Really canon?
As per the eas-link in this article, the "Federation class" never appeart in Star Trek. what now? --Shisma 14:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- We slap a {{pna-inaccurate}} on it (just did that), wait some days for someone to confirm or deny, and if that doesn't happen, suggest it for deletion. :) -- Cid Highwind 14:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- As just stated on the German page, the seemingly blank space in figure 14 of the TrekPlace article shows the Ferderation. Also don't forget that she was implied by the USS Entente -- Kobi 17:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- The Entente was stated to be a Federation-class vessel in voiceover in TMP, so deleting the article isn't really a valid option. As for its appearance, isn't this one of those ships whose diagram was seen in Wrath of Khan or Search for Spock, like the Hermes class? --From Andoria with Love 18:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- Nope, the Entente's class was never mentioned in TMP. Only its registry.--User:137.208.3.45 18:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- The radio noise in TMP says "Dreadnought USS Entente Calling...NCC two one two zero". It says dreadnought though it does not say Federation class. It is nevertheless a direct reference to the SFTM. To me, it's as canon as any of the other ship info that derives from background view screen pics and lists.--Great Bear 00:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Seems to be clarified as per the "TrekPlace"-article. I'm removing the pna message. -- Cid Highwind 10:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Looking at the "evidence" again (and having it discussed off-site), it seems as if only the image called "Fleet Ship Specifications" on EAS has been used - that image doesn't call the ship/outline "Federation class". So, where's that from? -- Cid Highwind 12:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
i think, the article should be moved to "Dreadnought class", like in the diagramm --Shisma 09:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, Dreadnought refers to an early 20th century battleship (WWI and earlier), starting with the HMS Dreadnought. The battleships of World War II were much bigger and more powerful than the ships referred to as "Dreadnoughts." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreadnought --Chibiabos 05:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
but it would be the canon way to call it --Shisma 10:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, Shisma is right. The closest we get to the class being given a name is this graphic, which identifies it as a "Dreadnought class". The other ships we then see with individual graphics that name them, or are named in dialogue. This is not the case with the Federation-class. The only reference we have to it giving it a class name in canon is as "Dreadnought class". Therefore, we have to move the article to that to comply with our canon policy. --OuroborosCobra talk 10:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- As an alternative, we could call it Entente type, as we do with Centaur type. That would be naming the type after the first appearance of the class, in absence of a proper class name. --OuroborosCobra talk 10:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- A little explanation on that last comment is in order, I think o_O --OuroborosCobra talk 11:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Cobra is right... Dreadnought class would be a valid article title as per the graphic that was shown in the movie. Entente type would be a valid title per our naming conventions. Federation class, apparently, was never used, anywhere, and we don't even "know" that a USS Federation even existed at some point. -- Cid Highwind 11:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Six of Six, I am guessing the problem is that you cannot see the images because of where they are. I have changed them to a different host. Try now. --OuroborosCobra talk 11:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Never mind, "Dreadnought class" sounds better than "Federation class" :)) --Shisma 11:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Given that all of the other classes pictured here had designations like "heavy cruiser class" and "destroyer/scout class" when they in fact had proper names, I propose that we NOT use Dreadnought class. If we follow the pattern set by the other classes pictured, that is NOT going to be the proper class name. Therefore, let's go with Entente type. This has the added advantage of not having the problem that Six-of-Six brought up at the start of all of this. Entente type can be described as a "dreadnought" just as Centaur type is decsribed as a "destroyer", and Constitution-class is described as a "heavy cruiser". Everybody wins :-) --OuroborosCobra talk 11:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Aye. --OuroborosCobra talk 11:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
wait. how can we link the "USS Entente" with the grapic we seen on the display. she is only mentioned as a "Dreadnought". on the display we saw another ship that is classified as "Dreadnought class". this was not necessary the same class :/ --Shisma
- Interesting quandary. USS Entente IS a dreadnought...and there is no actual mention of Federation Class in canon. what to do? --6/6 Neural Transceiver 12:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
dont you have an article for unnamed shipclasses? --Shisma 12:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- nope.. but i would not be opposed to starting it. --6/6 Neural Transceiver 12:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- (There never was a need for it, especially if a ship class only appears once. In other cases they appear at Unnamed Federation starships.) --Alan del Beccio
this would also be a good place for all the "type" shipclasses--Shisma
- Oh come on. You are giving me a really bad day here, the damn ship was designed as Federation class, we know the source by 1000 percent and don't even have to rely on the word of Okuda who claims the Lolipop was seen on a tiny graphic in episode XYZ; we can even see that it was supposed to be the Federation class USS Entente. Keep the name! -- Kobi 17:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Nay, we have several starships that we don't know the class to, that, like the Entente, were not seen on screen. For example, the USS Renegade. Based on the history and usage of "X-type" starship, those which bear such descriptions are vessels that have been seen on screen but their class was not identified (eg USS Centaur). There is really no need for such a class type designation here for this ship when the only information it is going to contain will likely mirror what is already on the Entente page. As for the use of the term Federation class, I agree with Kobi. I would be willing to accept it, as per the TrekPlace article: "Item A in Figure 14 corresponds to the tail end of text that, in the Star Fleet Technical Manual, reads "DREADNOUGHT CLASS"." --Alan del Beccio 17:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Apparently, we know (considering our policy of "taking the whole graphic if we saw at least a bit of it") exactly two things:
- There's a ship design called "Dreadnought class".
- The existing USS Entente is "a" dreadnought.
- This means that the Entente isn't even necessarily of the "Dreadnought class" - and even if we make that leap (should we?), the name "Federation class" still comes out of nowhere. -- Cid Highwind 18:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Nay Keep it Federation Class. Drop the unsupported references to the SFTM if necessary but we all know what the outline refers too.--Great Bear 18:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- When I voted, I did not know the issues with the Entente. I assumed (wrongly) that we had some good reason we were calling it a member of the class. Nay. That said, we do NOT know that there is something called Dreadnought class. That graphic is NOT naming classes, it is describing what overall classification ships fall under. Notice that it labels the Constitution-class "Heavy Cruiser class". It is NOT saying that the Constitution class has two names, it is saying that it has one name, and is a Heavy Cruiser. That is how we justified calling it a Heavy Cruiser over at its talk page (see Talk:Constitution class#Battle cruiser? only if you are a klingon). We know that whatever this class is named, it is a Dreadnought, just like we know that the Constitution class is a Heavy Cruiser. We do not have the name of this class. We do not have a ship class named "Dreadnought class". We have a class with an unknown name that is a Dreadnought. --OuroborosCobra talk 18:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Moved from article
I removed two small bits of information from the article:
- a forward-facing shuttlebay
- registry of the USS Federation: NCC-2100
If all we have is a illegible part of one graphic, it would be a stretch to take information from another graphic which wasn't visible. It seems as if all we can use is an outline of the ship design - which might be enough to claim three nacelles and an aft deflector, but definitely not enough to claim a forward-facing shuttlebay. -- Cid Highwind 11:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Did Gene really oppose this class?
"Though Gene Roddenberry personally signed off on the Federation class in 1973, by the time of Star Trek: The Next Generation, he was adamantly opposed to the "militarization" of Starfleet, specifically citing the Federation-class as problematic and therefore non-canon. This has caused some controversy and confusion in the years since, since the ship does appear as a schematic in canon, and one of her class is explicitly mentioned in the only Star Trek movie of which Gene Roddenberry himself was in charge."
There is no citation note for this statement in the article. I'd like to know when, and if, he actually expressed any opposition to this class of ship, especially since he signed off on it, and it *is* explicitly mentioned in the only Star Trek movie of which he was actually in charge.
Wouldn't that make this thing bonafide canon? Idazmi (talk) 00:33, February 15, 2014 (UTC)
- Whether the statement is accurate or not is not relevant to its canon status as the schematic did appear in canon. That said, it does need a source(is it the SF Tech Manual?) 31dot (talk) 00:43, February 15, 2014 (UTC)
The Starfleet Technical Manual doesn't have anything in it suggesting that Roddenberry opposed the ship at all. In fact, he's the one who signed off on it and heavily referenced the Technical Manual for a canon film in the first place. The statement that he cited the ship as "problematic and non-canon" definitely needs a source. Idazmi (talk) 06:38, February 16, 2014 (UTC)