Talk:Starship/Archive 1

Archive 1

Star Wars

Well, if we *are* going to have a list of famous starships... ISD Avenger seems like a better choice than Devastator, as it's the only ISD named in the original film trilogy. dirtside 17:26, 2004 Mar 28 (UTC)

More importantly, why isn't the Millenium Falcon mentioned? I am assured that it is the swiftest vessel in the Galaxy. . . . . . . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.113.48.17 (talk) 12:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

It is - right there at the bottom of Star Wars ships a_man_alone (talk) 18:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

2001: A Space Odyssey

The 'Discovery' of 2001 was only designed to get from Earth to Jupiter and return. It doesn't qualify as a 'starship.' Delphinus100 19:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Spaceship redirects here

In my view, spaceship has a far broader meaning than starship, and would include contemporary space vehicles.--MacRusgail 15:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Added the 'Jupiter 2'

Apparently it was called the 'Gemini' in the pilot of Lost in Space. Anyway, thought its absence was noticable! Oh dear me, the pain, the pain! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Led Zeppelin

I'm curious, there's no mention of Led Zeppelin's famous tour-jet "Starship" anywhere... Here's a great link: http://www.led-zeppelin.org/reference/starship.htm Not a spaceship certainly, but a famous real world vehicle of the name. OzoneO 16:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Firefly

What about the Serenity from the Serenity/Firefly universe?

It was established in the Firefly movie "Serenity" that the whole series is taking place in a single solar system. Therefore the Serenity is an interplanetary vessel and not a starship.

I don't think you're right about that. IIRC, "Serenity" travels to many star systems in the Firefly series. The events of the movie might well be restricted to one star system, although I'm inclined to doubt it (Haven't watched the movie in a while, so not going to lay down a hard-and-fast declaration here).

BTW, please sign your posts using four tildes ~ in a row. Thanks. Jackytar 17:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Back story

The series takes place in the year 2517, on several planets and moons. The TV series does not reveal whether these celestial bodies are in one star system, and does not explain whether Serenity's mode of propulsion is faster-than-light, only that it is a "gravity-drive". The film Serenity makes clear that all the planets and moons are in one large system, and production documents related to the film indicate that there is no faster-than-light travel in this universe.

The above is from the Wikipedia article. And you all know how accurate THOSE are ;-)

In other words - doesn't seem to be a starship. Ingolfson 16:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The 'verse is one star system as revealed during the graphics in the opening sequences of Serenity. 72.192.120.241 (talk) 03:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

More genres, please!

The fictional starships listed are all from film and television -- but starships have been prominent in fiction at least since the days of "Doc" Smith. Why not a few from books, pulps, and comics? RandomCritic 07:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Why not add some (notable ones) yourself? Ingolfson 01:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

star pictures

take pictures of the stars —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.124.131.2 (talk) 21:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for scoping article to human spaceflight only

As currently written, the article hints at, but does not make clear, the idea that starships are spacecraft used for human spaceflight, i.e. they have a crew and/or passengers. Can we establish consensus on limiting the scope of the article to human spaceflight vessels?

• Support - as proposer. (sdsds - talk) 21:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
• Somewhat Disagree - I think what you are looking for is an article that would have to be entitled Manned starship. The general article under the word Starship should cover both. Ingolfson (talk) 08:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

von Neumann probe

The von Neumann probe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann_probe) is a self-replicating spacecraft or clanking machine. Such concepts may be possible in future without traditionally fiction-only technologies like hyperdrives or warp. Though not necessarily manned, they would definitely fit the criteria for starships. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.129.23.146 (talk) 07:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Double entries and listing categories

For one, The Battlestar Galactica is both listed under 'individual starships aswell as under 'groups of starships'. Also, this can grow to a collection of all famous starships coming from basically everywhere. as a stargate enthusiast I for instance miss the "Ha'Tak" class attack ship from the Goa'uld. Additional ships from this franchise are the "Al'Kesh" and "Deathglider". Another prominent starship in the franchise is the 'Destiny' from Stargate Universe Also, the Prometheus (a famous name among several starships) is missing. Scourge Splitter (talk) 13:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

X-wing as a starship?

I've reverted the recent removal of the X-Wing, as according to the article itself "[a] starship, starcraft or interstellar spacecraft is a theoretical spacecraft designed for traveling between planetary systems, as opposed to a vehicle designed for orbital spaceflight or interplanetary travel." The X-Wing (being equipped with a hyperdrive and therefore being able to travel between planetary systems) meets the criteria. It may not be a big ship, or included in Wookiepedia, but it meets our own criteria here. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Fictional starships

I've reverted the change that took out the fictional ships. As I state in my edit summary - currently we only have fictional examples, as there is no real-world starship yet.

However, I agree that a close eye needs to be kept on the list, and I've removed examples that are either redlinked or not linked at all. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:45, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Red Dwarf

I've removed Red Dwarf because it's a Spaceship that has had starship criteria thrust upon it. Red Dwarf is designed for interplanetary travel - intended to travel between Jupiter and Earth, not interstellar travel. It only becomes a starship after heading outsystem for 3 million years, whereupon it had no choice but to travel interstellar. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:50, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Starship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070217091033/http://www.infoshop.org/sf/index.php/Spaceship_Names to http://www.infoshop.org/sf/index.php/Spaceship_Names

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:06, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Musk's Starship

A link to & a mention of the SpaceX Starship are needed, and maybe a disambiguation page. 94.30.84.71 (talk) 23:31, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Agree. It seems that the SpaceX use of "Starship" has, over time, become the primary one being referenced on Wikipedia, as shown here in this tool view of the top "Starship ..." articles/pages: Starship hits, comparison, current date.

Here is a permalink to the data as of 6 August 2019 when I am writing this comment.

The trend for "Starship (spacecraft)" in the lead is however only fairly recent, and there are still a lot of clicks to the other ones as well, so I concur with you that there probably ought to be a disambiguation page set up to disambiguate the many current Wikipedia pages about Starship. Cheers. N2e (talk) 13:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done I have created a disambiguation page for Starship, and moved this article to "Starship (interstellar spacecraft). N2e (talk) 13:38, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

This move has been undone, and should be discussed in a formal WP:move request. The dab page is currently at Starship (disambiguation) — JFG ^talk 21:56, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

THIS CONVERSATION CONTINUED ON my Talk page at User talk:N2e

Thanks for the note, JFG. I had starting on fixing these, when some other editor undid the entire move. I don't have the energy to try to push back on it; but would register a view if someone else starts a discussion; otherwise, I'm just letting this one go.

What I can say is that nearly ten other uses of "Starship" get more daily/monthly hits than the theoretical interstellar spaceship usage, and all of those starship hits collectively (many in entertainment, but also the SpaceX-related ones) get 10-20x the number of daily hits that the interstellar spaceship "Starhip" gets. Seemed a pretty straightforward move, but it created a lot of work with 435 inbound links, etc. So I thought the disambig page was a strong improvement. But... Well. Wikipedia is emergent. N2e (talk) 21:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Do not despair! Take some time to craft an appropriate move request, including the rationale for lack of a primary topic, and a proposed process to re-assign the incoming links. I'd support that. — JFG ^talk 21:45, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not despairing, JFG. Just decided that, after all the work I already did, I'd not ride point on such a move request. Gonna just let it go. Life is too short. Opportunity cost is high. (but will participate if someone else does one). Cheers. N2e (talk 22:17, 12 August 2019

For the record, it is interesting to note that the predominant use/lookup of Starship on Wikipedia, over time, is quickly becoming the SpaceX Starship, by whatever name it is called in the primary article through a series of MOVE discussions and MOVEs. Here is the data on just the last 40 days. Starship articles with the most hits.

Just plain "Starship", which points to the interstellar spacecraft sense of the term, is now consistently in fourth place or below.

I predict this trend will continue over the next six months, and something will have to give in the way these articles are named, and where the "Starship" designator, by itself, points. Cheers. N2e (talk) 21:03, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 28 May 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

---

• Starship → Interstellar spacecraft
• Starship (disambiguation) → Starship

– Per discussion above, no primary topic so it would be best to have Starship as a disambiguation page. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 03:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. I'd like to work out a few things first. We seem to have two very similar articles, Space vehicle and Spacecraft. "Spaceship" actually redirects to Space vehicle, but "Space ship" redirects to Spacecraft. So I'm wondering if the correct term should be "Interstellar spacecraft" or "Interstellar space vehicle". Also, I don't think "Space ship" (with a space) should redirect to a different article than "Spaceship" without a space. Perhaps the articles on Space vehicle and Spacecraft should actually be merged together. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - this article is fundamentally already a WP:CONCEPTDAB. Per Rreagan007, there seems to be some conflation of terms and incorrect redirects. I don't think this can be fixed piecemeal by an RM. My initial thought is that starship should be moved to spaceship (redirect left in place) and focus primarily on the fictional usage. Space vehicle and Spacecraft merged to focus on real-world crafts that already exist. And Interstellar spacecraft be focused on real-world theoretical or planned crafts. -- Netoholic @ 12:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, the name doesn't need further clarification as it already implies travel between stars and their solar systems. It is also a well-known term through fictional examples such as the starship Enterprise. The present name is not confusing or broken. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nostromo not sublight

The Nostromo is by its own canon capable of many thousands of times the speed of light.

The planet visited by Nostromo (called Acheron in the first film and LV-426 in the second) is stated as being part of the Zeta 2 Reticuli system. ζ² Reticuli is a real star which is around 39 light years from anyone reading this. Needless to say, it is not possible to travel to a planet orbiting ζ² Reticuli in reasonable time without faster-than-light technology; in fact, the character Dallas mentions in dialogue that the vessel is "10 months from home". This indicates that Nostromo is capable of just under 16,000c, or 4,783,050,655.738 kilometers per hour.

Non-film sources of dubious canonicity have been fairly consistent with the idea that humans of the Aliens universe use a tachyon shunt to achieve FTL.

Someone should edit this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.153.222.244 (talk) 23:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

This makes Alien tech fast - very fast. By Aliens, Sulaco and other military spacecraft were capable of making the same trip in two weeks, which works out to around 320Kc. This may make the Aliens tech base the fastest in popular science fiction; in Iain M. Banks Culture novel Excession, the General Systems Vehicle Sleeper Service achieved 233Kc under extreme duress and having converted almost all of its available mass into propulsion hardware - although the 233Kc number does cause continuity problems with other canon statements in the Culture novels. Still, is anyone faster? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.180.247 (talk) 15:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Star Trek warp drive would have to be much faster. Federation space is about 20,000 light years in diameter, as are the adjacent spheres of influence of the Romulans and the Klingons - together these three span famously a quarter of the Milky Way. At warp 9, these distances are bridged (as per story requirements!) within feasible periods of time, months, years at most. Of course, once a ship gets stuck in a different quadrant, it is going to take (as per story requirements!) years and years to get back... 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:A858:E2B2:D1D9:6735 (talk) 14:59, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

"the purpose of these uncrewed craft was specifically interplanetary"

No. It is true that nearly (but not quite) all the instrumentation was geared to data gathering on planets in our own solar system. Nevertheless, the Voyagers were equipped with a message for aliens who might intercept the craft in interstellar space, where of course it was always known the probes would be ultimately headed. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:A858:E2B2:D1D9:6735 (talk) 14:50, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

The Voyager program article states that there were essentially two mission parameters:

The Voyager primary mission was completed in 1989, with the close flyby of Neptune by Voyager 2. The Voyager Interstellar Mission (VIM) is a mission extension, which began when the two spacecraft had already been in flight for over 12 years. The Heliophysics Division of the NASA Science Mission Directorate conducted a Heliophysics Senior Review in 2008. The panel found that the VIM "is a mission that is absolutely imperative to continue" and that VIM "funding near the optimal level and increased DSN (Deep Space Network) support is warranted."

The main objective of the VIM was to extend the exploration of the Solar System beyond the outer planets to the outer limit and if possible even beyond. The Voyagers found the heliopause boundary, which is the outer limit of the Sun's magnetic field. Passing through the heliopause boundary has allowed the spacecraft to make measurements of the interstellar fields, particles and waves unaffected by the solar wind.

That suggests that Voyager is an interplanetary spaceship which is now headed interstellar. Not sure that makes it a "starship"? Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:36, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Positioning of Starship Enterprise image.

It's all well and good saying "Lets take this to the talk page" - but it would help if you actually did that, so I can prepare an argument as to why the article's credibility is not lessened by the Starship Enterprise being at the top of the page.

Why do you think that having one of the best known examples of a starship at the top of the page lessens the credibility?

• Humanity has not created a starship in reality - the article only contains a theoretical section of approx 200 words.

• The rest of the article consisting of approx 536 words and is concerned with the various fictional examples of starships - of which the Enterprise is one of the most well known.

Given the majority fictional element of the article, and the lack of real world examples, it seems to make sense to have the Enterprise at the top. I cannot see (and you have not elucidated,) why a fictional example lessens the credibility of the article. Why does a fictional example in lieu of a real-world example lessen the credibility? Please define "credibility". a_man_alone (talk) 15:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Because a starship is a plausible concept and showing a picture of a fictional starship in the lead (that uses a propulsion system only based in fiction) takes away from the credibility of those concepts. Instead of having the fiction and non-fiction sections blended why not keep them separate?--Craigboy (talk) 00:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Because I don't think it's necessary. The two elements are intrinsically linked: Even within the lede they are mentioned side by side - being given equal weight. Which is more than fair, given the non-existant nature of any real-life starships. The article concentrates on the fictional examples, it states that the term is mostly well known from fictional examples, mainly because there is a lack of real world starships - ie none. The article's small enough without splitting it (if that's what you mean,) and I still don't see why a fictional example lessens the credibility of the article. Now you're saying that it lessens the credibility of the real world theory and concept - which is not the same thing as lessening the article. I still don't see it - why does the Enterprise being at the top of the article make the concept of real interstellar travel any less plausible. You haven't yet explained this reasoning.

The Enterprise is an accepted piece of Western society, and is a far more famous and well known example of a starship than Project Daedalus, Orion, or Longshot. The National Air & Space museum seem to agree on its relevance to the modern (and real) world as well, or they wouldn't have a model hanging from their rafters, alongside the Wright brothers' Wright Flyer, and the Apollo Lunar Lander. The blurring of reality vs fiction doesn't seem to bother them at all. a_man_alone (talk) 05:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I've been to the Air & Space museum several times and neither a Lunar lander or the Enterprise is hung up. Last I heard the Enterprise was sitting in the gift shop.

I don't think we need to split the current article into two different articles (at least not until the non-fiction section becomes larger), I just mean with the exception of the introductory paragraph we should keep the two subjects separate.

"why does the Enterprise being at the top of the article make the concept of real interstellar travel any less plausible." It doesn't make it less plausible but it takes away the credibility of those concepts, because the Enterprise needs a suspension of disbelief in order for it to even be a starship.

"The Enterprise is an accepted piece of Western society, and is a far more famous and well known example of a starship than Project Daedalus, Orion, or Longshot." But that doesn't mean its relevant to both the fiction and non-fiction sections.--Craigboy (talk) 19:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

We now quibble over terms, but the fact remains that the Enterprise is still a valid exhibit in the museum. Why does a suspension of belief make the plausibility of interstellar travel less credible? More importantly, why does an image of a fictional interstellar vehicle which requires suspension of belief lessen the credibility of intersteallar travel. It's not as though we're claiming it's areal starship. Given that there is currently no other type of interstellar travel, I find that one hard to understand. Surely it works in the opposite way - "Look, we can't get to the stars yet, but if we work hard, this is what it *might* be like."

And no - you're right - it isn't relevant to both fictional and non-fictional sections, which is why there's a picture of a theoretical real world starship in the non-fictional section, instead of another fictional example, but as the article is mostly concerned with fictional elements, it makes sense to have a well known example visible to all - especially as all types of interstellar travel discussed have not progressed beyond the drawing board, and given that some were abandoned over 30 years ago, are unlikely to occur.

Working with the lowest common denominator - when people think of interstellar travel, they may not instantly think of the Enterprise, but when confronted with it on the page as a primary image, they will recognise it (and the concept of planet-to-planet travel) a lot faster than with either an image of Longshot, or no image at all.

If you're worried about the Enterprise taking away credibility of the theoretical types of intersteallar travel, I promise not to insert the Enterprise image in the "Research" section, I'll just leave it in the lede, which covers not only both fictional and non-fictional, but also the concept of intersteallar travel - of which the Enterprise is a well known example a_man_alone (talk) 06:55, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Given the differences between the two subjects I think no image in the lead would be more appropriate. When reading the article, the Enterprise picture is the first thing I notice and it gives off the impression that an interstellar spacecraft is more fiction than reality, when it is actually a plausible but distant reality while the Enterprise is not.--Craigboy (talk) 18:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Interstellar spacecraft are more fiction than reality. Whether they are plausible or not does not detract from the fact that (as far as I know) overwhelming majority of interstellar travel is carried out in the land of fiction - whether theoretical or from a book shop. a_man_alone (talk) 09:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

That still does not make fictitious spacecraft that have little basis in reality relevant to real world concepts.--Craigboy (talk) 01:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Having looked at your userpage I can see why this is getting under your skin. The only real world concept the article deals with is "Interstellar travel" - that is from one star system to another. It doesn't matter whether the motheds used are fictional or not. However, fine, have it your way, but I still stand by the basic statement that your viewpoint is fundamentally wrong (yet given your userpage understandable) - "When reading the article, the Enterprise picture is the first thing I notice and it gives off the impression that an interstellar spacecraft is more fiction than reality, when it is actually a plausible but distant reality while the Enterprise is not"

Interstellar spacecraft are more fiction than reality. All you have to do is show me a single crewed interstellar spacecraft developed and built by the human race (or even by another race, I'm not fussy), and for every one you show me, I'll show you ten fictional examples. I'll even make them from different genres, so I'll not bunch X-wings, Y-Wings and TIE Fighters all in one example. It doesn't matter how closely linked to reality they are, that's just how it is. a_man_alone (talk) 08:12, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I say, leave it without picture. A Starship, regardless of form and function, in todays world is a conceptual item. Pictures are not really going to help nor break the article, but as a conceptual item I'd think a picture is not really nesecary. Scourge Splitter (talk) 13:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Your argument is wholly fallacious, and the fact that there are more (almost invariably unfeasible) starship designs in fiction then there are serious (borderline feasible) starship designs in space flight engineering - broadly conceived - should not be used to determine the preponderance of the article. After all, on virtually any topic there are many more wrongheaded notions to be found than ones that belong in an encyclopedia. Your unpleasant discussion with Craigboy might be put in the proper perspective by thinking about submarine craft, lunar expeditions, or heart transplants before they became reality. The encyclopaedic stance ought to be to separate the chaff from the wheat. For all I care fictional starships can have an article all of their own, under that title. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:A858:E2B2:D1D9:6735 (talk) 14:24, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, it can be. As per WP:PRIMARY if a subject is dominated by a specific "thing", then there is no reason for that "thing" not to take the focus of the article. Your own argument is fallacious - just because lunar expeditions does not focus on fictional aspects does not mean that another article should also downplay fiction. Each article is weighed on its own merits, the sources available - and the level of effort put in by the editors. Your suggestions of splitting fictional craft is a great idea - so great that it's already been done at List of fictional spacecraft, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they can be removed from this article as the focus is different for each. Finally, this topic was nearly 10 years old, with a comment resurrecting it 7 years ago. I don't think the article as it then is really comparable to as it is now. This is why we have archiving. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:51, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

About the page image

The image at the top of this page is currently an artist's depiction of the SS Valiant from Star Trek, as depicted in semi-official publications for the franchise. Does that mean it should be removed, or that the caption should reflect this? I don't know about the guidelines on this sort of thing here. 66.131.176.150 (talk) 17:35, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a strict position on copyright infringement, see Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright. In this case, the image is asserted to be the artist's own work, which they have released under cc-by-sa. But if the artist copied another artist's work (doesn't have to be an exact replica) then that is an infringement and the image would have to be deleted.

However, other images on the web of the Valiant don't look like this image. Did you have something else in mind? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:05, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

About the page image

The image at the top of this page is currently an artist's depiction of the SS Valiant from Star Trek, as depicted in semi-official publications for the franchise. Does that mean it should be removed, or that the caption should reflect this? I don't know about the guidelines on this sort of thing here. 66.131.176.150 (talk) 17:35, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a strict position on copyright infringement, see Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright. In this case, the image is asserted to be the artist's own work, which they have released under cc-by-sa. But if the artist copied another artist's work (doesn't have to be an exact replica) then that is an infringement and the image would have to be deleted.

However, other images on the web of the Valiant don't look like this image. Did you have something else in mind? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:05, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

No, it's the same ship design, a ship discussed in the original series of Star Trek but only shown as a study model in semi-official publications from the 90s including the Star Trek Chronology. This is a fan site that includes a picture of a study model :

https://memory-beta.fandom.com/wiki/SS_Valiant 66.131.176.150 (talk) 16:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Why is the Airbus A350 Linked in "See Also"?

It seems unrelated to the topic. Should likely be removed. 2607:FEA8:9600:7070:48EC:8C87:ADAA:8F4E (talk) 01:30, 3 February 2024 (UTC)