section that deals with a fellow that has written an article saying that all the pieces of a contemporary spacecraft could be stuffed inside a shell that looks like the Enterprise and sent out into space. This is similar to giving credit to people who have bought a white mini-van, painted Galileo on the side, and bolted a few PVC pipes to look like nacelles and said it was a shuttle craft. Can you do that? Yes. Is it a breakthrough in science? No. Does it deserve recognition on this page? No."

So, the fact that the Starship Enterprise inspired a person to propose an expansion of the US space program isn't notable? Yes it is.

https://www.buildtheenterprise.org/faq/

Q: BTE-Dan, do you really think it’s technically possible to build the USS Enterprise over the next two decades?

A: Yes. It’s within our technological reach to build a full-sized Enterprise with 1g artificial gravity. This Gen1 Enterprise can go on missions to key points of interest in our solar system, like Mars and Venus. It will be the biggest ship of any kind ever built by humans, and it will be larger than the tallest building in the world. It’s possible to build the Enterprise, and it would be a monumental achievement for us humans who inhabit the planet earth.

"Q: How would building the Enterprise alter our manned space program?"

A: The USS Enterprise from Star Trek is a cultural icon, and we should latch part of the US space program on to this icon and build from there. We need a far grander vision of what we should be doing to get humans up into space and how we might gain a permanent foothold there. If we aren’t going to get a sustainable presence up there, then we should stop spending money for putting humans into space and instead focus on robotic missions like sending more advanced rovers to Mars, Venus, and elsewhere. If we are going to ask taxpayers to pay billions of dollars for projects to put Americans into space, it should be for an idea that they can relate to and be inspired by. The general form and characteristics of the spaceship should be inspirational – and building the first generation of USS Enterprise would surely be inspirational. Idazmi (talk) 18:26, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

"You did not "streamline" the article so much as edit one sentence in the introduction and then remove the later segments you personally disagreed with entirely - regardless of the content being solidly referenced. Then you unilaterally reverted any edits attempting to restore what you had deleted." - This is fallacious. I have 6 or 7 edits going back to June 7th in which I was actively improving the article. Please take care in making absolute statements. StarHOG (Talk) 20:58, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

"As I mentioned in my edit summary, I ran out of room to discuss all of your changes. Thus, I only mentioned the most egregious errors you made. When you restored your edits, you unilaterally restored all of them without even countering the one statement I had room to make. You laid all this on me: I had to provide explanations for removing all of your edits in so few words, and then you used the lack of complete explanation to justify keeping all of your edits. That is borderline to abusing the edit system... but I digress. - I created this talk section because of your early comment that you didn't have space in the comment feed. The talk section is an excellent place for editors to have a discussion about disagreements in articles. Your statement above seems to blame me for your lack of space to comment, also, please be careful in making statements like "egregious errors" and "abusing the edit system", please try to maintain a decorum of civility in our discussions.

"In this case, the NCC-1701 and NCC-1701-A are the exact same filming model, and no functional differences between the ships is shown or implied aside from a minor redress of the bridge set in Star Trek 5 (The NCC-1701 went through such minor changes several times between movies). Thus, the statement that the NCC-1701-A is identical is self-evident, not arrogant. Arrogance would be assuming that a Wikipedia reader would be incapable of understanding the concept of a refit, even though they are researching a fictional military ship that has been refitted several times as a recurring plot point." - This is original research. Editors can not make conclusions such as A=B, B=C, therefore A must equal C. The article is about a fictional starship, not about models. Interior filming of the Enterprise-A in subsequent films shows different styling and coloration therefore they are not identical and one cannot make the assumption they are identical based on accumulated knowledge about the movies.

"(...) Your watching of "seen many war movies" is the original research here, not my articles. I think it's rather telling that you don't even mention which of these movies you saw that featured a Star Trek styled bridge." - *I'm sorry, but I think we are discussing two different things. The article used as a reference specifically talks about the layout of the bridge, nothing about computers or how futuristic it looks, or capabilities. Your photographs prove my point, that the basic design of ships' bridges is a navigation station if the front with a commander to the rear and various consoles, stations and equipment surrounding him/her so they can easily gather what is going on with the ship. Now you are right, this border son me doing original research, but it was only in defense of my edit. I don't have a problem with the article in question being referenced, even if I feel it is just a case of an author trying to get his audience to see in their head what he means by a futuristic bridge. No, I have a problem with what a past-editor wrote based on that article. It may have been plagiarized from another article somewhere else, but the section I removed made statements about Naval bridges based on that article that did constitute original research. Please go and re-read that section, the editor draws conclusions and makes statements that are not substantiated by sources. If sources could be found, then the section could stay.

"So, the fact that the Starship Enterprise inspired a person to propose an expansion of the US space program isn't notable? Yes it is. (...)" - In my opinion, an article about someone who has built no prototype or proven WHY this vessel would need to be designed in the shape of the Enterprise is just some science-fiction nut who loves the Enterprise so much he wants NASA to stuff a working spaceship inside a hull that looks like the Enterprise. That is why I compared it to someone designing a shuttlecraft out of their mini-van. He gives no scientific breakthroughs or reasons behind the design of the ship. None. It is not notable because of this. Further, my original statement stands, a lay-person reading that is lead to believe that someone believes NASA could build the Enterprise. This is an encyclopedia and we shouldn't take people down that path. Again, please re-read that section and put yourself in the shoes of an ordinary wikipedia user reading the article.

I have not reverted any of your edits in hopes we can find some middle ground in this discussion and make this article better.

StarHOG (Talk) 20:58, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

"I have not reverted any of your edits in hopes we can find some middle ground in this discussion and make this article better."

Then perhaps you should also take care not break up the flow of the debate by inserting your replies directly between the paragraphs I typed? There's a reason I didn't do that when I replied to you: doing that seriously hurts readability and breaks up the continuity of thought. I've taken the liberty of reformatting your reply as best as I could so that any readers will see the back-and-forth as a single discussion: our user signatures divide our posts. No, your statements were not edited. For the sake of adding context to my arguments, I'm adding a link to the article's history page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=USS_Enterprise_(NCC-1701)&action=history

"This is fallacious. I have 6 or 7 edits going back to June 7th in which I was actively improving the article. Please take care in making absolute statements."

I'm referring to the edits you made on 3 August 2018‎. On that day, you did exactly what I said you did: you removed the segments of the article you personally disagreed with entirely - regardless of the content being solidly referenced. Then you unilaterally reverted any edits attempting to restore what you had deleted. That's why we are discussing this now.

"I created this talk section because of your early comment that you didn't have space in the comment feed. The talk section is an excellent place for editors to have a discussion about disagreements in articles. Your statement above seems to blame me for your lack of space to comment, also, please be careful in making statements like "egregious errors" and "abusing the edit system", please try to maintain a decorum of civility in our discussions."

As I recall, on 20 August 2018‎ you said in the edit summary, "You reverted ALL my edits of this article. You disagreed with one of the edits and reverted all of them. If you feel strongly about something, by all means revert it, but only revert what you object to, please." Obviously, I objected to everything that I removed, and simply didn't have the space to explain that. Even so: that's all you said that day, as you restored every single one of your edits, including the one I had space to properly oppose. Only after I had reverted those changes again did you bother to explain your reasoning at all.

"This is original research. Editors can not make conclusions such as A=B, B=C, therefore A must equal C. The article is about a fictional starship, not about models. Interior filming of the Enterprise-A in subsequent films shows different styling and coloration therefore they are not identical and one cannot make the assumption they are identical based on accumulated knowledge about the movies."

Notice the fact that the main article doesn't contain any interior images of the ships at all? In the context of the information given, the ships are identical: unless you want to create a section on the (many) minor variations in bridge set design the ship went through since 1965's pilot episode.

"I'm sorry, but I think we are discussing two different things. The article used as a reference specifically talks about the layout of the bridge, nothing about computers or how futuristic it looks, or capabilities. Your photographs prove my point, that the basic design of ships' bridges is a navigation station if the front with a commander to the rear and various consoles, stations and equipment surrounding him/her so they can easily gather what is going on with the ship. Now you are right, this border son me doing original research, but it was only in defense of my edit. I don't have a problem with the article in question being referenced, even if I feel it is just a case of an author trying to get his audience to see in their head what he means by a futuristic bridge. No, I have a problem with what a past-editor wrote based on that article. It may have been plagiarized from another article somewhere else, but the section I removed made statements about Naval bridges based on that article that did constitute original research. Please go and re-read that section, the editor draws conclusions and makes statements that are not substantiated by sources. If sources could be found, then the section could stay."

On 3 August 2018‎ you said "in fact, ships' bridges looked this way (like the Enterprise's bridge) during WWI and WWII, long before Star Trek."

http://www.hmascastlemaine.org.au/new/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/BridgeSmall.jpg - And this: a steering column in a tiny standing-room-only room with a desk in the corner, proves your point?

http://tos.trekcore.com/hd/albums/1x00hd/thecagehd0087.jpg - Not in a million years: especially not after you trifled so hard over the minor differences in the bridge of the Enterprise-A. You either made original research of the worst possible kind (using movies to reference the real world) or you outright lied about seeing any such films - as well as the nature of bridges in WWII - simply to justify removing the statement from the article. Considering the complete lack of existing naval bridges that resemble Star Trek's prior to the seventies, I'm strongly inclined to believe the latter.

"In my opinion, an article about someone who has built no prototype or proven WHY this vessel would need to be designed in the shape of the Enterprise is just some science-fiction nut who loves the Enterprise so much he wants NASA to stuff a working spaceship inside a hull that looks like the Enterprise. That is why I compared it to someone designing a shuttlecraft out of their mini-van. He gives no scientific breakthroughs or reasons behind the design of the ship. None. It is not notable because of this. Further, my original statement stands, a lay-person reading that is lead to believe that someone believes NASA could build the Enterprise. This is an encyclopedia and we shouldn't take people down that path. Again, please re-read that section and put yourself in the shoes of an ordinary wikipedia user reading the article." - Perhaps you were totally unaware that the Enterprise, fictional though it is, was designed by Walter Matt Jefferies, who was, in fact, an aerospace engineer? He was Life member No 1 of the American Aviation Historical Society, a member of the Experimental Aircraft Association, the American WACO Club Inc., and the 301st Bomb Group/Wings Association. He became an Honorary Blue Angel on October 23, 1956, and on he won the December 1978 Experimental Aircraft Assoc. Achievement Award. One of his memoirs, a letter dated 12/15/57 reads: "Air is a little rough. I am enroute to Washington to attend a missle conference. Hitched a ride with the Air Force." That experience is explicitly why Gene Roddenberry hired the man. He designed the bridge, deckplan and hull of the U.S.S. Enterprise. The results of the University of Queensland's tests on the Enteprise - referenced here in this article - speak for themselves.

The "nut" who wants to send a "shell that looks like the Enterprise (...) into space" just so happens to be an electrical and systems engineer. Perhaps that "nut" is on to something, being that he and Jefferies (and countless others that I don't care to exhaustively list) are engineers who note the design's functionality. Perhaps not. Either way, it's notable. Also: http://www.mattjefferies.com/index.html according to that site: "(...) the B-17 bomber "All American" landed safely at a remote desert airfield. It was methodically rebuilt, striped of all armament and flown by a new crew of four. Among these crew members was Matt Jefferies, who served as flight engineer and co-pilot. No longer a bomber, unarmed and incapable of defending itself, the All American was assigned to carry out special secret missions over enemy held territory."

Idazmi (talk) 04:47, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

The above response is a pretty thick wall of text, and I admit I didn't read it. I do agree with StarHog's rationale for removing the bulk of the content: the design stuff reads as WP:OR, and there's an inaccuracy in the notion of the "Enterprise" class. I've restored the reference to the Navy looking at the Enterprise bridge, since that's a cited claim. Beyond that, however, it becomes original research. The creation of website about building an Enterprise is just vanity self-publishing, particularly if the "reference" is just to the website itself. If that buildtheenterprise.org site garnered significant third-party coverage and commentary, it would probably be worth mentioning -- that's generally been the threshold for us to include e.g. information about fan productions in articles about Kirk and Spock, and distinguishes vanity (fanity?) self-publishing (which anyone can do) from meaningful work. --EEMIV (talk) 13:25, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

"The above response is a pretty thick wall of text, and I admit I didn't read it." - You are directly admitting that you are arrogantly ignoring the conclusions reached in this talk page discussion: if you have time to edit the wiki you have time to read this. With that in mind, I have reverted your edits.

"there's an inaccuracy in the notion of the "Enterprise" class." - Read the citations placed next to the word "Enterprise Class" in the article: the refitted design is canonically referred to as "Enterprise Class", which is why the edit was made in the first place. Citations exist to be read, as do Talk Pages.

"I've restored the reference to the Navy looking at the Enterprise bridge, since that's a cited claim. Beyond that, however, it becomes original research." - The cited references that you removed included a link to the Navy Times. Is the military itself not a good enough reference for Wikipedia? Or did you neglect to read those, too?

"The creation of website about building an Enterprise is just vanity self-publishing, particularly if the "reference" is just to the website itself. If that buildtheenterprise.org site garnered significant third-party coverage and commentary, it would probably be worth mentioning -- that's generally been the threshold for us to include e.g. information about fan productions in articles about Kirk and Spock, and distinguishes vanity (fanity?) self-publishing (which anyone can do) from meaningful work."

This wiki page exists, so I guess I'm in luck: it gained widespread recognition after the story was covered by the major news corporations NBCNews, Huffington Post, and Mail Online. That information has been added to the article.

Idazmi (talk) 18:51, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Sweet - this is reasonably short to read to respond to. For one, please ditch calling me or other editors "arrogant." Wikiquette would point out that, yeah, a big wall of exhaustive text generally isn't conducive to a discussion. Moving on ... Ex Astris Scientia is a self-published fan site and not a WP:RS for the incorrect "Enterprise" class assertion. You also replaced some "citation needed" tags with a ref to Memory Alpha, but that also is not a reliable source. Thanks for the info on the Building the Enterprise site. I've trimmed down the disproportionate coverage in this article. Most of the text you're restoring is about the website, and not the subject of this article; I suggest you take some of the content you've created and instead add it to the actual Build the Enterprise article. The content you're restoring re. the Enterprise-Navy inspiration still contains unsubstantiated generalizations (or is still sourced to non-RSes). You seem to be conflating "the real bridge looks like the Star Trek bridge" with "the real bridge was inspired by the Star Trek bridge" -- the cited sources don't substantiate that claim, and I've rewritten the content (and I'm ditching the reference to The Drive, since the one comparison there is to TNG). I'm also restoring the variety of copyedits you blanketly removed without explanation. I'm happy to continue to work with you on revising your content -- though I'll point out now that two editors take exception to some of the stuff/volume of stuff you're restoring. I've dropped a note at the Star Trek wikiproject page requesting additional input. --EEMIV (talk) 02:41, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

"Sweet - this is reasonably short to read to respond to. For one, please ditch calling me or other editors "arrogant." Wikiquette would point out that, yeah, a big wall of exhaustive text generally isn't conducive to a discussion."

Not that you read any of it.

"Moving on ... Ex Astris Scientia is a self-published fan site and not a WP:RS for the incorrect "Enterprise" class assertion."

Not that I used that as my actual reference in the article. I linked you to that image because it was a screenshot taken directly from the film: one you dismissed out-of-hand because of the website it was from rather than what the screenshot contained. That seems to be a habit with you: you glance at a thing and delete it, just like you deleted the links to my ACTUAL sources for that classification: the ones I used in my citations.

"Thanks for the info on the Building the Enterprise site. I've trimmed down the disproportionate coverage in this article. Most of the text you're restoring is about the website, and not the subject of this article; I suggest you take some of the content you've created and instead add it to the actual Build the Enterprise article."

Which means you also did not read the actual Build the Enterprise article, where most of that information came from. As I directly showed you.

"the Enterprise-Navy inspiration still contains unsubstantiated generalizations (or is still sourced to non-RSes). You seem to be conflating "the real bridge looks like the Star Trek bridge" with "the real bridge was inspired by the Star Trek bridge" -- the cited sources don't substantiate that claim, and I've rewritten the content (and I'm ditching the reference to The Drive, since the one comparison there is to TNG)."

Except for the fact that they do substantiate that claim. also, the article said: "This information will be piped around the ship on common computing stations, so with the proper access, someone could control the ship’s navigation from engineering, or its weapons from the bridge. It is all very Star Trek: The Next Generation." - this was actually done in The Original Star Trek on multiple occasions, so it stands as a reference. And a reference supporting my original argument that you did not read.

"I'm also restoring the variety of copyedits you blanketly removed without explanation."

The explanation is simple: you are not reading the references, you did NOT read this talk page, and thus you are NOT contributing to the integrity of this article. Until you do bother actually reading these references and PARTICIPATING in this Talk Page discussiuon instead of unilaterally preempting it, you can expect me to revert your edits.

Idazmi (talk) 04:20, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Um, hi. The big ol' "inuse" banner at the top of the page is there for a reason: I'm working on the whole page. Nothing you're tendentiously trying to restore is so pressing for you to jump in so rudely in the middle of significant active editing. Back off for a bit, please, and let me finish addressing some content in the whole article. Then revert away (yay edit history). But chill out. --EEMIV (talk) 04:25, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Idazmi, I created this talk section specifically so we could discuss our different opinions. I've tried to be rational and even a second editor has joined the discussion/edit process and has cautioned you about your tone and edits. You just reverted all of that editor's work and placed a "vandalism" tag in the comment field. To me this is very disturbing and I have to caution you to work with other editors or I will create a petition to have you banned from editing this article. Sometimes you have to take a step back and realize that if other editors say something isn't appropriate for wikipedia, they may be right. StarHOG (Talk) 17:14, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't know that there's much yardage to be gained by threatening or pursuing an article-specific ban. However, @Idazmi:, it looks like you have violated WP:3RR, which can lead to a brief ban overall (and please consider this your 3RR warning). I have tried to integrate some of the content you are passionate about into the article without giving it WP:UNDUE weight. Perhaps you'd like to set up User:Idazmi/sandbox as a venue to edit/create content without disrupting the overall article -- I'm happy to help. Likewise, give a holler if you're interested in pursuing some other form or dispute resolution. I did take time to more closely read the references and the wall of text above. Although I don't agree with the bulk of information and do think some of what you're inserted is WP:OR, I do recognize it was incorrect to remove some of that stuff in toto. Likewise, it was incorrect of you to describe my edits as "vandalism," particularly considering most of my edits last night had nothing to do with the content in dispute. --EEMIV (talk) 17:34, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

"Idazmi, I created this talk section specifically so we could discuss our different opinions. I've tried to be rational and even a second editor has joined the discussion/edit process and has cautioned you about your tone and edits. You just reverted all of that editor's work and placed a "vandalism" tag in the comment field." - @StarHOG: And then you proceeded to not respond when I replied to your most recent talk page activity before this: you know that my arguments are sound. EEMIV - by their own admission - did not read the talk page and simply began deleting large portions of the article despite existing citations. Vandalism is vandalism, subtle or not. Idazmi (talk) 01:50, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Very sad that you've latched onto my complaint about the wall of text, but have missed and ignored several overtures to collaborate with you on this page. Sad that you are ignoring and chose to eliminate a huge swath of edits to this page that are not even remotely related to the content in dispute. Sad that you have not availed yourself of other avenues of dispute resolution, whereas I have at least asked the Star Trek wikiproject for additional input. Sad that you seem to ignore that I've recognized some of the content you're interested in maintaining is appropriate, and I've pointed out areas where I've tried to integrate it effectively and asked to collaborate with you. It seems you are not particularly interested in having a conversation or considering compromise (as I have done) unless the outcome is 100% what you are interested in seeing. That's not how this wikicommunity works. Because of your siege mentality and indiscriminate removal of content, particularly contributions outside the scope of the content dispute, I've asked the folks at the edit warring noticeboard to step in. As a sign of patience of good faith, I'll refrain for now from just blindly restoring the content I spent several hours today carefully editing, sourcing, and integrating (including content you are interested in seeing kept in the article). --EEMIV (talk) 02:44, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't know that there's much yardage to be gained by threatening or pursuing an article-specific ban. However, @Idazmi:, it looks like you have violated WP:3RR, which can lead to a brief ban overall" - @EEMIV:, perhaps you should see this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." You both have done nothing except remove large parts of the article despite existing and factual citations. You yourself admitted to ignoring this talk page on the pretense of it being a "wall of text": you are not reading the references, you did NOT read this talk page, and Neither of you are contributing to the integrity of this article. You are actively destroying that integrity under the pretense of performing "cleanup", while hoping that your protests against me will be noticed more than your wrongful behavior. If you merely wished to add more meaningful information, I would not have had an issue with your edits. Idazmi (talk) 01:50, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

It is unfortunate you don't recognize that copyedits, conciseness, reference consolidation, etc. are not destructive. You are ignoring a tremendous amount of new information I have added today to the refit Enterprise model section, and the helpful removal of original research that doesn't warrant inclusion. Again, it seems to me you have a siege mentality when it comes to a few particular niches of this article subject. --EEMIV (talk) 02:44, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

"You are ignoring a tremendous amount of new information I have added today to the refit Enterprise model section, and the helpful removal of original research that doesn't warrant inclusion." - @EEMIV:, Before you started making your edits, you said on 23 August, "The above response is a pretty thick wall of text, and I admit I didn't read it". You clearly still haven't taken the time to read any of it more than a day later. You also don't bother to look at the citations before editing either, unless you happen to specifically want to. You aren't repairing the article, or removing original research: you are removing large amounts of cited encyclopedic content. Like I said: If you merely wished to add more meaningful information, I would not have had an issue with your edits. You removed much of it instead.

"It seems you are not particularly interested in having a conversation or considering compromise (as I have done) unless the outcome is 100% what you are interested in seeing. That's not how this wikicommunity works. Because of your siege mentality and indiscriminate removal of content, particularly contributions outside the scope of the content dispute, I've asked the folks at the edit warring noticeboard to step in." - I did have a conversation: you unilaterally ignored it. In any case, thanks: I want someone besides you - someone with enough patience to read the talk page - to see what's going on and intervene. Idazmi (talk) 05:21, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Another attempt

Although I did wind up reading the giant wall of text above, I feel like a reset might be helpful to (re)assess whether any of the content recently removed -- some of it by me during a general overhaul of the article, some of it more specific by both me and StarHOG (talk · contribs) due to WP:RS/WP:UNDUE/WP:OR concerns -- is worth restoring, modifying, trimming, rewording, further researching, etc. Idazmi (talk · contribs), when you block lifts please consider chiming in here. If we're not able to reach consensus here, perhaps Idazmi we can generate the general overview to request e.g. a uninvolved third-party opinion on any outstanding issues. --EEMIV (talk) 01:46, 26 August 2018 (UTC)