Talk:USS Rhode Island

Looking at the picture, there is no way that the Rhode Island, in EndGame, is a Nova-class vessel. Major Pita 00:36, 14 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * It's a slightly refit Nova-class, remember this is 30 years after the Equinox was built. Think of the Enterprise and the Enterprise-A. That, and production notes specifically call it a Nova class refit. - AJHalliwell 00:52, 14 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll go with that. It's a refit version like in the Constellation Class. The class page should then reflect that and have images of both versions, as was done in the Constellation Class. Major Pita 07:10, 14 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I just checked and this has already been done. It is an excellent class article :) Major Pita 13:13, 14 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Um, that would be ; there was no refit for the . --Alan del Beccio 07:22, 14 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, you are correct. Thinking before first cuppa, it's still early ;) Major Pita 07:29, 14 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Thats okay, I'm on the other end of the spectrum -- that is, on my way to bed! --Alan del Beccio 07:43, 14 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Negh'var
Improbable, that those ships are Negh'vars. They are much to small. I guess, those are ships that look like Negh'var, but like with the Bird of Prey, there exist several ship-classes with that design but with several sizes.


 * That would certainly explain the relatively small size. And the Klingons are known for using the same design on more than one ship, the Klingon Bird-of-Prey for example has at least two differently scaled classes, namely B'Rel and K'Vort. --Maxwell Fawkes 09:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Scaling should be a non-issue. --Alan 01:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Existence?
Wouldn't it be logical to assume that the Rhode Island existed only in the non-altered timeline, without Admiral Janeway's alterations? After all, the Enterprise-D isn't refitted like in, but destroyed, so I think the whole article should be marked as covering an alternate timeline or it should be mentioned that Rhode Island's existence can be questioned, since Janeway's changes in the timeline might cause the non-construction of this ship. smintili 00:46, November 23, 2010 (UTC)


 * We shouldn't mention what wasn't said, even if it might make sense. We just say that it was in another timeline and let the reader decide for themselves beyond that.  For all we know it could have been built before Voyager.--31dot 01:34, November 23, 2010 (UTC)


 * On the basis of NCC-72701, the spacecraft is rather older than the Voyager or Defiant. Maybe not previously built, but given earlier in order. --Mark McWire 09:57, November 23, 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep in mind that there is no evidence that registry numbers indicate build order- although such a thought is one more reason why we shouldn't speculate about when it was made.--31dot 11:04, November 23, 2010 (UTC)


 * In my opinion: It is empirically proven that the numbers are assigned in ascending order of time, it's just not clear whether the numbers relate to order, construction or commissioning. --Mark McWire 12:08, November 23, 2010 (UTC)


 * If the numbers are assigned in an ascending order, then why is there such a large gap between the Constellation and the Intrepid? Okay, in real life, it's because Constalltion's model possibly only contained the numbers 1, 7 and 0. But in Star Trek reality, the Rhode Island would then either be somewhat 50 years old (mind that the original Enterprise was decomissioned after 40 years/28 years excluding TAS as seen in Star Trek III) or the number would have been reassigned from another vessel. But in the latter case the ship would carry an -A in the name. Something doesn't fit.