Wikia

Memory Alpha

Talk:Constitution class (alternate reality)

37,573pages on
this wiki

Back to page

Revision as of 01:01, December 15, 2011 by Mitchz95 (Talk | contribs)

Moves

I don't disagree with the page itself, but as everything it would potentially contain would be non-canon until proven otherwise, how should it be formatted? Dangerdan97 15:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

This should have been discussed again before it was moved again... Production sources say it is a constitution class, so MA follows suit. Besides these made-up fan-wank names are worse than nothing at all. --Alan 19:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree with Alan on that. --From Andoria with Love 19:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Does production say that, or just some website used for advertising, where info may be inaccurate (as in: not really decided by anyone in charge)? -- Cid Highwind 10:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

More militaristic?

It's more militaristic because it fired weapons at an enemy? How is the old Enterprise less militaristic then? -- Captain MKB 17:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The constitution class was designed after the Romulan war. Prior to that war, ships of the line were not purpose armed for combat, only peacekeeping and defensive purposes. The NX-01 was launched without any active weaponry at all. - Paul 1/31/2010 4:12pm EST

Do we need this article?

The duplicate information in the background section indicates otherwise. The film hasn't established anything definite about the ship class in general, only about the Enterprise itself. If we should start seeing other ships of the class and potential differences between them, then this page might slowly begin to expand, in terms of collecting information that certainly applies to the class in general, but the Enterprise page would probably end up having most of the information, since other ships of the class and the class in general are unlikely to be covered that well.

Certainly, one could say the same for many other class articles on Memory Alpha. It is inconsistent with the wiki-approach to assume by some convention that everything that holds true for a specific hero ship also applies to its class in general. This is not the TNG tech manual, where the writers had the license to be creative and decide how much of the Enterprise-D applies to the Galaxy-class. On Memory Alpha, one might mention all the other ships of the class, Leah Brahms and the Galaxy class project, but nothing observed only on the Enterprise and thus impossible to reference for the Yamato, Odyssey, Galaxy, etc. – NotOfTheBody 21:52, January 29, 2010 (UTC)

The Memory Alpha precedent is that technical information about a ship's class is encompassed on the class page, and the specific missions, individuality, and other variables, of a specific vessel goes in said vessel's article. Besides that, I'm really not seeing what you are otherwise suggesting. --Alan 22:03, January 29, 2010 (UTC)

Precedent cannot override the ability to reference information, which is at the core of every wiki. Examples:

with phaser banks firing both multiple short burst rounds or steady beams along with torpedoes simultaneously in a barrage.

firing red pulses (like proximity blasts), capable of continuous fire. (Star Trek)

Can we add canon references proving that this applies to all Constitution-class ships, not just to the Enterprise? – NotOfTheBody 22:26, January 29, 2010 (UTC)

Do we need to? Is there reason to believe that this ship doesn't represent the norm, and is massively different from the rest? The burden of proof would seem to me to be on proving that it is different from its class, not the same. Throughout Trek, the example has been that all ships of a same class are generally the same in capabilities and design, with the possible exception of what the bridge looks like. --OuroborosCobra talk 22:36, January 29, 2010 (UTC)

In a wiki, every sentence has to be referenced. Would you make a factual wiki statement about all real world aircraft carriers of the same class, based on a feature observed on one of them? Yes, the rational hypothesis will usually involve the feature being present on other ships of the class, but in a wiki you need evidence. And it's not like we're losing any useful info - it is a simple matter to put it on the page where it can be referenced: the Enterprise page. – NotOfTheBody 22:55, January 29, 2010 (UTC)

In regards to the aircraft carrier, yes, I would go on one example, when that is all we have. In fact, they do that on Wikipedia. See pages such as the one for the Littoral Combat Ship. --OuroborosCobra talk 23:06, January 29, 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how that can be the correct approach. If so, the Constitution article ought to be filled with a lot of words such as "probably", "presumably", "almost certainly" etc, but we can avoid all that simply by moving the info to the Enterprise page. Why pretend to have more facts about the class than we really do, just because of a convention? I don't see any problems with the Enterprise page being lengthy and the Constitution page being short. – NotOfTheBody 23:15, January 29, 2010 (UTC)

I have reversed your changes, as this discussion is still continuing and there is still opposition. You claim that "every statement has to be referenced" but you do not provide a reference from canon backing your views up, you just want us to make your assumptions. Without evidence that different ships of the same class have variations, we assume they are the same. This is the case with many things here, not just ships.
As has been explained to you already, there are other reasons for this type of structure as well.--31dot 09:13, January 30, 2010 (UTC)

No, you should provide references from the canon. I've provided evidence that the Enterprise has certain features, based on the movie, and that's all I can do. I won't jump to conclusions about all ships of the class, and I fail to see why the danger of such assumptions is not obvious. Tomorrow, the VFX guys could decide that another ship of the class should fire green phasers, just to be different, and then your referenced "fact" on the Constitution-class page will turn out to be wrong, unless it was qualified with "seen on the Enterprise" and "presumably applies to all ships of the class", which would be redundant, as you could just as well put the info on the Enterprise page without such qualifications.

My referenced fact on the Enterprise page won't be wrong. I really sense a need to compete with the TNG tech manual, which had the creative license to generalize the Ent-D info into the Galaxy-class info, but we don't have such a license here. The canon reality is that there are featured ships like the Enterprise about which we know a lot, and then there are class names which are only interesting to a smaller group of fans. We cannot sidestep this bias by leaping to conclusions about the class in general, simply based on observations of one ship. Yes, it is a rational hypothesis that ships will be almost identical, but that's not the same as verifiable fact. It's the difference between a wiki and creative endeavor such as a tech manual.

NotOfTheBody 10:14, January 30, 2010 (UTC)

It is a good point that our class articles look like all ships of a class are supposed to have the same properties unless proven otherwise. I suppose we are relying on the readers to interpret the data in cases when there is only one known ship of the class. and from the reference cites when there are many. But technical and layout info should still go to a class page for the sake of a simpler read of an article. --Pseudohuman 12:46, January 30, 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how it would be a simpler read to have a Constitution-class article filled with "X was seen on the Enterprise, Y was seen on the Enterprise", just so that we can remove any assumptions about X and Y also being on other ships of the class, or to refer unsuspecting readers to an artificial convention by which a feature is automatically assumed to be present on a class (as if this were some kind of a speculative or creative site) unless proven otherwise.

It would be simple enough to have the Constitution-class article be only a stub, consistent with our lack of info on the class in general, and to put most of the info on the Enterprise page, in accordance with the fact that we haven't seen any other ships. After all, the average reader doesn't care about the Constitution class and will want to find the Enterprise info on the Enterprise page. Why bother him with the distinction between the ship page and the class page? Such an expectation is consistent with the canon - the moviemakers want us to focus on the ship, not on the class (which isn't even mentioned by name), so they didn't provide us with any information on the class in general.

I could understand a lengthy class page concerning the Nebula class for instance - most of the info is just bits and pieces from individual ships and it would make sense to collect it in one article so it's all in one place. However, even there the article would still have to be worded so it's clear that Feature X was seen on Ship 1, and Feature Y on Ship 2. So far, none of the commenters have been able to provide a detailed explanation for this risky business of assuming that a class has a particular feature even if it was only seen on one ship - imagine if this were a real-world article, and someone were to rely on information that all ships have a particular feature, with the only evidence being information obtained from one ship. Sure, the reader can probably see for himself that the information really comes from one ship, but why confuse him out of mere desire to have a detailed class page? – NotOfTheBody 14:04, January 30, 2010 (UTC)

It's just a convention we have had on all ship pages, that the specific ship page tells only about the missions and crew of a ship and another article "the class page" tells of all the technology, layout and specifics of the ships. I personally would not oppose the idea of being more specific on class pages about which ship of the class the facts are derived from, but I still see the necessity for the division between individual ship pages and class pages even if all the info comes from one ship. --Pseudohuman 14:27, January 30, 2010 (UTC)

Class name

Enterprise dedication plaque (alt)

dedication plaque

Based on this image, by Capt Christopher Donovan, which apparently comes from the "virtual set tour", the class name should be changed to Starship, assuming this is all legit. If we do that, we could just place it at Starship class with a disambiguation at the top for the prime Constitution class. - Archduk3 23:29, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

I could have sworn this has come up before, but considering that this was seen in a "virtual set tour" and that the shot as it is, is barely legible not to mention the fact it clearly contradicts what we saw on screen (construction was at the Riverside Shipyard), it seems to be that leaving this as it is (Constitution class (alternate reality)) is the best bet, perhaps a minor note that it's also known as "Starship class" like the prime universe counterpart is. --Terran Officer 23:37, May 24, 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the "inconsistency" objection, the dedication plaque shows the facility where the ship is commissioned, not necessarily built. There are two obvious possibilities: 1) her keel was laid in Riverside and the initial construction done before she was transferred to San Fran or 2) the Riverside facility is an "annex" of the San Fran Yard. Either way, the plaque clearly shows her as being "Starship class" with no on-screen information to contradict it. The plaque is on the set and WAS in the film, making it canon.Capt Christopher Donovan 23:41, May 24, 2010 (UTC)
First, regarding the class name: the dedication plaque of the prime universe USS Enterprise also labeled it as Starship class and it has since been accepted that Starship class is just another name for Constitution class. So, I'm not sure a name change is necessary, although as it currently stands, the term "Constitution class" is never referenced in the film while we have a reference to "Starship class" right here. So until such time as the class is labeled in dialogue or on-screen to be a Constitution class, we should probably have the article at Starship class. If it was seen in the film (and the plaque was), then it is canon, regardless of its legibility.
Now, as for the inconsistency regarding where the ship was built: as Capt. Donovan said, the plaque may not necessarily state where the ship was built. It might be where building began, where it ended, where the ship was commissioned, or even where the ship was launched. We don't know which, though, so mention of the San Francisco Fleet Yards will have to be relegated to background information... unless it can be worded in a way that doesn't contradict its building in Riverside and doesn't specify why it's labeled as originating from SF. --From Andoria with Love 04:14, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
The problem with moving this to Starship class is the fact that this lemma is already in use, as a redirect to the "other" Constitution. The term does not belong to this class more than it would belong to that class, and it won't be used as a search term specifically for this class - so a simple move would be a somewhat pointless undertaking. There needs to be a better disambiguation style for this problem... -- Cid Highwind 09:58, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
btw. the prototype Defiant had the same problem with the launch site. it's plate says Antares Ship Yards even though we know it was constructed at Utopia Planitia Ship Yards. --Pseudohuman 10:23, May 25, 2010 (UTC)

I can see how moving this to Starship class could momentarily confuse some users, but I can't see anyone actually typing in "Starship class (alternate reality)", and I don't think a redirect should have precedence over an actual article. Each page already has a disambiguation link at the top and I don't think anyone won't be able to find what their looking for within a few clicks. That said, I'm open to ideas, I just don't see another solution that's "fair" to both articles. - Archduk3 14:22, May 25, 2010 (UTC)

But that doesn't solve the problem I'm referring to - which is the fact that both ship designs are, at times, called "Starship class". Obviously, the plaque of the "new" design is an homage to that of the "old" one, and, presumably, the "new" design will also be called a "Constitution class" vessel if that ever comes up. Basically, we have two ship designs that both go by the same two names. Using one for the first and the other for the second seems a little strange to me - especially if one of the names is barely visible in both cases. -- Cid Highwind 19:57, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
What about turning the Starship class page into a disambiguation page, with one link to the original Constitution class page(as it is now) and one link to the new Constitution class page?--31dot 20:01, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
Now there's a solution, if I had ever heard one, that seems to be the most practical idea I have heard so far in this discussion, especially as it's pointed it, that it's simply going to confuse people and that the "starship class" terminology was at best, barely legible. I mean, I am not against the idea there was a different name in the different realities (Similar to Forrest being Maxwell in one universe, and Maximilian in another), but given the idea behind the events of the new film, it seems rather unlikely that this will be the case. I'm all for 31dot's suggestion. --Terran Officer 20:34, May 25, 2010 (UTC)

The only problem with the disambiguation page idea is that, according to our canon policy, the name isn't Constitution class in the alternate reality. We have a plaque that was on screen saying the ship is a Starship class vessel, and a promotion website saying it's a Constitution class vessel. The website is bg info at best, so in canon, the name is Starship class. So while we may not like it, I don't at least, and hopefully the next film will "correct" it, I don't see a reason, in our policies, that this shouldn't be at Starship class with a disambiguation at the top saying "You may be looking for the prime universe Starship class.". - Archduk3 04:37, May 26, 2010 (UTC)

We have made exceptions when the enormity of production material gave a distinct class name, such as with the Akira class, which is not named in canon. In this case, we have a barely visible homage to the Original Series, with all production material referring to the ship as a Connie. --OuroborosCobra talk 04:46, May 26, 2010 (UTC)

The canon policy is pretty clear that the on screen visibility is moot since we have the above image. The only examples I can think of that would be close to this is the USS Yamato and the USS Prometheus's reg numbers, but both of those had on screen contradictions. Is there an example of bg info trumping on screen info? - Archduk3 05:04, May 26, 2010 (UTC)

Winona Kirk, there's no explicit mention that she is a Starfleet officer save for what the writers have said in an interview, and her being on the ship isn't really evidence in and of itself (nor is her being off world), yet the last time I checked (which was while I was writing this), the article says she is a Starfleet officer. Maximilian Forrest's name comes from a podcast or a script, so there's a president here on Memory Alpha. --Terran Officer 05:20, May 26, 2010 (UTC)

Winona being in Starfleet and Forrest's first name don't contradict anything that was on screen, as far as I know. I'm asking if we have disregarded something that was on screen because of bg info. - Archduk3 05:35, May 26, 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure based on what I've read here, but do we know for sure that this plaque actually appeared in the movie? I don't remember seeing it- above a "virtual set tour" is cited as the source. If it was on the set but didn't appear in the movie it would be on the same level as the statements from the production crew. --31dot 07:51, May 26, 2010 (UTC)
As for what trumps what- this case is a little different in that we are dealing with another reality which has similar naming aspects to our own. As TO says above, Maximillian's name does not appear in the show, and as such given the rules of the mirror universe his name should be Maxwell, except for the fact other sources state otherwise. --31dot 07:58, May 26, 2010 (UTC)
Just as a matter of clarification it was in the movie though very hard to see and impossible to even make out. Though I partially agree with 31dot about whether this was the actual set used in the movie or was it created afterward regarding canon. But production materials have always been used to enhance certain articles but it's been relegated to bginfo and names only (and even then only when another name hasn't been provided) and not details. Can someone post a link to the Virtual Tour so I can see if they're even in the same location? — Morder (talk) 09:05, May 26, 2010 (UTC)
Also just to clarify, writer Mike Sussman says, in the audio commentary for "In a Mirror, Darkly", that he put the name Maximilian Forrest in the episode's script. So if anyone has that script, it probably appears there too! As for the possibility of whether we have disregarded something on-screen because of bg info, I'd suggest the viewer/scope naming issue, wherein the only time that the science viewer is referenced is by Trip calling it a "viewer." That name is insufficiently specific and too general, so I moved the page about the device to the "scope" namespace, to fit its references in bg info. --Defiant 09:14, May 26, 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the correct site, since it requires a webcam, but it could be the "virtual set tour." Anyone already seen this, or willing to? - Archduk3 05:41, June 4, 2010 (UTC)

I spotted the plaque in the film. it is on the bridge, right where you would expect it to be. outside one of the turbolifts. You can see it for the first time I think in the scene where Uhura enters the turbolift to be alone with Spock. at about 1 hour and 5 minutes into the film. And propably the largest glipse is at the end of the film when Spock is walking to the bridge and saying: "..as you fave yet to select a first officer..." --Pseudohuman 19:50, June 17, 2010 (UTC)

After some digging, I found this over at TrekBBS. Seems the image in question may be from one of the features under Starships on the Blu-ray. In which case, someone with one of those newfangled blu-ray players should be able to confirm it. As for if this was on set, on the official website you can see it by the turbolift in the bridge panoramas, as well as the previously mentioned sightings in the film proper.

If this all checks out, I think we would have to conclude that in canon the name is only Starship class for now, regardless of the bg sources and our knowledge of the real world reason for that name, and since the current title is then canonically incorrect, I still say that this page needs to move. On the other hand, there is a precedent for using a different term if the canon one is overly ambiguous, which I don't think would apply here, and Cid's point of the original ships having equal claim to the term is also correct, even though that name was superseded and IMO should be less than one with no other canon option, leaving only the "don't confuse the reader" clause. I personally don't see how it would be any more confusing to have this at Starship class, with disambiguation links, then at an incorrect title; and I believe we have already beat several horses to death agreeing that a 100% canon name is needed for MA articles. - Archduk3 08:36, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

Well it all comes down to do we consider the term "starship class" to even be a class name. A Starship-class starship sounds silly to me. Is there supposed to be a prototype called USS Starship? Or is it just the disambiguation from other types of spaceship, as is the common interpretation. In which case the bg-class name should be used. The fact that in Star Trek III: The Search for Spock, Chekov reports seeing a "scout class vessel" on sensors, would suggest the word class is used in this way in star trek also. --Pseudohuman 13:18, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how Star Trek III: The Search for Spock, or anything after ENT for that matter, applies here since we're in alternate reality land. While I'm not here to upset the various interpretations of why there are three names for one ship type, or the order of precedence for said names (Template:ShipClass > Template:ShipClass > Template:ShipClass), I am saying that these interpretations, and two of those names even, are no longer valid since this is in the alternate reality. This is really simple, we don't have any canon information contradicting the Starship class name, and for all we know we may never have any, so anything but the name Starship class is non-canon. - Archduk3 09:59, July 31, 2010 (UTC)

Even the Danube-class runabouts have been called "runabout class vessels" in DS9: "Emissary". My solution to this would be to make starship class a redirect to the starship article, write a note in there that these two shiptypes have had the designation in the dedication plaques as such. That would follow the precedence that scout class is currently a redirect to the scout ship article. I'd even make runabout class a redirect to the runabout page too. --Pseudohuman 05:34, August 2, 2010 (UTC)

All of that is missing the point (and should be discussed on those pages, or maybe in the forum). Starship class is the only canon name. All your examples have two names in canon, and they all take place in another timeline/universe/reality. Except for one precedent, which has different circumstances (and even had a leg to stand on canon wise), we use the canon reference over the bg one, per policy. I do understand what you're getting at, but I haven't hear a good reason to disregard the policy. - Archduk3 06:17, August 2, 2010 (UTC)

Phaser Beams?

"The Constitution-class was armed with phaser banks capable of firing either multiple short burst rounds or steady beams, simultaneously with torpedoes."

When did we see the Enterprise firing phaser beams? I only recall seeing that feature on the Kelvin. - Mitchz95 01:01, December 15, 2011 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki