Talk:Class F shuttlecraft

Administrative shuttle
trying to remember -- did "The Menagerie" classify this as an "Administrative shuttle" or something like that? -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 21:40, 31 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Warp capable? Limited range?
I seem to recall in "The Menagerie, Part I," the Picasso was pursuing USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) after the latter went to warp. So it MUST have been able to do something (maybe Warp 2 or 3, just as conjecture). Also, the computer informed Spock that it was past its point of safe return (fuel expenditure), right? I'm too lazy to pop inthe disc yet one more time this month, does anyone recall these details from the episode? TIA. Kojiro Vance | Talk 17:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Name source?
where does the classification "Class F" come from? I don't remember that from any dialogue. 68.145.128.30 03:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that it's from a combination of the computer in the Menagerie and the Spaceflight Chronology book. -- sulfur 04:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * COMPUTER: "Computed. Object is a Class F shuttlecraft. Duranium metal shell, ion engine power..."--Alan 05:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

reversing latest edits
I´m inclined to reverse the latest edits, but I´m not entirely sure in this case...It is a first time editor, but from the tone of it, he or she knows what it is all about, How to proceed...Sennim 18:39, November 25, 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know if the edit should be reversed, but I'm not clear on where the information comes from, so we may need to put a pna or incite tag on it.--31dot 20:41, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, which PNA? though I'm still in STRONG favor of reversing the edit as it is very much unquoted--Sennim 22:09, November 25, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to reverse the reversal, but I probably would have put a pna-cite on the section. The information added seems like it could make sense so I would have given a chance to source it.  But it's not a big deal.--31dot 01:46, November 26, 2011 (UTC)

Again, I agree, but which (PNA) one? As of now, I'm aching to reverse, why, uncited, hopelessly unformatted etc., yet it might be true, so the question still remains, what to do?--Sennim 02:22, November 26, 2011 (UTC)


 * Now that you've reverted it, a PNA is unnecessary. But in the future, as 31dot alluded to, you could use pna-cite or incite to tag information for which a source isn't provided.–Cleanse ( talk 09:31, November 26, 2011 (UTC)

If I didn't have time to fix it, I would have let the poor formatting go until the information was sourced. Once that was done, then it could be fixed, if not sooner.--31dot 09:57, November 26, 2011 (UTC)


 * The second to last comment way down at the bottom might have something to do with this. -  18:22, November 26, 2011 (UTC)


 * You're right, I jumped the gun on this one...It is a comment made by the bona-fide owner of the shuttle, I'll will edit the section in due time to reflect the comments she made on this matter..--Sennim 12:46, December 3, 2011 (UTC)