Talk: Krenim weapon ship

FA nomination (09 Feb - 16 Feb 2008, Failed)

I do not know if I am placing this in the right spot on this page, since nobody has even voted on it yet. But I would like to nominate the article Krenim weapon ship. I re-wrote it late last year. I tried to create a concise, clear, totally encyclopedic, comprehensively informative piece, in much the same vein as Borg-Species 8472 War. – Watching... ^listening... 13:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Not bad. Could benefit from some pictures and discussion of the interior layout. It is unfortunate that there is no background info. Was anything worth noting stated in Star Trek: The Magazine or some other publication? Couldn't hurt to have a picture or two of some crew members as well. -- Connor Cabal 14:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Update: Added more images and a bit more structure. Unfortuntely there is no information regarding the vessel's layout (Stsr Trek magazine is not, I believe, a canon source, and the only two crewmembers known for certain are Annorax and Obrist.– Watching... ^listening... 19:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not a canon source, but it is good for production behind the scenes stuff. And I think that's what Connor was suggesting. -- Sulfur 19:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The layout is not the best, having a whole section for the crew, just to say that there are only two known members and then a gallery of the two taking a big gouge out of the top of the page does not bode well in the aesthetics dept. --Alan del Beccio 05:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. Fixed accordingly. Please tell me what else, though perhaps it is better to do so on my talk page than here.– Watching... ^listening... 15:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I still honestly think that it needs a good {{peer review}}. The level of writing needs to be gotten up to par. I've made a few cosmetic changes, but I have not see the episode in some time to make the proper upgrades to the article that seem to be missing, such as Tom and Chakotay's involvement and time aboard the ship. --Alan del Beccio 20:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawing nomination...for now. In keeping with suggestions, I have put the article up for peer review. Please contribute if you can. Thanks. – Watching... ^listening... 04:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Alternate timeline

Since much of this weapons is outside normal time, most of the article is in italics. This is kind of hard on the eyes. Perhaps some carefull wording and section breaks will make it clear that alternative timelines are present. Drhaggis 01:05, 24 Jan 2005 (CET)

Actually, I was thinking that a better solution would be to no longer use italics for alternate timelines. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 01:28, 24 Jan 2005 (CET)

I usually like the look of italics for alternate timelines, however in this article it is quite ugly. How about a simple ==Alternate timeline== to break it up instead of italics? Tyrant 01:34, 24 Jan 2005 (CET)Tyrant

I have rewritten this article so it is more chronological (if you will forgive the term). Comments before I remove it from the cleanup cat? I am still getting used to the writing style on this Wiki. Drhaggis 02:17, 24 Jan 2005 (CET)

Past tense should be used throughout the whole article - the latter part is written in present tense right now. Also, does all of this info really belong here? Much of it really isn't info about the ship, but about the events of "Year of Hell" and II - maybe move that information there? -- Cid Highwind 12:35, 2005 Jan 31 (CET)

I agree. See my last edit here, before it was edited by 24.23.213.142. I like my edits better, but I didnt want to revert simply over style preferences. Drhaggis 07:57, 1 Feb 2005 (CET)

I understand your concerns, but I'd ask that you don't simply revert it. I put a lot of work into it. -24.23.213.142

Irrelevent. I won't revert it because it doen't need it. I may reword it some based on the comments on this page. Drhaggis 04:49, 3 Feb 2005 (CET)

Regarding the alternate timeline issue and italics, that is all irrelevant because the entire ship, and 99% of both episodes existed in an alternate timeline, so it should be normal text started off with "in an alternate timeline". --Alan 15:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Ship status?

• Starship: "A starship is a type of vehicle that is capable of interstellar travel. Most starships are capable of faster-than-light speeds using warp drive or other propulsion methods."

As such, I would presume that this would fall under the Starships categorization - that's why I added it; it was removed, so I want to check on why before I arbitrarily revert the removal. | THOR 20:17, 23 Feb 2005 (GMT)

I would think it was a weapon and a ship and should be listed as both. Tyrant 20:27, 23 Feb 2005 (GMT)Tyrant

As I received no contradictions, I am reverting the categorization removal. -- THOR 19:17, 12 Mar 2005 (GMT)

It seems Gvsualan has changed it back on you again. That kid is really not too big on democracy. Tyrant 07:52, 24 Mar 2005 (EST)Tyrant

"Kid" Excuse me? Speak for yourself. If you haven't noticed, every single ship in that category is the name of a ship, not a class of ship. Therefore, it should belong in a category dedicated to classes (a la Category:Starship classes). Seems simple enough to me to understand that, just by looking at what's in the category already. --Gvsualan 08:15, 24 Mar 2005 (EST)

In the episode, it was always referred to (on Voyager's end) as "the weapon ship". Do we know (from script drafts or something) whether it was ever given an actual name? (the Chroquod perhaps :). "chronos" + "Pequod") Jimw338 (talk) 16:38, July 23, 2019 (UTC)

Looks like something familiar?

Has anyone else noticed that the temporal weapon ship looks alot like the "Babylon 5" space station? Just a weird co-incidence? Look here, then here, and then tell me they're not similar in design! Zsingaya ^Talk 10:54, 8 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, you're right, homage or rip-off? --Alan del Beccio 16:31, 8 Oct 2005 (UTC)

It also is similar in design and function to the Chaos Weapon seen in "The Chaos Weapon" by Colin Kapp (1977). -- Auric 14:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

There's a history of Foundation Imaging re-using Wireframes and models from Babylon 5 for Star Trek Voyager and Enterprise. I forgot the name of the artists that said as much but later on recanted, likely under pressure.– The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.121.38.200.

This discussion is eight years old- but without evidence of that such a claim cannot be in this article. 31dot (talk) 08:09, August 27, 2014 (UTC)

Peer review

I would like to get this article on the Featured Article list. If you have a contibution to make to it to bring it up to the right standard, please do so. Thanks!– Watching... ^listening... 04:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Some people don't understand time

This article and other articles related to it claim that the temporal weapon ship started operation around 2174, based on the fact that in the episode the crew says they've been at the task for 200 years, and it is 2374 when Voyager encounters it. But it is an established fact that the temporal ship exists outside of time and space and the crew does not age. I think this explicitly means that the temporal ship does not experience the same duration of time as the normal universe, 200 years for them is not 200 years for everyone else. It seems apparent to me that the temporal ship was only launched in 2374 (give or take), and it's spent 200 years in 2374 making changes to the timeline. We see at the end of the episode Anorak with his wife in the timeline where the ship was never built; if they lived in 2174 they would be long dead by the "present" of 2374. Unless that was a flashback. Hunter12396 (talk) 03:19, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

That's a plausible theory, but we don't have any proof either way. The Star Trek Encyclopedia says the ship was first used around 2174 and our resource policy says we can use dates from background materials "to date certain events in the Star Trek universe where no specific date was given". --NetSpiker (talk) 10:12, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Also, the interior of the ship may be protected from space-time, but the ship itself exists in the physical universe, at least in the sense that it can be seen and communicated with. If Annorax wanted to stay in 2374 for 200 years he would have to travel one year back in time every year, which would result in multiple versions of the weapon ship existing at the same time, but there's no evidence of that happening. --NetSpiker (talk) 12:21, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

In addition, the vessel not being centuries old would contradict Obrist's lines about celebrating birthdays for people who have long since turned to dust. Kind regards, -- Markonian 22:37, 16 April 2021 (UTC)