Talk:J class

Reinserted speculation
Shran and Gys, all you guys did was basically reinsert all the speculation I'd worked out of the article. It's not my intent to try to pick a fight, but your reworkings leave the same erroneous impression the article originally had.Capt Christopher Donovan 09:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't look at me, I just fixed some things! :P That said... what speculation do you speak of? Both "class J" vessels (Mayweather's and Mudd's) were said to be cargo ships (with the Enterprise reference likely a "wink" to the original series references). There is a background note stating that the ships may not be exactly the same type of design, but they were both called class J freighters, so... :/ --From Andoria with Love 11:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Gys? Who? Anyway...because it is-not/was-not speculation: "old J-class" freighter, "class J cargo ship", "old class J starship"-- to say these three vessels, with the same designation, are not the same is speculation, as explained in the revised background section, especially considering the blatant effort ENT made to reference TOS throughout. Otherwise, where is it stated that they are not the same class; nor has the remastered version of the TOS ep aired yet. --Alan 18:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Alan about the mispell (should have read "Gvs"). That said, what we have here is an "Antares situation". There is nothing more than naming "homages" to connect them, and as our big "brawl" over the original 13 Connies established, naming intentions and behind the scenes hints are not enough to establish a canon connection.Capt Christopher Donovan 20:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Honestly, the only "brawl" in that other situation, as I recall, was the whole "not looking at the whole picture" thing. Besides, "starship" (not "Starship class") is much more generic than "class J". As is the case here, the facts remain: "old J-class" freighter, "class J cargo ship", "old class J starship"-- to say these three vessels, with the same designation, are not the same is speculation. The only thing that is not connecting them is the crappy 1960s special effects. The descriptors remain the same. It's like saying that a M class (or class M) planet that is called such but doesn't look Earth is not really not a class M, we just speculate it to be that. That may be true, but not knowing the facts that define the class, in either case, leaves us with only the ability to go on the connection made with the available facts given by each respective definition. --Alan 21:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Page split
Seeing as TOS-R has proven that these are two very different designs, I have created Class J starship as the new home for the original J class. --Alan del Beccio 23:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

PNA
An anon placed a pna-inaccurate on this article without explanation- I'm not entirely sure what is inaccurate about it.-31dot 12:21, October 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry it was meant to be on the Y Class. - Heaney, October 27 2010

You have changed it to a pna-cite- what needs to be cited?--31dot 13:01, October 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * Where in Horizon does it state the cargo capacity of the J class? - Heaney: 27 October 2010