Talk:USS Enterprise (NCC-1701)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

"The" (when used with a ship's name)

Not needed. As per Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(ships)#Using_ship_names_in_articles it states "Do not use the definite article ("the") before a prefix or when introducing a ship for the first time; e.g., at the beginning of the lead section:"

It also states "Generally, a definite article is not needed before a ship's name", although I'll grant that it then follows with "although its use is not technically wrong" - which is why I said it's not necessary, not that it's wrong. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Please follow up here as to why you think that it is necessary, thanks. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

For reference, an identical edit/revert/re-revert happened on the Star Trek page. I have added a link in that talk page to this one. Thanks. Jabberjawjapan (talk) 02:56, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

FYI - Similar edit/reverts have now occurred at both USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-A) and USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-D). Jabberjawjapan (talk) 08:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

And now here as well: Starship Enterprise. Note that yesterday I stopped editing pages using the "definite article" rational pending this discussion. I think someone should notify User:MightyDinoPower15 asking them to do the same.Jabberjawjapan (talk) 07:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

In Star Trek itself, the ship is usually referred to using the definite article. RJ4 (talk) 04:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

But this is Wikipedia, not Star Trek. See WP:UNIVERSE. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:30, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

That is true, but I think we can consider a few things here. First off, the policy says it isn't mandatory to not have the definite article. Second, you will rarely find a reference, either within Trek or in real world articles about it, that refers to "Enterprise" rather than "the Enterprise". I don't know the exact policy, but if references consistently use a certain style to refer to something, it follows that that is how we should also refer to it. Finally, the Enterprise is a fictional ship in a fictional navy in a fictional universe - it would be wrong to assume that what we apply to 21st century ocean-going vessels is what we must also apply to 24th century spaceships.

And you know what, fourthly, it just sounds wrong! Maybe not in all cases, but in most of them. WP:IAR. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, to me, to include the definitive sounds wrong. That's a subjective claim, so doesn't count.

Your other reasoning is incorrect as well - we do not adhere to how the rest of the world refers to things, we have a manual of style that we refer to instead. That is the consistency we strive for - that all articles hold a consistency within the encyclopedia, not within the real world. You're also falling into the WP:UNIVERSE fallacy again. The 24th century has nothing to do with it, MOS does.

You are correct though that the policy doesn't state that the definitive must not be included, (apart from the lede) but nor does it say that it should. The tone of the text implies that the lack of definitive is preferred "Generally, a definite article is not needed before a ship's name" and even "although its use is not technically wrong" otherwise it would say "although its lack of use is not technically wrong:"

Chaheel Riens (talk) 22:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

The Characters don't obey this rule and I will continue to call these ships with tne words "the etc." — Preceding unsigned comment added by MightyDinoPower15 (talk • contribs) 07:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

You really need to read WP:UNIVERSE. You're just coming across as obstinate now. MOS exists - Star Trek doesn't. When we're talking about contributions to the encyclopedia, MOS trumps a fictional entity. (Also real ones, but that's not the point here.) Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:04, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

PS: In your edit summary, don't you mean "These are voyages of the starship Enterprise"? Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:06, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Or, perhaps, "These are the voyages of the starship the Enterprise." - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

SummerPhD, that's what I did write, but MightyDinoPower15 refactored my comment here to remove it, and I've only just noticed. That was a bit naughty. Chaheel Riens (talk) 05:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Jut to put this out there: but people refer to real world ships as "The <ship name here>" yet that is not carried over to the way these ships are named in their articles on Wikipedia. The real world battleship USS Enterprise for instance is not referred to as "The USS Enterprise" on its own article but people refer to it as "the USS Enterprise". If that's the case, and the rules state not to use a definite in front of a ship name, then logically that would apply for fictional ships as it applies to real ships too. Gistech (talk) 09:01, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you re. the consistency of usage across fiction/non-fiction topics - I guess we need to remember that fiction is created by real-world people in the real world. Also, regarding the ship (I assume you mean USS Enterprise (CVN-65)), yes, it is also consistently not referred to as "the Enterprise" within it's own article either. Further, while I have been reflecting on this matter, I also recall that several Star Trek series do not use "the" in their series' name when referring to the primary ship - for example, Star Trek: Voyager, not "Star Trek: The Voyager", Star Trek: Enterprise, and not "Star Trek: The Enterprise" (or other possible variants - "Star Trek: USS Enterprise", or "Star Trek: The USS Enterprise"), and most recently, Star Trek: Discovery. A similar naming convention is seen, for example, in the franchise Battlestar Galactica. Jabberjawjapan (talk) 02:11, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

As a point in case, I would like to invite interested readers to identify how many times "the Voyager" appears in this article (USS Voyager (Star Trek), or this one (Star Trek: Voyager), since, given the 7 seasons and 172 episodes of the show, this ship is perhaps, arguably, the most famous and written about "non-Enterprise" vessel in the franchise. Jabberjawjapan (talk) 05:31, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I will grant you that the characters refer to it as Voyager, not the Voyager. On the show Enterprise I think there was a mix, DS9 usually went with "the Defiant", TOS/TNG "the Enterprise". However your argument based on "the starship the Enterprise" is clearly just tendentious, as no one is arguing that "the Enterprise" is the ship's name. You would never hear someone say "the ocean liner the Titanic", even though many people would refer to "the Titanic" - the the is contained in "the starship" so there's no need for an additional use.

Wikipedia is not the Academie Francaise, it's more like the OED. - it doesn't dictate how people use language, it looks at the world, sees how people are using it, and describes that. That is what we ought to be doing here - there is no official Starfleet MOS on how to refer to their ships. Instead we have sources which use it, and in most of those you will see "the Enterprise". -mattbuck (Talk) 17:38, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

THe WP MOS seems out of step with the real world. I've added my research to the MoS talk page here. Rhialto (talk) 13:38, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Whatever you can't make me think I will continue to call these ships as I want.

I can't make you think, that's true - but if you wish to edit here you need to do so in collaborative, not combative fashion. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:30, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Stop being dictators and vote — Preceding unsigned comment added by MightyDinoPower15 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:VOTE - we don't do that either. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Then you are not as smart as you sound — Preceding unsigned comment added by MightyDinoPower15 (talk • contribs) 23:01, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

As per my detailed comments on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ships), I would argue that the best articles in Wikipedia already show evidence of being consensually and highly compliant with as much of the existing MOS as possible (guidelines as cited by User:Chaheel Riens above). In Wikipedia, there are many reasons why articles fail to reach "Good" or better status, and one of them is arguably "knee-jerk territoriality" where subjective or unexplained edits can potentially undermine an article's improvement. Just to provide some context as background, I also recently edited using these MOS guidelines in, for example, Star Trek, the main page of this entire franchise, and a Good article. Those edits were accepted, reverted without explanation (by MightyDinoPower15), but quickly re-accepted (via reversion to my (and the page's current) version). Similarly, my edits to Enterprise (NX-01), - a Good article, Star Trek (film) - another Good article, Star Trek Into Darkness - where I was thanked for my edits, and Star Trek Beyond have been (to date at least) accepted. These pages represent lengthy and detailed constructive and collaborative efforts on the part of many editors in compliance with what Wikipedia states it is, and also with what it states it is not (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not). Jabberjawjapan (talk) 03:01, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

As per my comments on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ships), showing that there is any existing consensus to a manual of style that doesn't reflect real-world usage doesn't prove anything other than standards can be enforced. Wikipedia should primarily be about following real-world practice, not dictating a house style. The correct conclusion to draw from the fact that WP's house style differs from general usage is that the WP house style needs to be adjusted to better reflect the real world. The current MoS imitates the USN, but at least two other US house styles contradict it, and non-US styles tend to allow a free choice where they specify anything. See Wikipedia:Specialized-style fallacy and Wikipedia:Use modern language.

Head over to MOS then, and suggest the change there. Once you've pushed it through, we'll make the updates. And "real world usage" is a subjective term - I've lost count of the number of times I've seen (and corrected) poor examples of the English language such as "an historic", or that usage of the masculine when gender is unknown is incorrect only to be told "but that's what it's like in real life!" Yes, maybe it is. But that doesn't make it right. MOS currently states that the definitive is not a required addition, and that preference is without - ergo that's what we follow. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:54, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I did, and I would like to invite further commentary from other interested parties, but I am not sufficiently familiar with the WP protocols in changing the MoS. Could you advise me where to find this, since you seem so much more familiar with the WP MoS? As for "an hotel" et alii., it's not strictly true to say that form is utterly wrong, unless you are a prescriptivist grammarian (I'd favour "a hotel", but only because I prefer to write in modern 21st century English). Rhialto (talk) 09:20, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi! I went through and added a bunch of "the"s in front of Enterprise, in some cases two (+1 afterward) to be thorough. The article for Star Trek II has Featured Article status and has plenty of the Enterprises, so I figure it's fine here. It looks like this article wasn't super consistent being sans the, anyway. All this said, I don't feel super strongly about this -- I skimmed the wall of text above, and admittedly lost interest when I saw some editor get snarky. If I'm missing something huge, holler and happily (if surgically, please) change it back. --EEMIV (talk) 01:43, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

NCC nominclature

The article states that Jeffries designated the Enterprise NCC-1701, NCC being a combination of US commercial designation NC and the Russian CCCC. The source for this is a convention "report" by an unknown author who said that Jeffries said this. Although it may be true, I cannot find any reference to Russian aircraft using the designation CCCC. Obviously, CCCP was very common in those days, but this list shows that Chile would be the only country to have used that designation. Not sure if Jeffries was mistaken, the author, or me, but somethings not right. StarHOG (Talk) 19:25, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Probably Jeffries misspeaking on stage, and worth cleaning up in the article. The account in this article matches closely with what I dug up years ago for Spacecraft_in_Star_Trek#cite_note-11, though I see now that BBC ref has vanished. I'll go dig in the Internet Archive. --EEMIV (talk) 20:24, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Fixed-ish. I didn't change CC CC to CC CP since the other ref is in the first person, so it's his own words. Maybe CCCC was used by the Russians and just can't find that. Maybe drop [sic] in front of it and rephrase the assertion as a quote directly from him? I dunno. What do you think? --EEMIV (talk) 20:29, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I saw something in another article, or something online, that had the exact same info but he said CCCP. I'm trying to find that again but I don't know where in blazes I spied it. I'll keep looking. StarHOG (Talk) 20:49, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Take a look - I think what's there flies (pun unintended but not apologized for). --EEMIV (talk) 03:42, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Expansion needs

Occurs to me the article lacks information about the Animated Series and digitally updated Original Series versions (development, critical reaction, etc.) of the ship. --EEMIV (talk) 01:53, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Never even considered that angle, it's still the USS Enterprise. I'm on vacation all this week and won't be doing any editing, but would be happy to work on that when I return. StarHOG (Talk) 12:28, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Access to article?

Can anyone get at https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01956051.2015.1075955? --EEMIV (talk) 02:51, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Never mind: got it. Reading. Carry on. --EEMIV (talk) 01:29, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Input requested: name-change proposal that would affect this article

Fellow Treksters: I have an idea that would affect this and other articles about various starships Enterprise. I'd appreciate your input at the WikiProject talk page at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Star_Trek#Dammit._Very_complicated,_head-scratching_idea_to_consider. Thanks! --EEMIV (talk) 01:23, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Decommissioned?

Sources support use of the term "decommissioned", both as a referenced claim, and under the usage of the term itself. Of course we wouldn't use the term "sold", because the vessel wasn't sold - but it was decommissioned.

Ship decommissioning supports the context of usage, and it's sourced as per startrek.com - "Shortly before its decommissioning in 2285, Kirk took the Enterprise -- against orders -- to the Genesis Planet..."

Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:50, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, let's get back to basics. Can you give a source on screen that says she was decommissioned? At the beginning of ST:III they say she is going to be decommissioned, but the crew steals her. Startrek.com mixes canon with non-canon in their descriptions, so I'm not sure about that. Starfleet is also not a contemporary navy, so we don't know what their rules about destruction and decommissioning are, so the wikipedia article you list isn't of any help. Then she is destroyed over the genesis planet; That is not decommissioning. So, if you can't provide a canon reference, decommissioning has no place in this article. StarHOG (Talk) 14:05, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Even if you go by Startrek.com, "shortly before..." means it didn't happen, right? StarHOG (Talk) 15:53, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

While we discuss it, the original stays in place. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:54, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

It only "didn't happen" because it was destroyed before the act. Intent to decommission was clearly made with a specific date, so it's a valid parameter. And let's just clarify something else - are you somehow suggesting that startrek.com is not a valid source of references for Star Trek data?

How about a compromise of the decommission date with a qualifier to say that it was destroyed before the actual event occurred?

| decommissioned = 2285<ref>Enterprise destroyed over the Genesis Planet prior to actual decommission</ref>

Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:04, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

The startrek.com website is not canon. Paramount says that it is a print source, and therefore not canon. Just because you post edit war banners on my talk page and make authoratative statements like "until we discuss this, my edit stays put", doesn't make you right. "Due to be decommissioned" is not the same as decommissioning. Nothing in canon says that the ship was decommissioned before being destroyed, so the article doesn't say it. If you would like the article to say something, please provide a reference. StarHOG (Talk) 17:16, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I placed an edit war template on your page because instead of WP:BRD you were edit warring. And your quote above is not what I said. I said "the original stays in place." That the two happen to be the same is just the way it goes. People not adhering to BRD, or insisting that the "new" version stays while its merits are discussed is one of my pet peeves.

Why does a print source suddenly cease to be canon? Where is the evidence to support the claim that startrek.com is not a reliable source for Star Trek material? Do Paramount actually say "...it is a print source, and therefore not canon." Just because you say that, does not make you right either. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:26, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with removing the "decommissioned" line. The adding/restoring editor should cite a reliable and compelling third-party source that asserts the vessel is decommissioned in the fictional universe (or, more precisely, that there was an intent to depict the make-believe Enterprise as having been decommissioned). In isolation, one can infer from the one sentence at startrek.com that the ship was decommissioned at some later date. However, the sentence that immediately follows really does seem to undercut any such inference -- along with the preponderance of material (scripts, the producers talking about the fate of the ship, the final film, the novelization, etc. etc.) -- that all pretty much seem to agree that the ship didn't stick around long enough "to be" decommissioned (for whatever rite that involves) and its plan for "decommissioned"ness became moot since it went kablooey before decommissioning could happen. Leaning solely on the startrek.com line while ignoring pretty much everything else seems like cherrypicking. While well-intentioned, the proposed compromise that adds a footnote 1) undermines the idea that it was "actually" decommissioned and 2) introduces clutter to the infobox. Perhaps the adding/restoring editor can go to the vehicle template talk page and propose adding a field for "decommissioning was planned but something else happened" field ;-]. As a total sidenote, this discussion has a few times invoked canon. Canon doesn't really mean anything at Wikipedia -- we're instead concerned with verifiability and notability, which is why e.g. James T. Kirk references fan productions. And remember: "canon" only describes the in-universe "truth" of a subject, but well-written Wikipedia content should mainly focus on the real-world aspects of a topic. --EEMIV (talk) 00:16, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Because the decommissioned-ness doesn't seem clearcut -- again, the restoring editor themselves is proposing a footnote qualifier -- perhaps we omit the not-cut-and-dry date from the infobox, and instead make sure the depiction section points out that the ship was intended to be decommissioned in 2285, but went to smithereens before it could happen? --EEMIV (talk) 00:58, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm in favor of that. As long as it doesn't appear in the info box, that, to me, is totally misleading. Thanks for your analysis, BTW. StarHOG (Talk) 12:58, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

My point is that decommissioning is not something that happens overnight. Enterprise was taken out of service and left in dry dock for the crew to be removed and to be left languishing long enough for Kirk to stroll up and take off with her. If she was still in active service there would have been crew, security - and she would have been out on a mission, not in berth.

Also, I have to take issue with StarHOG's utter arrogance in ignoring and flouting BRD, to such an extent when I felt it necessary to template them. As an apparently experienced editor they should be aware of the etiquette surrounding edits and reversions and await an agreed outcome - consensus - before forcing their version onto a page. It would be apparent from my editing history that I've been away a while and would be responding when I had chance. At the moment their behaviour weakens the argument by simply editwarring their version in place, however, it's also obvious that regardless of a decision StarHog will just edit their version in place anyway, so let it be. Chaheel Riens (talk) 05:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Chaheel Riens, perhaps it'd be worthwhile to ping the Wikiproject talk page and invite more input? Also, I agree that StarHog should not have rushed to again remove the content -- especially considering the recent back-and-forth over it just a few days ago. --EEMIV (talk) 15:40, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, before my name gets dragged through the mud here, let's look at what happened. Wildlover22 added the "decommissioned" info. I changed it to "struck" trying to work with the editor rather than just revert their stuff. Chaheel Riens changed it back to decommissioned without, IMO, giving any effort to find better wording. I then deleted "decommissioned" from the info box since, if it didn't fit and no other parameters were valid, better to not have it. I then got reverted and was told in the summary that I was edit warring, and a banner got placed on my talk page warning me of edit warring. EEMIV posted on May 17 a statement opposing the use of decommissioned. Three days later on May 20 is when I removed decommissioned again, because no other editors were showing up to offer opinions and some days 2 out of 3 happens to be a consensus. For doing this I was subjected to ad hominem attacks in both the edit summary and this talk page. I find it laughable that BRD was mentioned and used against me when I was the one who reverted Wildlover22's Bold edit and Chaheel Riens did nothing to discuss. But mostly I am outraged by the blatant personal attacks in Chaheel Riens' above post and that they are somehow acceptable in an argument to other editors that I am somehow in the wrong. StarHOG (Talk) 22:26, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I didn't need to find any better wording, because as I clearly stated, I believed "decommissioned" to be the best word. It was certainly better than "struck" - not least for the fact that "struck" isn't even a valid parameter for the infobox.

2 out of 3 may be a majority, but it is not necessarily a consensus - and claiming consensus as soon as you have said majority and effectively ending the discussion is not great etiquette. If you're so confident of your version being chosen, waiting a few more days wouldn't hurt would it? Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

However, you're right about BRD - and for that I apologise. Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:59, 27 May 2020 (UTC)