Talk:Timeship

Forum:Starships and Timeships Classified by Use and Space-Time Functions
MMM... There's a "please always sign your post with" instruction I can't fully follow due to lack of comprehension... Nonetheless... This title corresponds to a hard to find article in this site... Well... Indeed an inexistant article... Some vessel types are mostly exclusively used for scientifical research, others for rapid fire, others have a more heavy warhead deployment, etc. Without personalyl checking every page that is hard to attest so... I think that for those who can easily loose their track this article would be a nice addition... Where to check what each type is about before checking details. Just this. (signed for user by another) -- 200.121.78.51
 * Im not sure if any of this is comprehensible? A timeship would be a ship that could travel through time i guess? Do you have a point? About it? -- Captain M.K.B. 23:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I meant something akin to what is seen in the following wikipage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Starfleet_ship_classes

There starship and timeship classes are categorized under categories althought I wouldn't classify "destroyers" and "cruisers" or "frigates" (not shure of which kind I'm thinkg of right now) as different category and, likewise I would group "scouts" and "explorers" together as both do the same thing: Explore. But I have this idea that only Wells Type and Aeon Type vessels are timeships... Whethere there are more, that's beyond my knowledge.
 * WEll, some of these designations have not been described fully in an episode or movie. We really can't add a wealth of information thats not derived from our sources, the Star Trek episodes, and they havent quite given a definition of how prevalent any type of "timeship" would be. The two you mention are the only examples of Starfleet time-traveling ships mentioned in the show, although there are at least a couple other future ships that seem designed for timetravel, as seen in "A Matter of Time" and "Future Tense", neither seemed to be from Starfleet. -- Captain M.K.B. 01:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Accidental
I'm thinking that the shuttlecraft SC-4 isn't an 'accidental' and should be listed with the other deliberate time ships, Admiral Janeway did deliberately take it back in time to the earlier Voyager to change time. That deliberate intent would indicate it wasn't 'accidental' but deliberate? - llloyd4


 * The article is distinguishing between ships designed/sanctioned for time travel and those that are not. That's why the list of ships in that italicised paragraph is for "accidental" OR "unsanctioned" time travel.– Cleanse 08:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)#


 * If we're saying that, then I do not believe the Enterprise should be in this list. OK, it was sent on a time travel mission, but it was never specifically designed with time travel in mind, unlike the Wells class and the Aeon, and therefore, IMO, cannot be classified as a timeship. -- TrekFan Talk 15:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I was just about to make a post asking about this myself when I noticed this existing section. If we're going to make the distinction along the line of "designed/sanctioned for time travel", we should change the heading to "Accidental/unsanctioned timeships" rather than just "Accidental timeships" as it is now. SC-4's trip through time was far from accidental; ditto for the Borg sphere in First Contact, and even for the "HMS Bounty". -Mdettweiler 22:58, February 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * I think "Unsanctioned timeships" would be better, as that covers accidents aside from ships which were used but not intended for time travel. Trying to keep slashes to a minimum. :) --31dot 23:04, February 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, you're right, that does work. Okay, I've changed it to that. -Mdettweiler 23:06, February 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * One more thought, though: would this quite cover the Borg sphere from First Contact? I know it wasn't originally designed for time travel, but nothing happens "unofficially", per se, in the collective. The sphere was likely still in contact with the collective when the decision was made to go back in time, so how would we handle this? -Mdettweiler 23:09, February 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * We would probably handle it like the original Enterprise- include it as deliberate since there was intent to use it for time travel and there was no external force involved(and unlike the SC-4 they did not obtain outside help)--31dot 23:15, February 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, I've moved the sphere to the official timeships section. -Mdettweiler 23:51, February 8, 2010 (UTC)

Jellyfish
Wasn't the Jellyfish built for time travel even if it wasn't seen traveling as part of its mission? Hiya, Jim-boy. 23:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It was never stated so no. &mdash; Morder 23:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't forget the Enterprise-E. They followed the Borg sphere and then were able to get back to the 24th Century.- JustPhil 00:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Going back in time doesn't mean it's a timeship. It just means the ship happen to travel through time. If it was built to travel through time, which neither was, then it would be a timeship. As stated in the article they're considered accidental... :) &mdash; Morder 00:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've clarified in the article that the timeships listed are designed for temporal travel.--31dot 00:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * But Geordi is able to reconfigure the engines or something and they are able to go back to the future.- JustPhil 00:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it wasn't designed for temporal travel. They just copied what the sphere did to go back. Future ships may have been designed to do that but the enterprise wasn't. &mdash; Morder 01:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The only reason the Jellyfish went back in time is because it was sucked into a red matter-created black hole. Its design and its engines had nothing to do with it. --From Andoria with Love 01:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Voyage Home
Shouldn't the Klingon bird of prey Kirk and co. captured be included here? 125.238.132.34 02:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not a timeship - read the requirements on the article. &mdash; Morder 02:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

My apologies, I didn't read the whole article - I just saw the table of ships. 125.238.132.34 02:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No big deal, lots of people request that ships be added. :) &mdash; Morder 02:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Accidental timeships
I think it is good to have a list of "accidental" timeships, but since this page is about ships designed/intended for time travel, shouldn't accidental ones be on a seperate page?--31dot 21:02, January 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Depends, really I can see both sides of the arguments, have it here because they traveled through time, while on the other hand, they were not intended to do as such. I mean, we don't call the deflector dish a phaser emitter because it can be modified to fire a phaser burst.  Perhaps, with that line of reasoning, there could be a brief mention of ships not intended to time travel, are capable of it in various forms with a link leading to the type of page you have suggested. --Terran Officer 21:30, January 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it would be somewhat overkill to go to the trouble of putting all the "accidental" timeships on a separate page. After all, it's not like anyone's going to search explicity for "accidental timeships"; rather, the only way they'll get there is through the main Timeship page. It's not like the page is overly long as it is, so I don't think it would hurt to leave the section where it is now. -Mdettweiler 01:00, January 20, 2010 (UTC)

If we're going to leave it alone then we should rewrite the page to state that a timeship is any ship that has traveled through time, not just those designed to do so.--31dot 01:14, January 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * [edit conflict] - This seems like a good idea, but from what I gathered almost every warp capable starship can travel through time using the time warp (couldn't resist), so only the ships that have actually time traveled should be mentioned. That said, I don't think it would be a problem to mention "accidental" timeships here, since they would have gained the moniker by default when they did IMO. - 01:18, January 20, 2010 (UTC)

I have rewritten the opening to fit in with the addition. Feel free to revert or change it.--31dot 01:29, January 20, 2010 (UTC)