Talk:Constellation class/archive

Unformatted?
What part of this needs formatting?Logan 5 15:52, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * While I don't know why Captainmike added the, the tablature needs to be wikified.  —  THOR 16:07, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * At the time it had several pictures that were just stacked and needed to be changed from thumbnailed images and integrated into the sidebar (which may also have needed to have wikification, but I'm not sure about that). Either way most of the images were removed but the boilerplate stayed. --Gvsualan 17:40, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * If that was all what was needed, the table is now wikified, so I removed the template -- Kobi - (   ) 18:23, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I added the deflector paragraph as I felt there wasn't much written on this class and anything would help.Gul Reid 19:16, 15 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Use of the term "draft"
While I applaud the adherence to naval terminology, I must question the use of "draft", since spacefaring ships draw no water. The reference is to her height, I presume. Or is there canon support for "draft" to mean how much space she fills? --trekphiler, 17/11/05

Wikipedia's Constellation class article
I lifted this more or less entire from Wikipedia to offer a forum for more detailed comment on starship issues than is really appropriate there. I'm also lifting other material from discussion pages there. --trekphiler, 17/11/05


 * Which makes it a copyvio that has to be removed. We can't simply copy text from Wikipedia. -- Cid Highwind 10:40, 17 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Check the Wikipedia site. It's free for copy and use, no vio. --trekphiler


 * From their "Copyrights" page: Wikipedia content can be copied, modified, and redistributed so long as the new version grants the same freedoms to others and acknowledges the authors of the Wikipedia article used (a direct link back to the article satisfies our author credit requirement).
 * Memory Alpha uses a different license (so does not "grant the same freedoms"). Also, you did not "link back to the article". -- Cid Highwind 10:45, 17 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * We also already have an article about Constellation class starships. Perhaps you could add any additional information you find elsewhere to that page, of course rewritten in your own words? I will turn this page into a redirect to that one for the moment and also suggest it for deletion because it doesn't confirm to our naming standards. Thanks for your contribution. -- Cid Highwind 11:17, 17 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Pna-incomplete
In the spirit of the edits I've done to and, I believe that this page could be given a similar treatment considering the vast amount of interiors shown for this class in  and. Hence I have added a pna-incomplete to indicate the intent of said boilerplate. --Alan del Beccio 03:00, 22 Nov 2005 (UTC)

image linking
The link of doesn't work by clicking. It takes you to an EAS error page. — THOR 15:38, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Right-click and copy the address, then paste it into the address bar, or simply go to the Star Trek World Tour page at EAS (scroll towards the bottom). -- SmokeDetector47 // talk 15:41, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * EAS doesn't allow picture links. It would be more polite or appropriate to link to whatever html page that picture occurs on. I've removed the address. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 16:37, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Redemption appearance
Didn't the vessel in the task fleet have the Hathaway's registry? Anyway, the Valkyrie was definately not on the computer display. --James Cody 16:38, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Vfd for USS Valkyrie

 * USS Valkyrie : Should be deleted IMO. No canoncial appearance. --James Cody 10:27, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * If its name and registry number were featured in the episode in the way described, then it can be considered canon. However, I fail to see how it was distinguished as a Constellation-class vessel. That part might be non-canon. --Shran 14:03, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. The ship was seen on the tachyon detection grid display, and the Stargazer model was at one point relabeled with the name and registry. I think that's enough to leave the article as-is, just like the myriad of articles we have on ships whose registries and classes come from the Encyclopedia and even more questionable entries like USS Trinculo, USS Ticonderoga, USS Talos, and USS Hemingway.
 * Edit: It seems as if the image of the tachyon detection grid we have is altered from the original.   However, I still think an entry on the Valkyrie is just as valid based on my latter points. -- SmokeDetector47 // talk 15:38, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Indeed. It seems that the person replaced USS Ahwahnee with USS Valkyrie. Article should be edited to remove the reference to "Redemption", but kept, as the physical prop exists. -- Michael Warren | Talk 16:14, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, Ticonderoga, Talos, and Hemingway were at least mentioned in the script. But there's absolutely no evidence that the Valkyrie appeared onscreen. You know, on second thought, I believe that every single Constellation class vessel seen onscreen was identified by name. So, while there's a slight chance that one of the unnamed Galaxies was the Trinculo, there's virtually none, that the Valkyrie appeared onscreen.--62.46.64.151 16:46, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - but fix. This is a similar problem to Starship mission status, which may even have the same cause as this. In "Star Trek: Captain's Chair" the computer game, there are several LCARS panels up close, but altered very slightly. Since people can get a clearer image off of ST:CC then the episode, it's often screen-capped instead. Hence, for both of these, there are two versions of the panels. (In an unrealated note, the Starship Mission Status has several starbase/missions changed) As for the ships class, that was mentioned by Rick Sternbach in "Star Trek: The Magazine" I believe, which although not screen canon, is often a reliable source. -AJHalliwell 17:20, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep USS Valkyrie. In specific, the ship model was seen after it was taken out of use in ST:TNG -- labeled as "USS Valkyrie" with an appropriate registry. This labeling would have been for its last appearance in new-filmed footage, being the fleet scene of "Redemption". Even though it did not actually appear in the unaltered computer graphic, this ship was labeled as such when it appeared on screen (unless there was a later use of the model, but i don't think there was -- this could be noted as well). Regardless, the model was labeled as this in the studio while filming, there is photographic evidence to prove this was canon at some point. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 00:21, 1 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * Except that according to this topic, the ship in "Redemption" was the Hathaway. --James Cody 05:58, 1 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * That is hardly conclusive, much less supported by an official source. The fact remains, the model exists. As I see it, this is just another case of the USS Trinculo (and possibly USS Leeds), and whether they were created for an appearance in TNG or purely for exhibitions -- they exist in some sort of "official" capacity. Therefore, I think the article should remain and as well add a comprehensive write-up on the unknown. --Gvsualan 07:43, 1 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * The fact that the model in "Redemption" didn't have the registry of the Valkyrie is not conclusive and episodes are not considered offical sources? Well, yes, the model exists. But the same exhibition that showed that model also featured an Okudagram of all 40 Wolf 359-vessels, which like the model never appeared on-screen. Will those vessels be added as well?--James Cody 17:16, 1 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * I still have those caps saved... here is the shot of the Hathaway in "Redemption." The first three digits are debatable, but the last is certainly a "3" and not a "0".  Regarding the Wolf 359 vessel issue; it would be different if this list were republished in places like Star Trek: The Magazine or mentioned in official works by Sternbach, Okuda, and others or if there were studio models constructed with those names.  Additionally, I'm pretty sure that the Trinculo does fall into this category as well... the last appearance of the four-foot Enterprise-D model was as the Venture.  All non- stock footage of the Galaxy class during the Dominion War appears to have been CGI or AMT/Ertl model kits, and the Trinculo's name and registry was not included in the list of ship names David Stipes posted to rec.arts.startrek.tech or in the Encyclopedia III as were many other Dominion War ships.  And unlike the Valkyrie, no one can find the fabled images which prove the Trinculo existed with said registry. -- SmokeDetector47 // talk 00:46, 2 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * This is a borderline case regarding our canon policy, but I vote to keep the article while replacing its content with a more appropriate version. I suggested possible new content here: USS Valkyrie/temp. -- Cid Highwind 09:10, 1 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * I support making these changes. -- SmokeDetector47 // talk 00:46, 2 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * I support this. I'd like to add a reference to the fact that the last time the model was used on TNG for new footage would probably have been the Fleet scene ("Redemption") where an unnamed Constellation was seen. Have we a screencap of the registry on the model in that episode? it might shed some light on this registry labeling if it was for the ship seen in that appearance -- otherwise, i think the Constellation's registry was visible in previous appearances as the Stargazer and Hathaway -- and the Victory was stock footage of the Stargazer -- so by a process of elimination, the "Redemption" scene may be only time the model wouldve ever been photographed before being shipped out on tour. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 05:18, 2 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, SmokeDetector47 posted a screenshot above. --James Cody 11:13, 2 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * Merged, moved, whatever... :) --Gvsualan 11:36, 6 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Model relabeled
Ok, I think we pretty much established that the model was relabeled after its last TV appearance, so we should remove the sentence "It is reasonable to assume that this model was used at some point throughout TNG"--James Cody 14:33, 6 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * I rewrote the last portion of the background info... see what you think. -- SmokeDetector47 // talk 23:35, 6 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * Looks fine to me -- however, on a personal note, I am not fond of the idea that the Hathaway was actually refitted and recomissioned for service during the Klingon Civil War... --Gvsualan 00:22, 7 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, the screenshot makes it fairly certain that the Hathaway was the "Redemption" ship; unless there is now another unknown Constellation out there... but the Hathaway article should be updated to reflect that the ship was simply a part of the task force and may have been reactivated simply for that event. -- SmokeDetector47 // talk 01:07, 7 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * Picard did mention that they were short of starships, so it's not totally impossible that Starfleet reactivated the Hathaway for that one mission.--James Cody 08:40, 7 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * I realize this is starting to get off topic, but to use a ship completely stripped of anything of value, notably weapons and warp drive -- "That ship was rendered warp inactive!" and somethign about having no offenses -- seems like a big jump in logic to use in a mobilized fleet, no matter how bad you are hurting for ships. What comes to mind is the point where Picard wants the fleet to regroup at Gamma Eridon at maximum warp -- I hardly believe they outfitted the Hathaway with a drive comparable to the Sutherland, which was to head there at warp 9.3. Just how many hours would they have to wait for the Hathaway to arrive - even if they threw an old drive back in there? --Gvsualan 14:58, 7 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Merge with Constellation class
As the first line of the Background section states: "The Valkyrie was never seen on-screen". While the particular history of the model bearing this name is of interest, the ship itself was never known to exist in the star trek universe, leading my to think that perhaps it belongs in the background section of Constellation class. --Alan del Beccio 16:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Support merge. --OuroborosCobra talk 17:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Visible Impulse Engines
If you look carefully, there are to Constitution impulse pods on either side. take a look:


 * File:Eq1.jpg|Constellation-class impulse engines (image removed)
 * File:Eq2.jpg|Constellation-class impulse engines (image removed)

Ensign q 20:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Medium Cruiser
What is the source for the claim that this ship is a "Medium Cruiser"? It links to "Explorer Class", but I'm not sure what the source for that is either. Thanks! Aholland 04:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Megaphaser?
What in the heck is this "megaphaser cannon" that the article claims Constellations are supposed to have two of?Roundeyesamurai 08:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I have no idea. This is one of the many aspects of this article that needs attention and citation.  I'll try my hand at it if no one else gets there first.  Aholland 11:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like something from Dungeons & Dragons In Space: The Card Game- Your shields get +36,000 Megaphaser damage to your Capital Ship, or some such baloney. Roundeyesamurai 00:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * i've seen fanon versions of the Miranda class (usually under the fanon name 'Avenger') listed with 'mega-phasers' as part of it's compliment elsewere online. probably a false assumption based on the pulse like phasers used by the Reliant in Wrath of Khan, and the amount of damage they seemed to do. (15 june 2006)


 * There was a version of the Excelsior-class blueprints way back in 1984, which showed a somewhat different (and pretty neat, though non-cannon) version of the Excelsior. It had a Constitution class-type hanger bay, and Megaphaser emplacements where the horizontal pylons met the vertical pylons.  These megaphaser emplacements looked an awful lot like the phaser emplacements on the outer rollbar (port and starboard) of the Miranda Class.

engineering set
is that a redress of the partial warp core set they made for ST III?--m o nkey2: twice the monkey 15:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Photon torpedos
Is there the possibility that photon torpedos are a standard armament on the Constellation class? As Picard relives the final moments of the battle, does he not order "phasers, fire, torpedos away!" as he destroys the Ferengi ship. Could one not assume in the absence of any other canon information that this class of ship was so equipped? Or is there other specific (canon) information to suggest armament is limited in the standard variant, but that the Stargazer was better equipped?
 * As far as I know, the Stargazer was a standard configuration. Here is something from the script proving photons:
 * RIKER: "Enterprise to Stargazer... to Captain Picard aboard Stargazer, please answer. Mister Data, what was Stargazer's condition?"
 * DATA: "Considerable fire damage to interior surface as reported, sir. But none of her main systems are crippled."
 * RIKER: "Armaments, Lieutenant Yar?"
 * TASHA: "Six photon torpedoes short, sir, probably used when the Captain destroyed his Ferengi attacker seven years ago. Otherwise fully armed."
 * This would indicate that the Stargazer had and was capable of using photon torpedoes. I will fix the article. --OuroborosCobra talk 16:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Removed
Certainly this needs a better explanation that this. How can something have appeared on-screen elsewhere before it was even conceived? Plagerism? --Alan 12:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "In non-Trek media, the cartoon parody of the Constellation class starship first appears in the Filmation cartoon Secret Lives of Waldo Kitty, which premiered 12 years before TNG."