Talk:Enterprise history

All discussion prior to 2006-Jul-01 was from when this page was the USS Enterprise disambiguation. When that page was moved here, and then recreated, none of the discussion was germane to what this page is now (the history of ships named Enterprise). Therefore all said discussion was moved to the new Talk:USS Enterprise page (which is what it the comments were all about in the first place.) —MJBurrage • TALK  • 00:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Headache
Ahh!?! What on Alpha Yaddayadda III is going on on this page? It's part Real-world POV and part in-Trek, it's got a new form of Trek speculation I have never seen before, speculation on the real future: the Enterprise (aircraft carrier) is going to be decommission in 2013 and replaced with another ship named Enterprise? We don't know if the ship was/will (obviously I hope not) destroyed in the Iraq War. Then we've got the Wikipedia citation-style used, which we don't use on MA. So besides the Pna-inaccurate, there should probably also be a pna-unformatted. - AJ Halliwell 06:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I had used the footnotes for dates that were apocryphal, because I thought it read and flowed better in this context, while still being clear on what was cannon. That being said I have no problem with your changes in that respect.
 * As for the next carrier Enterprise, given the CVN-65's commissioning date, it is to be expected that it's service would end in Trek's history as it is scheduled to in our near future. Given the high likelihood of the US Navy commissioning another Enterprise carrier, and the importance of that future carriers service lifetime in Trek's history (WWIII etc.) I thought it should at least be mentioned as a note. (which is why it was indented and italicized)
 * The listing that I was unsure of including (and still am) was the VSS Enterprise, since Trek's history was already past this level by then. —MJBurrage • TALK  • 09:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Great opening quote by the way. —MJBurrage • TALK  • 09:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I made some changes that I hope are considered to be improvements. —MJBurrage • TALK  • 17:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Just added the Union Army Balloon Corps Enterprise with a note. I mulled over putting it in the background and/or apocrypha section, but as it is real-world history and therefore likely Trek history, and germane to the topic, and interesting, I put it chronological order pending feedback. —MJBurrage •  TALK  • 16:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Aparently the Civil War ballons were mentioned in —MJBurrage •  TALK  • 16:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Non-canon removal
Any ships, dates, events, and fine details that were not established within Star Trek canon still need to be removed. --From Andoria with Love 04:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Enterprise-F
Can we not assume that there is an Enterprise-F? After all, there's a J, and between E and J is F... 198.96.32.149 20:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * We can't even assume that there is an Enterprise-J. The timeline we saw it in ceased to exist with the defeat of the Sphere Builders in the 22nd century. Therefore, we no longer have proof of an Enterprise-J existing in the favored timeline, or an "F" for that matter. --OuroborosCobra talk |undefined  20:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

USS Enterprise (CVN-65)
I believe not only was USS Enterprise (CVN-65) one of the earliest nuclear-powered carriers, but was *the* first nuclear-powered carrier (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Enterprise_%28CVN-65%29 sorry can't read the Captcha).


 * The first line in the CVN-65 wikipedia article makes this pretty clear: "The USS Enterprise (CVN-65), formerly CVA(N)-65, is the world's first nuclear-powered aircraft carrier and the eighth U.S. Naval vessel to bear the name."

VSS Enterprise
According to Wikipedia the Virgin Galactic shuttle, VSS Enterprise, was named this as a tip of the hat to Trek. Should we list it here or not? IT IS GREEN 17:38, December 19, 2009 (UTC)
 * Not here, as it is not relevant to Trek that outside entities reference it, but it could be mentioned on the Star Trek parodies and pop culture references.--31dot 19:10, December 19, 2009 (UTC)

Brig
Do we really know that there was a historical USS Enterprise (brig)? Couldn't it have been a holodeck fiction? After all, we saw 221B Baker Street in the holodeck, but we don't assume that it was an historical location. I think that this Enterprise should be removed from the article, or at least put into a background note. —Josiah Rowe 08:47, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Do we have a reason to doubt it in canon? - 08:51, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) It certainly could have been, but without a mention of it we must assume it is an actual representation. I think the article is worded correctly by saying "a holographic representation of a typical 19th century brig named USS Enterprise", neither really suggesting it was real or fictional- it only describes what we saw.--31dot 08:53, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree that USS Enterprise (brig) is correctly worded, but my question was about the wording in this article, specifically this:
 * A USS Enterprise, a brig, also sailed in this era. This ship was historic enough to have holoprograms based on it in the 24th century.

I don't recall any indication in Generations that the ship on the holodeck was a recreation of one of the historic ships named Enterprise. It could have been, but it could also be a recreation of a generic sailing ship, and someone customized the program for the crew of the Enterprise-D so that the sailing ship would share the starship's name. —Josiah Rowe 12:36, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * We could also conclude that since Picard is a bit of a history nut, they would be using a historically accurate ship. Since there is no reason to believe that this wasn't real, it shouldn't be removed entirely, or pushed into a bg note, but since there isn't a reason to believe it was real either, I think a slight wording change is enough, something like this:
 * A brig from this era, USS Enterprise, was used in a 24th century holodeck program.
 * - 20:55, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

That would be an improvement. —Josiah Rowe 21:35, August 20, 2010 (UTC)