Talk:USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-J)

Federation starship?
What is this ship doing in the list of Federation Starships? In 'Enterprise' it's from the future, and therefore should be in in the 'list of future ships' section. --81.206.223.145


 * Yes, but that is a list of future starship classes, while federation starships is a list of all starships mentioned, regardless of timeframe. -- Michael Warren 18:25, 7 Jun 2004 (CEST)


 * i think it can be in both sections, if theres is a list of future ships too. there's no need to restrict data linkage, it effectivly prohibits us from building the web to remove links because they are only partially relevant. --Captainmike 18:23, 7 Jun 2004 (CEST) [edited] Captainmike 18:30, 7 Jun 2004 (CEST)

Baqer says, has ANY reference to NCC-1701 J(ie-Crew,where she was constructed, Other famous battles, etc.) been made?DaREJECTfromSection31 02:34, October 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * Cobra says, no, and wonders why we are talking in the third person? --OuroborosCobra talk 04:39, October 14, 2010 (UTC)

Ithenites and Klingons?
A recent edit added: "The crew of Enterprise-J included several Xindi, Ithenites and Klingons. (ENT: "Azati Prime")" to the article. Are Ithenites and Klingons serving aboard Enterprise-J? I thought they were just mentioned as Federation members; only the Xindi were directly stated to be on the J. --Steve 00:11, 19 Jun 2004 (CEST)
 * You're right. By the way, did you notice the shadow of the Vor'Cha class Klingon battlecruiser appearing in front of the second large explosion? ;-) --BlueMars 00:22, Jun 19, 2004 (CEST)

Enterprise J
(moved from Reference Desk)

I am trying to find an image of the Enterprise J as shown on Enterprise. The Memory Apha listing has a box showing a place for the computer diagram but that is all. Is there any image references of this ship available? -- Richard Baker


 * No exterior shots were made for the episode. The only view we have of the ship is the one presented here, seen behind the characters as they looked out the corridor window --Captain Mike K. Bartel 05:30, 11 Aug 2004 (CEST)

There is now a very large color print available of the exterior of the Enterprise J. It is in the 'Ships of the Line' Calender for Feb 2004. The image is 12"x24" and I can scan it in sections and splice it in photoshop to send to Memory Alpha but I have no idea how to send it or what would be a maximum file size. The image is nice and I will be glad to send it if someone could just tell me where to upload in to. -- Richard Baker

I have tried to view the referenced image of the Enterprise J and it will not display anything. The only thing I get is a grey box with a text line mentioning that it is a computer graphic display from the show. I could also not get the images from E2 and Twilight to display. This is my first entry into Memory Alpha and I cannot get anything to show except artfully arranged text with a background. I am using WinXP/IE6 with all current patches. What is the trick to get the embedded images to display anything more thtn a grey box with a description? -Richard Baker


 * Have you tried to click on it? The image should have a page with its own disclaimer and so forth, which also contains a direct link to the image file itself. otherwise, i'm stumped. The image has spread some, perhaps you can find a copy on a different server using http://www.google.com 's image search. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 21:37, 16 Aug 2004 (CEST)


 * Pictures of the Enterprise J are easily found on google images now.. I can post one, but is there any reason no one else has done so yet? Skold 06:56, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)


 * One as described above was just deleted, exactly because it was from the SotL calender, not from the episode itself. If there's an image of the ship, from the episode (which, I'm sure, doesn't exist), that could be uploaded... -- Cid Highwind 10:59, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)


 * As I recall there was a (partial?) MSD visible in one shot.. Better than nothing? Skold 12:10, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, we should have that one on the page. But I think we already had that here in the past. I wonder if someone removed that while adding the now deleted image. Perhaps check the history of this article, it may still be available without re-upload. -- Cid Highwind 12:23, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)


 * I found it and put it on the page. Apparently someone uploaded the SotL image over it at one time.--Tim Thomason 12:43, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)

It looks flat
Can anyone explain why it's so flat? I don't think anybody can fit inside.


 * That's an optical illusion, there actually appear to be several decks if you look at the windows and the size of the Navigational deflector. -AJHalliwell 05:05, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Enterprise followers will recall an episode where they encountered, and brought aboard, a Timeship from far in the future, with a dead Pilot who, although fundamentally human, was of very mixed race, including apparently Xindi.


 * That ship employed some kind of dimensional/spacial manipulation technology, so that it was immensely larger internally that it appeared from the outside. Perhaps this is the case with the NCC 1701-J? Perhaps both vessels are from a similar time period? Regards, Ian M.


 * The episode where they found the future timeship was -- where it was revealed to be from the 31st century.


 * The Enterprise-J, however, was from the 26th century -- several other Star Treks with technology from the 27th century and 29th century have indicated mankind might not have the fantastic abilities that the 31st century pod had. (good theory though, but the dates don't match up). -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk


 * My view is that the pod's living space was just one mishmash of a holodeck and a replicator, while at the same time, the pod's mechanics (computers and stuff) were placed around its inner wall. Enterprise NX-01 crew at the time were just not familiar with holographic technology, so that is why they described it like that. But dimensional/spacial manipulation technology, which would actually manipulate dimensions and space outside the holographic field would really be something very advanced. --Mardus 05:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Except that the Enterprise crew had encountered technology similar to Holodecks and with the capabilities of "looking bug" when they met the Xyrillians. Therefore had it been something that simple, the crew would have been able to recognize it. No, this was something that was actually larger on the inside, not simply appearing to be. Yes, it is something very advanced, which is completely believeable given that it was in use nearly a millenium from the time of Enterprise. --OuroborosCobra talk |undefined  05:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The complexity of dimensional manipulation technology is irrelevant. If you recall, the time agent Daniels had such a device in the back of his closet/locker door, making a storage space in the door that was deep enough for captain Archer's whole to fit. So the technology was in some kind of use by the 26 century. The question still remains, but it is possible.


 * I fail to see how Daniels, a 31st century temporal agent, using something proves that it is from the 26th century. --OuroborosCobra talk 19:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Enterprise-J type
Do we need this article? It's hard enough to write a coherent article about the Enterprise-J itself - this "class/type" has no name, was never really seen on-screen and only one ship belongs to this class. At most, this should be a redirect to the ship article itself, although I think that even this is unnecessary. -- Cid Highwind 22:05, 12 Dec 2005 (UTC)


 * Aren't there oter articles about unknown starship types? I could have sworn there were... Anyway, if so, I think this has as much right to be an article as those do; if not, maybe we can have some background info on not knowing what type of ship the ENT-J was on the ship's article itself, and delete this article altogether. --From Andoria with Love 18:33, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)


 * This is a legitimate article about a starship class, I see no problem with having it anymore than having or Aurora type and several other "types" as a way to differentiate the ship from its' class. --Alan del Beccio 11:19, 19 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I'm not saying that this article is illegitimate or "has no right to exist". All I'm asking everyone to consider is if an article about an unknown starship class with unknown specifications, an unknown design (all we have is the Okudagram, the image probably needs to be deleted) and just one starship known to belong to the class really is useful.

At the moment, this article is only linked to from the list of federation starship classes - that link might as well be a link to the ship article itself (or, this page a redirect to the ship article). This situation is similar to the one about "Stars vs. star systems", where we refrained from creating both pages for every reference, simply because it doesn't really make sense to do so if there's no real information to put on both pages. -- Cid Highwind 14:12, 19 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * (This isn't my reply, but there are also some valid (in my opinion) arguments at Talk:Aurora type. --Alan del Beccio 18:43, 19 Dec 2005 (UTC))
 * I think it would make a lot of sense to just redirect this page over to the Enterprise J page. If we saw more than one of these ships than it would make sense to have a sepearte page for the type... but as it stands now it's just more confusing than anything. --Sloan47 17:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Umm, why is this article an exception. We have a background source stating that the ships class is Universe-class. Why do we not name this ship as such like we have named Niagara-class, New Orleans-class, Freedom-class, Springfield-class, Challenger-class, Cheyenne-class, and so on, all nemed after a bg source statement...?? --Pseudohuman 16:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Those class names were published in the Star Trek Encyclopedia, which is used as a near-canonical resource for other licensed publications. While we've certainly seen designers arrive at class names on their own (as Alex Jaeger did), they still needed to be sent to producers for approval in that and other recorded instances. We don't know if that was the case with Universe-class or whether or not special approval is required, so I would wait for this name to appear on StarTrek.com or similar highest-profile sources. – 1312.4 18:25, August 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * And StarTrek.com isn't considered as a background resource that we use for a (as you put it) "near-canonical resource", so it's irrelevant what goes up on there. -- sulfur 18:43, August 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * It depends on how the hypothetical writer of the StarTrek.com article explains the status of the class name and whether other officials confirm its status. The Encyclopedia isn't important because Memory Alpha agrees that it is, but because even its non-canonical, conjectural information can influence the canon to this day and needs to be adhered to by lower-level licensed sources. – 1312.4 19:28, August 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * No, it depends on whether it shows up on screen again. We don't use StarTrek.com for anything.  At all.  Nothing. -- sulfur 20:13, August 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * But MA is already using large quantities of offscreen information in non-background sections, merely because such information is highly official. If it were otherwise, almost every date from Mike Okuda's works would have to be prefixed with "circa," because it never appeared in the canon as opposed to raw timespans such as "twenty-two years ago." A global ban on a particular site just isn't possible, since MA must be required to follow the official hierarchy of information, whatever subtle form it takes, and never contradict it. Interesting information should always be investigated for its official status, regardless of whether it was first published in the Encyclopedia, in Doug Drexler's blog or on StarTrek.com. – 1312.4 20:53, August 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * Rather than stating that we must use that information properly, please spend some time with the various policies that we put together on resources that we use and how we use them. No matter what happens with StarTrek.com, the "Universe type" mentioned in the background information will be nothing more than background information unless it appears on screen.  Do not confuse "StarTrek.com" with canon material. -- sulfur 21:13, August 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * Even if, for example, Mike Okuda were to say that -class was actually approved by Rick Berman but never had a chance to be published in the Encyclopedia, since there were no later editions? What if that were the reason the information appeared on StarTrek.com in our hypothetical example? If MA were to ignore such evidence, it would be inconsistent with itself, accepting highly official information in one case but not in another. This is why a blanket exclusion of StarTrek.com cannot work, meaning we must investigate interesting information for its source. – 1312.4 21:31, August 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * BG. Whether Doug Drexler says it, Mike Okuda, Rick Berman, whomever.  It's still BG information. -- sulfur 00:41, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

Ships of the line Image
Why can't we use the Ships of the line image of the Enterprise J? Thats exactly what it looks like and all.


 * Because using an image from a product that people are supposed to pay money for wouldn't exactly be "fair use" and could lead to problems for Memory Alpha. That's why we're trying to remove such images as soon as we become aware of them. -- Cid Highwind 10:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, but as I recall images that are scaled down, in limited use, and if there are no available substitutes can be used under fair use. If what you have said is the "fair use" criteria Memory Alpha shouldn't have screen shots, or pictures of ships from games like "Starfleet Command III;" since you have to purchase the games to view the material. 70.110.40.109 05:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Screenshots are acceptable because they represent an incredibly small portion of the product, while the Ships of the Line is 1/12 of the product, a huge portion. --OuroborosCobra talk 06:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * So "portions" are now involved? Then what is the official, written down, maximum level of "portioning" allowed by Memory Alpha's standards. If there is no written standard; then anything else is opinion only. Also the one-twelfth figure is inaccurate since the image hosted on Memory Alpha would not contain the entire image, and the image would certainly not be at 1:1 scale or even 1:10 scale. 70.110.40.109 00:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * In the Book version of "Ships of the line" (which i have) there is a rendered version of 1701-J, and it is one of about 75 pages. 1/75th seems a much more workable number.
 * Please respond, i need to know wheather to upload the image or not– 7th Tactical 18:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No. Please do not.  It's been uploaded several times before.  And deleted several times before.  It may be acceptable to upload it to MB (you'd have to check there first), but not here. -- Sulfur 18:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * So do we have a rule saying how much "portion" can be used? Individual or even group decisions don't really matter much in wikidom, and I don't see one reached here.  Only actual policies and rules do.




 * I don't see the problem with using a smaller reduce-sized picture of Enterprise-J


 * The picture would not:
 * Be big with high resolution
 * Since it has already been published it would not diminish the significance of the creative work
 * It would not substantially diminish the market for the calendars, if anything it will have someone try to get a hold of the real thing for a big picture, and would give more exposure new calendars using old material.


 * How about book summaries? Aren't we publishing words, or the creative works, of the author by describing the whole book in one page sometimes with book cover and more?  Does that limit the market of said book?  If using the logic that then no one would buy the calendar, why would anyone buy the book after reading the whole story?  All the book apocrypha should be removed before we get legal problems from the publishers!


 * A small 3x3'' picture never did any harm, and would be better than a blurry screenie (although the screenie should still stay on the bottom). The whole concept of Wiki is a collection of summaries and samples from multiple sources on all topics we can find.  We have more than 1/12th of every Star Trek companion book quoted on this site. So then maybe we shouldn't have anything in Background Information that comes from a book people can buy?


 * We have quotes from books, lines from movies and the Memory Alpha in itself is one huge picture of the Star Trek franchise... Every word, every picture of an actor or director without their written permission, and everything outside of the discussion and talk pages is something grabbed from a series under fair use.


 * If we weren't set out to show small samples and summaries of all things trek under fair use, we could just delete all episode articles and replace them with a streaming video of the episode up top, and a scan of the companion book's page on the bottom and we really wouldn't need us =) – Saphsaph 08:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Quoting the descriptions of a book on the back cover is acceptable because money is not paid to read them- they are published to get people to buy the book. That's why they're on the back cover, so you can read them without buying the book.
 * With a calendar, money is paid to view the images, which you can't see until you pay and take the calendar home.
 * A line from an episode or a screenshot is like a book cover description- you can't understand the entire episode from one line or one picture, but it might get you to buy a DVD set or legally download the episode. Obviously, if that were not the case, we wouldn't be here.--31dot 11:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * To be fair, we do have other instances where we use images from magazines for illustrative purposes. If the image is of a CGI render or artwork in general, then the copyright belongs to Paramount, who owns all rights to graphics created on their behalf, and as long as the image wasn't used in the "in-universe" portion of the article, it would be as acceptable as several other images that we currently use, that I previously mentioned as having originated from a published text, including several images used here for the Star Trek: Phase II article. --Alan 15:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * We do have things from inside a book. In fact the more I read articles, the less I feel the need to buy a companion book.  Most things we have in background information is sourced from and comes from that series's companion book.  If we are to say that we can't have something on here that people would need to buy, we should then only have things we can source online, such as quotes from interviews and such in background information.  And I'm sorry but we really don't have a line from an episode.  We have the entire episode written in detail separated into acts.  We have the "memorable" quotes there too.
 * Homecoming
 * We have the entire episode written down to the last letter, apocrypha in the bottom stating things you wouldn't get from the back of the book. And in the homecoming novel we have a list of everything that happens in the book.  Now people, specially people like us who like Star Trek, would want to see the episode for themselves, and read the book ourselves.  That's why we don't mind writing such detailed "summaries".  We want to see the things ourselves because we really like Star Trek.  The same thinking should be applied to a small picture to highlight an article.  A trekkie, or trekker, would still want to buy the calendar to have a picture of what the future of star trek could look like. – Saphsaph 17:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * We have the entire episode written down to the last letter, apocrypha in the bottom stating things you wouldn't get from the back of the book. And in the homecoming novel we have a list of everything that happens in the book.  Now people, specially people like us who like Star Trek, would want to see the episode for themselves, and read the book ourselves.  That's why we don't mind writing such detailed "summaries".  We want to see the things ourselves because we really like Star Trek.  The same thinking should be applied to a small picture to highlight an article.  A trekkie, or trekker, would still want to buy the calendar to have a picture of what the future of star trek could look like. – Saphsaph 17:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that Memory Beta would allow this image (in lower-res fair use) because it is from a licensed product and Memory Beta exists to document the continuity of licensed Star Trek.


 * Beyond your fair use argument, I think the whole reason that Memory Alpha won't allow this image is because Memory Alpha exists to document the continuity of canon (episodic/theatrical filmed/animated) Star Trek -- which means a licensed calendar or comic book are not part of Memory Alpha's scope and therefore the images from them detailing the many facets of their publication are not necessary -- just like you probably wouldn't argue to upload this image to the DC Animated Universe wiki -- because it has little to do with the whole point of this wiki, which is how it plays into the continuity of a Star Trek episode.


 * Just like Memory Beta doesn't want images from Star Trek fan films -- because they aren't licensed and aren't part of that wiki's scope. Does this make sense? -- Captain MKB 18:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see the big problem seeing as we use pictures from other sources all over the place. Example: USS Defiant (2370)  Scroll down and you'll see sketches and pictures that weren't from the show but from another source.  However that makes a lot more sense than it wouldn't be allowed here under fair use.   I still don't really understand the logic behind being able to include screenshots from movies and not images from books though.  But if the reason is canon-icity then it makes sense.  It could, like the defiant's sketches, be added as a reference as to other looks of it.  Btw, does anyone know the source of this sketch that has been going around? http://www.utopiaplanitia.info/blueprints/1701j/original/pencil.jpg – Saphsaph 04:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The Defiant images are a separate issue. They are extra features from the DVDs (canon products), and are pictures that were used in the development of the canon product. The "Ships of th Line" image was not part of the development related to canon, is not an extra feature on a canon product, and is in and of itself the product for non-canon. --OuroborosCobra talk 05:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * We do have things to illustrate canon points that aren't canon in themselves. For example comics books.  We have comics books stories, covers and such on here to illustrate the points but they aren't considered Canon.  We have magazine and other pictures to illustrate Star Trek: Phase II even if it was never aired and therefore is not canon.  Phase II is even used in canon articles as reference or information, meaning we don't keep such articles to the side.  In Memory Alpha:Content policy FAQ it says "While TAS had originally been officially declared "apocryphal" by the studio, the studio and Memory Alpha consider it to be too important to simply ignore." Meaning we're willing we bend a little.  Memory Alpha:Content policy FAQ says, "We would never want to miss the fan-made stuff all around the planet because they really enrich the universe, no matter if we "believe" in them." Though not considered canon, the calendar is still published and authorized by paramount, and Memory Alpha:Resource policy says material provided by production staff, or even non-fiction but authorized can be added in background information.  Morder, a user here, once had to remind me that in the end this site is supposed to inform and entertain. If so many people keep trying to add the picture maybe there's something there to be noticed. Memory Alpha:Inform and entertain – Saphsaph 08:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I know this is old, and to honest I really only skimmed it, but if the image in question isn't from the current calendar, there may not be an issue, though if anyone would know who/how to contact someone on this that would be even better. - Archduk3 04:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * A product doesn't stop being copyrighted just because it is a couple of years old, sadly. --OuroborosCobra talk 04:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

No, but does have to do with the availability of the image and if no one can purchase it from the maker and if there is no suitable replacement it could be used. Lord Hyren 06:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

removed speculation

 * Speculation holds that this is the eleventh Federation Starfleet vessel to carry the name. This does not include the NX-01 Enterprise, which was not a Federation vessel.

Why does this even matter? Either explicitly state it, or don't. Seeing that the A, B, D, and E all explicitly state their place in the line, 2, 3, 5, 6-- therefore J would logically fall as the 11th. --Alan 02:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Doors to DS9
I was thinking maybe this should be added in the same spot where it says the corridoors look like the ones on DS9. Looking at the schematic, it looks like a DS9 console as well.--Cpt Kaziarl Nanaki 14:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

How many Enterprises?
I don't recall this scene, but a scene in Trials_and_Tribble-ations_(episode) had Lucsly stating that there had been "six" Enterprises. If so, then Enterprise J would have been from a different future than the one shown there. I think this should appear in this article. But it should be written by someone more familiar with these episodes than me. Thanks --Keeves 11:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, this does not need to be added. The phrase in question is only applicable up to that point in the early 2370's; obviously after that conversation had taken place there would be more Enterprises made up to the J-type we see in the mid-26th Century. -Lord Hyren 16:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed note

 * It is seen in the computer displays on board the Enterprise-J do not use the LCARS system. This is unclear though, as later in the series, the Sphere Builders are stopped, and the Battle of Procyon V is never actually fought.  The timeline may have then changed to include LCARS in the 26th century.

The fact that this all takes place in a possible timeline and that the ship is seen in a graphic is already noted in the article. The LCARS thing is speculation based on personal observation. --From Andoria with Love 21:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Possible name for the vessel class?
Roddenberry-Makes since that since none of the Star Trek canon has gone up to the 26th century I think this ship should be given this vessel class name.--Rift Fleet. Added 9:20 a.m. 05.15.08


 * Um no. MA doesn't make up details. Please see our Canon policy.– Cleanse 13:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge
Given that this Enterprise was the only ship of this type shown(and that this type might not even exist in the restored timeline), this information could be merged with the article about the ship. This was first mentioned by Cid Highwind here.--31dot 21:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge. For all the reasons above and on the Delta Flyer type page. - Archduk3 02:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Registry
This may be a nitpick, but where precisely is it stated that the registry of this Enterprise is NCC-1701-J? I know that Daniels mentions that it is "Enterprise-J"... but is it safe to assume that the registry scheme from the "prime" timeline carried over despite the Temporal Cold War? --76.216.84.2 17:58, November 19, 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not a nitpick, but I don't know of any other reason to differentiate it with a letter unless it had the same registry number. The Enterprise-C and Enterprise-E (both referred to as such in dialog) both had 1701.  Scotty in  stated "No bloody A, B, C, or D" when told there had been several starships Enterprise. --31dot 18:08, November 19, 2009 (UTC)

Protection
I have upgraded the protection of this article to all non-admin users due to the continued addition of the Ships of the Line image(which is noncanon, and discussed above) and limiting the protection to anons doesn't seem to be enough. I welcome another admin changing it back if they have a less drastic solution, but I'm not sure what that is right now.--31dot 18:57, July 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, twice in one month, whatever will we do with the inundation of these edits. Sysop protection is overkill. --OuroborosCobra talk 23:14, July 6, 2011 (UTC)

As I said, I would be more than happy to roll it back if you have a better suggestion. A good chunk of this article's history is edits to either add the Ship of the Line picture or remove it, or to add other noncanon info to the canon section and remove it.--31dot 23:52, July 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * My suggestion is to leave the settings at autoconfirmed. With only two vandalistic in the three weeks since this was set to autoconfirmed, there is not a massive problem that needs the vast majority of the proper editors of this website blocked from access to changing this article. --OuroborosCobra talk 12:22, July 7, 2011 (UTC)


 * Having had a look at the last 50 changes to the article, it seems as if full protection wouldn't be a "massive problem", either - ~60% of those edits are changes as described above and their reverts, and the remaining ones (unless I missed one) all seem to be minor copyediting. If that observation is correct, it would mean that there hasn't been a major edit to this article in more than a year, making your point somewhat moot.
 * It is correct that this article has been half-protected for "only" two weeks now - but it is also correct that all edits after that point had to be reverted. All in all, it just doesn't look as if we would be preventing a huge number of valid edits by fully protecting this article. If anything, perhaps the protection reason needs to be changed to better inform possible editors about past problems (addition of SotL-image) and about how to change the article (ask for unprotection on the talk page). -- Cid Highwind 15:27, July 7, 2011 (UTC)

Registry Number
This page is titled "USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-J)", but Daniels only calls it "Enterprise-J". We don't actually know the number, do we? --64.69.158.250 05:33, May 10, 2012 (UTC)


 * Its guaranteed to be the NCC-1701-J, since all of other Federation ships with the name Enterprise have the NCC-1701 registry, with a suffix letter denoting the subsequent ships of the lineage. The 2005 Ships of the Line calendar featured the USS Enterprise-J at warp for the month of March, where NCC-1701-J is in the title and visible on the ship. The Memory Beta article for the USS Enterprise-J has the calendar image, there is link at the bottom of the article. Zeta1127 of the 89th Legion (talk) 06:31, May 10, 2012 (UTC)


 * Zeta is correct- if it hadn't been called the "J", then we couldn't guess as to the number; but using "J" is in keeping with the established pattern. 31dot 10:09, May 10, 2012 (UTC)


 * Enterprise-J is definitely NCC-1701-J or it wouldn't be called Enterprise-J. DS9's Defiant isn't the first Defiant.  There was another one in TOS (same one as in the mirror universe episode of Enterprise).  DS9's Defiant isn't Defiant-B (or C or D etc) as that Defiant has a different registry number than the old one from TOS.  If the Enterprise-J had a different number (just to make up a number for example NCC-920123), then there would be no reason for the J (unless it's the 11th ship to use NCC-920123).  Why would Starfleet change the number in that case?  Hell, why would Starfleet keep using the same number to such a ridiculous extreme except for the fact that it's tradition to keep 1701 for the Enterprise?  14.202.32.28 08:05, May 28, 2012 (UTC)

Unprotection request
I would like to request that this page be unprotected, so I can add some more bg info to it. --Defiant 00:25, May 28, 2012 (UTC)

As it currently stands, the page is guilty of using the ill-advised "s's" (as in "Daniels's"), despite our guidelines about formatting. So, it would be cool if we could also change that slight error, which I'll be happy to do if the page is unblocked. --Defiant 00:31, May 28, 2012 (UTC)


 * Consider it done- but when you are finished it should be re-protected. 31dot 00:37, May 28, 2012 (UTC)

No problemo. :) --Defiant 00:41, May 28, 2012 (UTC)

I'm finished now. Thanks, 31dot. --Defiant 01:06, May 28, 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm impressed, I thought it would take you longer. :) 31dot 01:07, May 28, 2012 (UTC)

Well, I did hurry. Actually, now that I've moved the apocrypha info to a dedicated subsection, it may be better if the NO-TOC thing's added; sorry I forgot about it. --Defiant 01:10, May 28, 2012 (UTC)


 * I put it in there (I think :) ) 31dot 01:34, May 28, 2012 (UTC)