Memory Alpha

USS Enterprises between 1701-E and 1701-J

37,169pages on
this wiki

Forum page

Revision as of 01:26, September 24, 2013 by Archduk3 (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Forum icon  ForumsTen Forward → USS Enterprises between 1701-E and 1701-J (replywatch)

Should there be pages for the Enterprises between E and J? I realize they are never shown on screen. However, the USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-J)'s mere existence suggests that Enterprises F, G, H, and I also existed, so why aren't there pages for these Enterprises? Is it because they would only be stubs or because the Enterprise J was only shown to exist in a possible future that was almost certainly altered by the events of "Zero Hour"? -- Captain Mackenzie Calhoun (talk) 18:35, September 21, 2013 (UTC)

There is not only no information about these ships, we don't even know if these ships will exist outside of some specific possible future. The only thing we could say is that there is one future in which these ships will have existed. That, in my opinion, is not enough for an article. --Cid Highwind (talk) 19:53, September 21, 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. However, I suspect by mentioning the various non-canon appearances in an Apocrypha section, there would be enough material for an Enterprise F page. Also, since there wouldn't be enough for separate articles for the Enterprises G, H, and I, couldn't they also be mentioned on an Enterprise F page. -- Captain Mackenzie Calhoun (talk) 20:43, September 21, 2013 (UTC)

We don't deal in non-canon information; if that would be the basis of an article, we can't have that article. You may be interested in visiting Memory Beta which does deal with information from all licensed products. 31dot (talk) 20:46, September 21, 2013 (UTC)

I'm not saying to make non-canon information as the basis of the article. I'm simply suggesting that by mentioning the non-canon information in an Apocrypha section in addition to the miniscule amount of canon info (in the same fashion other articles on Memory Alpha mention non-canon info), there might be enough to justify a page for the Enterprise F. Admittedly, there's more non-canon info than canon, but that would just be padding to make the article long enough to be worth creating.-- Captain Mackenzie Calhoun (talk) 21:17, September 21, 2013 (UTC)

We would be kidding ourselves if we allowed "padding" to keep us from removing an article that doesn't have enough "real content" - or not creating it in the first place. --Cid Highwind (talk) 21:29, September 21, 2013 (UTC)
Captain MC, please keep your indent consistent on this page. Keep in mind that an Enterprise-J does not guarantee that there was an Enterprise-F; in the US Navy ships are assigned registry numbers on the design board and are sometimes subsequently cancelled- but the number is not reused. It is possible that is the case here. We just don't know. 31dot (talk) 21:42, September 21, 2013 (UTC)

Please bear with me on the indentation consistency issue. While I'm not new to Memory Alpha, I don't edit a lot so I'm still learning. I am trying though.

Back to the topic at hand, the stated goal of Memory Alpha is "to create the most definitive, accurate, and accessible encyclopedia and resource for everything related to Star Trek". However, by not mentioning the Enterprises F, G, H, and I, that goal is not being fully achieved. Perhaps a new article isn't the right place for such a mention since such an article would require non-canon padding to be large enough to be justified. Perhaps it would be better if something could be added to the existing USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-J) article. I would also point out that despite the possibility that either one, some, or all of the Enterprises from F to I could have been cancelled projects that never got off the drawing boards, the fact that the name Enterprise and the NCC-1701-? registry was used should be enough to get some mention for the sake of being "definitive" and "accurate". -- Captain Mackenzie Calhoun (talk) 23:49, September 21, 2013 (UTC)

We can't mention what wasn't directly mentioned. I would again suggest you visit Memory Beta or one of the fanon wikis which would be better suited for what you are trying to achieve. 31dot (talk) 00:48, September 22, 2013 (UTC)
MA:RESOURCE, the policy that exists to ensure that MA is/stays "definitive" and "accurate", states that "subjects [of in-universe articles] can include events, objects, or anything mentioned in an episode or film." None of those ships fit that criteria, and that "simple name-dropped references [for apocrypha material] should not be mentioned, only instances where information about the subject is expanded upon." How would mentioning those ships be expanding upon the information specifically about the Enterprise-J? - Archduk3 04:04, September 22, 2013 (UTC)

It would be acknowledging that for the Enterprise-J to exist as named, the F, G, H, and I would have had to have existed as well, or at least those registry numbers would have to have been used. I don't really see the difference between a minor mention like this in the Enterprise-J article and the brief mention in the Remus article that when Romulus was destroyed, Remus was probably also destroyed. Just to be clear, I'm not talking about mentioning non-canon info now. I only suggested that to make an article worth being created, but I see why having the article padded with non-canon info is against the rules when such an article would otherwise be only a sentence or two long without the padding. -- Captain Mackenzie Calhoun (talk) 21:21, September 22, 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Capt. MC, it makes sense to me to add a line in the Apocrypha section of the Ent J article. If we're willing to have an article called "Starbase 1" based on non-canonical sources, this should be considered a logical supposition, too. Darth Duranium (talk) 00:17, September 24, 2013 (UTC)
In the case of Starbase 1, it was named in the script as "Starbase One", not merely as supposition or from non-canon sources. Scripts are acceptable as the source of an article title when the alternative is an "unnamed starbase" article. 31dot (talk) 00:38, September 24, 2013 (UTC)
While we could add a line in the background section along these lines: "Based on the registry number, this would be the eleventh Federation starship named Enterprise.", there is no reason to stop an article about the J to talk about four ships that don't appear on screen and are only implied by the existence of the J, three of which aren't even mentioned or covered in apocrypha sources. If and when the G, H, and I are mentioned somewhere, we can add a note at Enterprise history, but not until then. - Archduk3 01:26, September 24, 2013 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki