Talk:Bridge

Borg and Dominion bridges

Could someone find/upload some bridge enteriors from vessels from Klingon/Romulan etc.. vessels and post them here? That way people can make out the differences and matches between entireiors of different fleets. Oh, and we definitly need a Borg bridge, since they are exceptional/non-exisistent and the Bridge of Dominion ships. -- Redge 16:42, 27 Jun 2004 (CEST)

In TNG: Q Who, it was clearly stated Borg vessels do not have a Bridge. -- Ottens 16:59, 27 Jun 2004 (CEST)

I don't think the Borg have a bridge, but we should try to get more bridges. Some possible examples could be the Scimitar, Degra's ship, a Klingon bird of prey, or a Reptilian bridge.

I know Borg don't hae a bridge, that is why we should make special note of that in the article and show a picture of what the Borg use in stead of a bridge. Come to think of it, what DO they use in stead of a bridge? What was that place, for example, where Janeway talked with the Queen in Endgame? -- Redge 02:31, 29 Jul 2004 (CEST)

That was simply the Queen's own little control centre. According to TNG: Q Who? The Borg don't have any specific control locations. No bridge, no engineering room, etc. Everything is controlled from... well, everywhere, or something, I guess. Ottens 11:23, 29 Jul 2004 (CEST)

unfortunately, that episode was before they developed that some drones have royal influence, when the show had them start imitating insect hive activity and be led by a Queen or Locutus. Locutus was standing at a corridor junction or anteroom with a holodisplay, the queen has more elaborate "body storage" rigs. Possibly the queen simply sets up shop wherever she is reassembled. The elaborateness of the set could possibly be explained that a) that was the standard Model 001 Queen Head Storage area and had that much space, or b) whenever the queen formed herself somewhere, she had the ship alter itself to accomodate her activities. --Captain Mike K. Bartel 12:03, 29 Jul 2004 (CEST)

I've added some info on Borg and Dominion bridges. The latter needs a reference, and both need expanding. -- Redge 14:58, 29 Jul 2004 (CEST)

Location

Why are Bridges located atop saucer sections anyway? It's such an easy place to ram, phaser or torpedo. It would make far more sense to put it as far inside the ship as possible, especially since with viewsreens, the location doesn't make a difference anyway. And on top of that, the bridge is always to far away from the engineering section, which it has to cummunicate with heavily. It doesn't make any sense! -- Redge | Talk 14:51, 11 Aug 2004 (CEST)

No, of course it doesn't. But for some reason, Roddenberry wanted it there. Ottens 15:37, 11 Aug 2004 (CEST)

Yeah. It was one of his Four Basic Rules of Starship Design. No idea why. --Malimar 18:53, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Navy tradition. Look at aircraft carriers, destroyers, and cruisers. The bridge is always on top.--Fleet Admiral JD, 2JUN05

More photos

We should have a page with a photo gallery of bridges from various races.- B-101 14:48, 29 Sep 2004 (CEST)

Defiant class?

I'm sure something could be added about that. Tough Little Ship 13:45, 17 Aug 2005 (UTC)

I completely forgot about it... Will add info soon... Ottens 10:02, 18 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Existance of this page

I hate to ask, but why do we have this page in the current format that it is in? So much of this is, could be, or should be located on the pages of the starship class mention in the article. In fact, I just noticed that D'deridex class bridge section is almost copied directed from the section I wrote on the D'deridex class page, and is, in fact, far less detailed than the section on the D'deridex class page. I am currently working on several other starship classes that have bridge pages listed here and are not listed on their class pages, and wish not to rewrite this nor have the same situation as I mentioned there was with D'deridex class section. Why not just move the content from here and place them on the appropriate class pages? --Alan del Beccio 00:23, 19 Sep 2005 (UTC)

• Hm, good point. Maybe only limit sections to drastic differences, like a Starfleet one, a Dominion one because there's no viewscreen and captains chair (etc.) and other different types. - AJHalliwell 00:26, 19 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Links solve this. Lets just have the list turned into links to the bridge sections of the respected pages. Jaf 00:32, 19 Sep 2005 (UTC)Jaf
• Works for me. :) --Alan del Beccio 01:00, 19 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • I hate the idea, partly of course because I spent a lot of time into creating this page. I don't see the problem with this page being as detailed as it is, and my suggestion would be to simply expand the "Bridge" sections on their respective pages, as well as keep the information here. Ottens ^{| SITE ✍ TALK |} 13:18, 19 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Another suggestion, which probably works better, is to have sections on a certain class' bridge look as followed:

Name class bridge

Main article: Link to bridge section on ''Name'' class page here.

Summery of the information.

• How's that? Ottens ^{| SITE ✍ TALK |} 13:20, 19 Sep 2005 (UTC)

For one, half of what you have written, that I have already moved, was just copied off of the original class pages in the first place...in some cases in less detail. Secondly, the belong on the class pages, because they refer to the class, not the other way around. Besides they fit in well the article with the class with which they belong with all of the other sections of the ships (ie, crew quarters, transporter room, sickbay, cargobay, etc) that may or may not yet already be included on the aforementioned class pages, why segregate half the article onto another page altogether? Finally, your work is still put to good use, it is just has been dispursed throughout M/A (or removed altogether, in the cases of duplication (ie, Scimitar, Vor'cha, D'deridex), and as the disclaimer says everytime you submit text here: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then don't submit it here" -- not to sound harsh. Also, isn't what you propose about what we've/I've already done with the article? --Alan del Beccio 13:32, 19 Sep 2005 (UTC)

No, it's not the same. Now, for example, under Prometheus class, it says: "See: Link here. What I propose is starting the Prometheus class section with Main article: Link here and then have a (short) summery on the information found on that page included in that section.

Indeed quite a lot of information that used to be on this page was already from other pages, but 1) much was written originally from this page, 2) I wrote a lot of that information in the first place (for example, "Bridge" sections on starship class pages) and 3) it took quite a lot of time to assemble the information and to configure it in a user-friendly fashion, thus I feel rather uncomfortable with all the texts being spread throughout MA with little of the original page left. I hope you understand... Besides, I think that the alternative I suggested above truly is more user-friendly, and when I composed this page, I figured it had become standard practice, as I looked at the Sickbay page in great detail, in order to configure the Bridge page in a similar way as the former. Ottens ^{| SITE ✍ TALK |} 13:54, 19 Sep 2005 (UTC)

---

Okay, currently things aren't making much sense. There is information on the Constitution and Sovereign and other classes, but there are mere links under Galaxy, Prometheus, Nova, Bird-of-Prey, etc. I would prefer somewhat more consistentcy. Besides, the suggestion I made above still stands, but apparently no one took interest in responding to it??? Ottens 15:16, 21 Sep 2005 (UTC)

• I say we slowly work out the info and replace it with links for consistentcy. We can do the same thing with Sickbay later. Jaf 11:39, 22 Sep 2005 (UTC)Jaf