Talk:USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-E)


 * Note: Discussions about the Enterprise-E design (eg. number of decks and warp speed capabilities, locations aboard ship) can be found on Talk:Sovereign class.

Enterprise NCC 1701-E cloak?
I could have sworn I read somewhere the Enterprise-E had a cloaking device. It may have been in the description on sounds on a toy model.


 * The Treaty of Algeron strictly forbids the use or development of a clocking device by the Federation. This was a major plot point of and . Also, though we've only seen it in the three movies, it's never used a cloaking device. -AJHalliwell 01:56, 19 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Before the release of, it was published in an issue of Star Trek Monthly that the Enterprise-E would have a cloaking device. --Defiant | Talk 15:38, 7 Jul 2005 (UTC)


 * The Defiant is the only Starfleet ship with a cloaking device legally. The Enterprise E has never used or even talked about a cloak.– Enterprise E 23:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * In some of the early promotional materials, it was said the E-E didn't have a cloaking device, but a "silent running" low-emissions mode that made the ship harder to detect. Nevertheless, a "cloaking sound" was incorporated into the Playmates replicas.Capt Christopher Donovan 06:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Star Trek novel Resistance by J.M. Dillard. Picard informs the bridge crew that all Federation starships built within the 10-year span prior to the events of the book (shortly after Data's death on the Scimitar) were coded with cloaking software that (if I remember it right) was routed through the shield grid. It came in handy when they were trying to infiltrate the Alpha Collective to stop the Borg from creating a new Queen. Also, the Sovereign class was fitted with the saucer separation ability. Most people don't consider novels canon to the series but, as long as they make sense, I don't see why they shouldn't be. And considering the Federation tried it before, and how many times the Romulans have said "bugger the treaty we'll do as we like" it's at least plausible that they went ahead with this.

Seventh starship to bear the name?
I've replaced the line about Big double E being the seventh starship to bear the name, to eighth. This is due to the early Earth Starfleet Enterprise XCV (ring ship) being listed as a starship here on Memory Alpha. If this is wrong, please feel free to revert my edit back to the previous revision. I just assumed that this wasn't based on conjecture. If it is, someone obviously needs to edit that page as well. -AC84 08:42, 9 Nov 2005(PST)


 * We don't know if the ringship was a Starfleet vessel. Plus, it clashes with the "Xth starship to bear the name" lines on the dedication plaque, I think. -- Harry  t 09:03, 9 Nov 2005 (UTC)

The dedication plaque simply states it is the sixth (Federation) starship to bear the name. All the other plaques of past Enterprises state their (again, Federation) number accordingly. However, you do have a point as to it possibly not being Earth Starfleet. I don't know if those ships on display at the 601 Club are previous Starfleet vessels or not. Someone once said that they spotted a DY-100 (SS Botany Bay) class ship on display as well. If this is true, obviously the club simply honors past aeronautical achievements concerning space. Reverted edit but also fixed it so that XCV-330 isn't left out and ignored completely. --AC84 09:33, 9 Nov 2005 (PST)


 * Is the IDW comic Star Trek: Countdown into Darkness considered canon? If so, Captain April clearly states that he commanded a Starfleet vessel called Enterprise that was the predecessor to Kirk's Enterprise, and also Kirk mentions that he got the new Enterprise after the one April commanded had been decommissioned. So, Kirk's is at least the second Enterprise, which would make the Enterprise E the seventh. BUT: We don't know whether the construction of a new Enterprise was a result of Nero's incursion. If so, the 'original' Kirk would have helmed a rather old ship, given that he had taken it over from Pike who had taken it over from April. What do you guys think? --77.80.28.55 18:37, May 22, 2013 (UTC)
 * No, comics are not canon; though anything revealed in them would be valid Apocrypha information. 31dot (talk) 18:39, May 22, 2013 (UTC)
 * The comic 'Star Trek: Countown' released just before the 2009 movie is considered canon - at least that is what Mr. Orci said according to Memory Alpha. That's why I was wondering and that's why I brought it up. Thanks for your thoughts, anyway. --178.191.231.86 22:32, May 23, 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not what Orci said- he said it could be considered canon, as in it is consistent with canon. His statement about it supposedly being canon was made after much pressing by the interviewer. 31dot (talk) 23:30, May 23, 2013 (UTC)

Dominion War?
I would love to know, canon wise, what exactly the Enterprise got up to during the war. In Insurrection they seemed unaware of the war. Warp One 16:01, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC)


 * Picard stated before the party that the Federation was in talks with the Dominion, also the Sona creates Ketricel White for the Dominion, Insurrection takes place in the time frame of the war, but Starfleet thought, strangly that the FLAGSHIP of both the 7th fleet (at least the D was not sure about the E)and Starfleet/Federation might be better at hosting a new member of the Federation then fighting a war (Starfleet need better leaders, Picard should have taken the Adm. job at SF Acad. in year 1)


 * Yea, thats something I found really funny. The "flagship" of Starfleet was never seen (not even mentioned) during the Dominion War. The producers didn't want the Enterprise to take up all the screen time. The Defient is nothing compared to the Enterprise (as seen in ST:FC) - Plau 16:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The Enterprise E is the strongest ship in starfleet and should have been at least shown in a DS9 episode. The battles in the dominion war would have gone a lot better if the flagship and Picard's crew where there.– Enterprise E 23:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Please keep talk page comments related to the content of the article. See Help:talk pages for more. Thank you. --From Andoria with Love 23:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * *sigh* it is never stated or implied that the Enterprise E/Sovereign is the strongest ship in the fleet. It's a heavy cruiser, not a battleship (like the Nebula, Galaxy or Niagara class). The Enterprise E is also never stated to be the flagship; the Enterprise E essentially has the equivalent position of the Enterprise A during its service.
 * It was stated in First Contact that the Enterprise-E was the most advanced ship in the fleet so I'd think that's about the same thing. leandar 02:09, December 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * In First Contact the Enterprise is not scrambled with the rest of the fleet,however this is because Picard was borg,BUT is smaller than the Galaxy therefore i assume its role is more that of the Constitution class of the previous century, i read somewhere that the Sovereign role type was a deterrent/explorer. so i assume like the Advanced Intrepid-Class its an explorer so like the intrepid it was not on the front lines


 * The Enterprise-E was never stated to be the flagship of anything. The Enterprise-D was the flagship of the 7th Fleet and the Federation, but we have no reason to believe that either of those titles were carried over to the new Enterprise. Ilithi_Dragon 02:57 December 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * In terms of volume, the Sovereign class Enterprise-E is roughly 40% the size of the Galaxy class Enterprise-D (ray-tracing programs used to calculate volumes on multiple Galaxy and Sovereign models for Trek mods; Galaxy consistently comes in at ~5.2 million m^3, Sovereign at ~2.0 million m^3). It is only 8 or 9 years newer than the Galaxy class (Sov launched in 2371 or '72, depending on how much "over a year" the E-E had been in space, how far into 2373 First Contact was, and how long after Sovereign's launch the E-E launched). The main phasers themselves are considerably smaller, and have demonstrated much smaller visible glows during pre-fire phaser firing cycles on the Sovereign; the Sov has more arrays, but they are the small arrays that cover the ship's flank, not the main arrays that Fed ships use as their primary weapon. The Sov has more launchers, but they're smaller, and haven't demonstrated comparable salvo capacity or rate of fire per launcher. Based on window comparison, the Galaxy's hull appears to be thicker, and per the TNG:TM the Galaxy has ablative armor (pg.23 para.2 2, pg.26 para.2). The Sovereign's corridors and quarters are just as if not larger and more luxurious than the Galaxy's, with no indication that it was more combat-oriented than any other typical Federation starship. Rick Berman has also stated on the TrekBBS forums that the Sovereign was intended to replace the Excelsior as Starfleet's premier workhorse Heavy Cruiser. I see no reason to believe that the Sovereign is more powerful overall than the Galaxy. It's size is in line with Starfleet's trend of increasingly large Heavy Cruiser designs (especially if it was designed to be THE premier Heavy Cruiser), it is less than a decade newer than the Galaxy (which was bleeding-edge at launch in 2363, and continuously upgraded), and has no indication of being any more combat oriented (and even may be more luxuriously appointed), nor of having been specifically designed to fight the Borg. The Sovereign probably features some advantages and increased combat value for its size, but at best would be to the Galaxy what an Alaska class Heavy Cruiser was to the Iowa class. Ilithi_Dragon 02:45 December 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * This is to say that the E-E's mission in Insurrection seems like a horrendously stupid allocations of resources only if we assume that it is the most powerful ship in the fleet and the flagship of both the 7th Fleet and the Federation as a whole, like the E-D was. Since there is no indication that the Sovereign is more powerful than the Galaxy (most advanced /= most powerful), and no reason to believe that either flagship title was passed on to the E-E after the loss of the E-D, the E-E's mission in FC seems a lot less stupid. If the Sovereign is in fact the 'premier' Heavy Cruiser that Sternbach says it is, putting it more along the lines of the Constitution class immediately after the refit, then it actually makes a fair bit of sense for the E-E to be on the mission she was: running around putting out brushfires behind the scenes of the war (the day-to-day 'dirty work' that the big capital ships like the Galaxy would be wasted on). Ilithi_Dragon 13:19 December 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * Possible, but not very likely in my opinion. Galaxy class has lot of unnecessary things - just remember cecatean lab(s), arboretum, its 16 holodecs, gymnasium, theater/concert hall, and possible other not-so-necessary things. Also, it depends on whether you take MSD or models, but Sovereign might or might not have larger warp core.

Tense?
The article bounces around between past tense and present tense. ("The Enterprise was a Sovereign-class starship. The Enterprise is 685m long.") Which is correct for an encyclopedic article describing something that takes place in a fictional future? --68.41.122.213 04:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Generally, articles should be past tense. If you want to go through and make edits, it would be much appreciated. Jaz  talk |undefined 04:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Commissioning date?
In ST: First Contact, Geordi La Forge states that the Enterprise-E has been in space for 'nearly a year now' or something to that effect- the key word being nearly. Picard lists the stardate at that point as 50893.5. If the commissioning date is correct, while it is possible that the ship didn't leave for a few days/weeks after that, would he really say 'nearly' a year now if it was essentially a year? the difference between commissioning date (SD 49827.5) and say one year before the log in First Contact, which assuming the usual 1000 units=1 year formula would be 49893.5, could be as much as a month. If they'd really been in space since even a month after the official commissioning date, wouldn't Geordi be inclined to make his point by saying 'a year now' instead of 'nearly a year now?'

Maybe i'm just nitpicking to a ridiculous degree....its a bit late here and my ramblings probably have more to do with semantics and space psychology than facts.

Actually, I just watched ST:FC and what Geordi essentially says is "WE'VE been out here for nearly a year..." meaning the crew had been onboard the Enterprise-E and in space for "nearly" a year. His statement has no bearing on the E's comissioning/launch date or how long she had been out of drydock since that stardate. Yes, you are nitpicking to a ridiculous degree. ;) Satyrquaze 15:07, April 16, 2010 (UTC)

Commissioning date and launch date are two totally different things. Nautical ships undergo seatrials before they are commissioned into active service. I would assume that Starfleet vessels follow the same trend. If your stardate calculations are correct, then the Enterprise would have had a month long space-trials to familiarise the crew before its comissioning. --86.10.190.227 01:14, January 2, 2011 (UTC)

Post-Dominon War Refit?
I'm wondering at the validity of this excerpt from the article:

"Sometime after the end of the Dominion War, the Enterprise received a refit, increasing its offensive capabilities. Three extra aft facing photon torpedo tubes were added, along with two more forward facing tubes: a twin launcher aft of the bridge, a single launcher above the aft hangar deck, a single launcher at the base of the bridge terracing, and a single launcher near the bow. Additionally, four extra phaser arrays were added to the nacelle pylons."

How accurate is that statement, and what is it based on? Seems like speculation to me... (I don't remember it being referenced anywhere)-Ssaint04 06:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * While I am not sure on the specifics, these are based on differences seen in the weapons loadout on screen between Insurrection and Nemesis. --OuroborosCobra talk |undefined  06:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

K! Thanks for the info! I'm off to squint at screencaps... - Ssaint04 07:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I've never seen anything that makes the Refit of the EE canon. Ive also never seen anything that makes it real. Just cause they didn't use some of the phaser strips or torpedo launchers in Insurrection doesn't mean they weren't there. Also about the nacelle comment. They ones from First contact and Nemesis look the same to me. is there some slight detail that i am missing? F-Bobby
 * You'd have to pay really close attention to the model to notice, but there is quite a change between Nemesis and Insurrection, One being the tube that apparently sits just above the shuttle bay actually clearly being added only after Nemesis. There was an article at the Daystrom institute about actual studio model changes between the movie. Apparently the phase layout was determined by actual physical phaser strips. Fullphaser 18:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed from DYK

 * ...that according to production memos, the USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-E) was originally named the Monarch, but after the USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-D) was destroyed, the Monarch was renamed Enterprise? In a similar fashion, according to Gene Roddenberry, the  USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-A) was supposedly renamed from USS Yorktown (23rd century).

There's no info about this here. Find a source for this statement first... -- Cid Highwind 23:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Klingon crewmember?
The Article says "as well as a Klingon and an Android." That doesn't ring true. Worf was only on temporary assignment on the enterprise for the 3 EE movies.


 * His status as "temporary assignment" was never stated, especially in the last movie. --OuroborosCobra talk 21:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * He was not officially part of the crew in any of the films. In FC he was rescued from the Defiant, in Nemesis he was a passenger an in Insurrection he was cut off by Picard when explaining why he was there. That Picard would question his presence indicates he was not assigned to the crew. --70.51.121.222 02:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * When was he stated to be merely a "passenger" in Nemesis? --OuroborosCobra talk 02:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Not only was there no canon reason to think Worf wasn't an actual crew member in Nemesis, the non-canon, unofficial reasoning was something to the effect that he couldn't handle the life of a diplomat, and returned to Star Fleet. Whether you're talking about canon, or fanon...  Worf was a member of the crew in Nemesis.– Hossrex 03:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, considering that the scene in which Worf says just that was actually filmed, that would be the official explanation. It's just non-canon since it never made it into the movie. ;) --From Andoria with Love 04:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Worf was obviously there for the wedding, and just sort of got caught up into tagging along on the mission. It's not that hard to figure out.

Registry
For clarification, this was "Epsilon," right? – 7th Tactical 23:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Nope, the NCC-1701-E registry is never referred to as Epsilon in canon, and thus we can't make that assumption ;) - Enzo Aquarius 23:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The E most likely did not stand for Epsilon. if the letters stood for greek characters, the Enterprise J be in trouble- no Greek letters start with J Borguselinux 00:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * 7th Tactical may be thinking of the scene in ST V when the crew is shuttling up to the Enterprise and a Starbase traffic controller says something like "Clear to deliver Captain Kirk and party to NCC-1701-'Alpha'." In that case "Alpha" is the phonetic alphabet version of "A". If the same phonetic alphabet is in use in the 24th century as is in use now, then EE would be NCC-1701-"Echo". – Mike the hammer 23:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * In case anyone is wondering through to J: Alpha Bravo Charlie Delta Echo Foxtrot Golf Hotel India Juliet. --OuroborosCobra talk 00:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * "E" is just designation of the ship; it means Ent-E is sixth ship to bear the name during Federation (Enterprise is first, Enterprise-A second etc.) --78.3.76.165 19:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Federation Flagship
Which film stated that the 1701-E was the Federation flagship? The reference should be added if one was made. Wangry 07:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No film said it. The assumption is based on 1) that Geordi called the Enterprise-E the most advanced starship in the fleet and 2) the fact that the Enterprise-D was the flagship.


 * Question: If the Enterprise is only one of the most advanced starships in the fleet, the Sovereign-class ships as a whole are the most advanced in the fleet? right?


 * It is known through the history of starfleet that the Enterprise has been the flagship of the federation. It is safe to say the Enterprise E is the federation flagship and there is no proof saying otherwise.– Enterprise E 23:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes but this is memory alpha, and we don't make safe assumptions, we make ones we know to be true. There is no evidence that the Enterprise E is the flagship of the federation fleet. It would make sense, but there is no point at which she is held up as the flagship. I don't know if starfleet passes the flagship torch to ships after they are destroyed. Fullphaser 18:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * A more colloquial use of the word 'flagship' would refer to the ship as being noteworthy or exemplary or otherwise held in high regard. This is a public relations or marketing approach to the word and the one that more readily applies.  "Flagship of the Federation" sounds like a propaganda title akin to "Hero of the Revolution."  It might sound cool but it has no real significance.– StarFire209 14:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * In the book Star Trek: The Next Generation: The Buried Age by Christopher L. Bennett, it states on page 407 "...due to its [the Enterprise-D] class and historic name, it was being considered a sort of 'flagship,' a symbol of Starfleet as a whole." This agrees StarFire209's comment about it being a "public relations or marketing approach the word", however I still believe that it should be included as Starfleet's flagship. – Nicolasavru 00:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * However, that book is considered non-canon here on MA/en. -- Sulfur 02:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * With regard to the use of the word flagship in a naval context, not all ships with the title flagship in modern navies necessarily have a flag officer onboard. For instance, in the Royal Navy one of the aircraft carriers is nominally the flagship of the fleet (and commanded by an officer with the rank of Captain) regardless of whether or not an admiral is actually onboard for a particular exercise.  Whilst the flagship role rotates every couple of years, this does counter the argument that a flagship either has to be the lead ship in a formation or have a flag officer onboard.  Additionally, as Starfleet is also a diplomatic and scientific organisation and not purely military, it could be seen as a vessel that carries the flag of the Federation (as opposed to a civilian registered Federation ship). –Svetz Falhain


 * "It is known through the history of starfleet that the Enterprise has been the flagship of the federation." I don't know about that.  Was the original Enterprise the flagship of the fleet when it was assigned cadet duty at Starfleet Acadamy? Probably not.  Was the Enterprise-A the flagship? The admiral in ST:VI said that the Klingons would think twice about attacking the Enterprise under Kirk's command, but he didn't state that she was the flagship (just that Kirk and the name "Enterprise" were historic.  Was Excelsior or Enterprise-B flagship of the fleet in the 2290s?  No way to tell . ..


 * I think there's some misunderstanding of the term flagship. In military terms, a flagship is the ship of a flag officer (admiral, commodore).  This is a temporary appellation. If the admiral transfers to another ship, his old ship is no longer a flagship.  The new one is.  Note that the admiral has to command from the ship.  Being aboard as a passenger doesn't make it his flagship.  'Flagship' could also be used to refer to the ship of the  officer commanding a group of ships, even if that officer wasn't flag rank.  This is a matter of convenience and is also temporary.  When the group breaks up, there's no more flagship.  Except on a few occasions, the Enterprises didn't serve as flagships in the military sense.  Additionally, there's no military sense in saying a ship was "flagship of the Federation."


 * The term "flagship" can be applied to a ship even if it doesn't have a flag officer aboard. The USS Blue Ridge (a rather lightly-armed command cruiser designed for command and control operations) is the official flagship of the U.S. Navy's 7th Fleet. The only Starfleet ships to bear the name Enterprise that were actually stated to be the Flagship of the Federation were the Enterprise-D, and the Enterprise-C (stated in the TNG:TM iirc, though I don't have mine handy to verify). The original Enterprise and Enterprise-A were never stated to be the flagship of anything, even when it would have been appropriate to say so. The Enterprise-B was given to one of the most inexperienced captains in the fleet, making it unlikely that it was the Flagship of the Federation. The 'tradition' of making the Enterprise the flagship only extends to the E-C and the E-D, and Starflet went for 20 years without making a new Enterprise to serve as flagship, so I do not think that this is an actual tradition, and so we have no reason to believe that the E-E was the flagship of anything. Ilithi_Dragon 04:53, December 20 2010 (UTC)


 * Wasn't there an episode of the original series that said the Enterprise was the strongest and fastest of all the Federation starships? I'm thinking something about maybe "I, Mudd," where Harry said that he'd have the strongest and fastest starship when Kirk told him Starfleet would come after him if he and the androids took the ship.  Is this right or am I not remembering correctly? leandar 00:21, December 21, 2010 (UTC)


 * HMS Victory is the flagship of the Royal Navy. Victory is a 250 year-old permanently drydocked sailing ship, and most definitely a ceremonial title. Who's to say the enterprise isnt the same. --86.10.190.227 01:44, January 2, 2011 (UTC)


 * Startrek.com shows the EE as "the flagship" in this screenshot: the caption of the bottom left image. http://img847.imageshack.us/i/ente.jpg/

198.86.248.2 17:49, March 28, 2011 (UTC)

Blue Enterprise-E Underbelly
Nobody has mentioned why the underbelly of the Enterprise-E shown in First Contact is blue.

As of Insurrection and Nemesis, the underbelly went back to reflect the shade of the hull plating, however, I'm sure during the "refit", her underside was modified as well.

I'm sure the blue hull plating as seen in First Contact was merely an aesthetic decision, I myself liked it like that. It gave contrast to the rest of the ship, and made the ship stand out more with a Flagship presence. ViaEsta 09:30, 10 December, 2007 (UTC)


 * A purely 'in-universe' reason could be due to hull replacement caused by the removal of all the Borg components installed in First Contact. Out of universe, it could be that that ideal was on the designer's mind or they just felt like changing it. :P - Adm. Enzo Aquarius...I'm listening 19:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Brilliantly answered, thank you "Enzo Aquarius". However, regarding an "in-universe situation", I theorize the blue (or dark plating) was some kind of reinforced hull material, strategically placed at certain points on the ship, such as the dorsal area as well as on the upper surface of the saucer section. It would make sense to project some kind of reason for the contrasting coloration since serving only a "decorative" need doesn't seem very Starfleet-like.--ViaEsta 14:54, 11 December, 2007 (UTC)

Why doesn't is seem "starfleet-like", why would "reinforced hull material" be blue? surely it would make sense to disguise the fact that the hull was reinforced and maybe draw attention away from the fact that the ship's goolies were parked right under that hull plating? "FIRE PHASERS AT THE BITS THAT ARE A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT COLOUR THAN THE REST OF THE SHIP!" Dont be so daft of course its a paint job. --86.10.190.227 01:56, January 2, 2011 (UTC)

Well, given that most ships in Trek capable of being a threat to Federation ships can figure out where they critical components of the ship are with just a simple scan, it would be a waste of effort to try and disguise reinforced hull plating over critical areas. There is also no logical reason for a paint scheme that just happens to put dark patches over the critical areas of the ship (along the nacelles, nacelle pylons, above and below Main Engineering and the general area where the anti-matter storage pods are, around the impulse engines, etc.). I think it more likely that they are armor belts (a well-established design convention in naval vessels), comprised of either extra-thick armor or (more likely in this case) special armor materials that were deemed too expensive to cover the whole ship with, so they resorted to belts of of it over critical areas instead. --Ilithi_Dragon 1752, 20 March, 2011

'Hidden' deck reference
I'd be curious to know who put this in the article: ''The number of decks was also increased by five to a total of 29. !--Do NOT remove this reference. Nemesis specifically stated the existence of a 29th deck. If you don't like it, too bad. Removing this reference again will result in its reversion and the protection of this page. Remember the conjectural possibility of undescribed split deck structures increasing the number of decks but not altering the height of the ship in any way... --'' I believe it would be wise to reword the reference to the 29th deck so as to indicate it was mentioned. Referring to a conjectural possibility to reinforce the potential for 29 decks seems to be inappropriate for Memory Alpha. However, this debate is covered far better in the Sovereign class article and discussion. Perhaps we should avoid duplication? --Svetz Falhain 14:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Number of decks redux
This was added to the article today. Please discuss on the talk page before making changes about the number of decks.


 * By 2379, the Enterprise-E had undergone at least one refit, including four additional phaser arrays and five additional torpedo tubes. The number of window rows on the exterior remained the same, as did the number of decks in the master systems display, even though a Deck 29 was mentioned in conversation. !-- We don't know if further subdecks were added or whether Deck 29 is code for Deck 9, section N, especially since a door sign said 0940. We don't know if it was caused by this refit or if there was a Deck 29 from the beginning, especially since there was a Deck 26 in FC already. That would be speculation. All we do know is that it was mentioned in the dialogue, so we can report that fact, but since it wasn't intended at all by John Eaves, we can't research the underlying in-universe reasons. --

This portion followed in the BG section:


 * There seems to be some confusion about the deck count of the Enterprise-E. The construction blueprints of the filming miniature as well as the master systems display on the bridge created for Star Trek: First Contact indicate the ship was designed with 23 decks. Unlike the MSD, the blueprints leave no room for ambiguity. In the film, Picard tells Lily Sloane that the ship had 24 decks. Earlier on, however, Daniels had reported that the Borg are in control of Decks 26 through 11. Michael and Denise Okuda say in their text commentary on the film, during the scene in which Picard tells Lilly about the 24 decks: "Unfortunately, earlier in this film, we are told that the ship has at least 26 decks. We can't imagine that Picard doesn't know his own ship, so we theorize that the other two decks are top secret for some reason. Either that, or his memory was affected by his earlier Borg assimilation. It certainly couldn't be a goof, because the design of the ship changed slightly during filming."

I've reverted both segments pending further discussion here. -- sulfur (talk) 17:25, January 1, 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see why; I merely corrected a number of errors. The original text stated as fact that five physical decks were added, yet this is highly debatable since the number of exterior window rows remained the same, as did the number of deck lines in the MSD, not to mention that a 0940 door sign appeared on the supposed Deck 29. Thus we can merely state that Deck 29 was referred to in conversation, without making any conclusions about its meaning. The text also stated as fact that the five decks were added during the latest refit, but there is no evidence of that; it could've happened earlier just as well. The second quoted part mentioned 24 decks in the blueprints, yet Rick Sternbach clearly labeled 23, while the MSD is ambiguous (23 or 24). It said there was confusion about the size, but only the deck count is uncertain.


 * Why not simply leave my revisions and wait for someone to question this obvious logic? At that point I'd be happy to discuss the remaining disagreements with the specific person who disagrees, without engaging in an edit war. I don't see that my revisions are so controversial that they cannot remain in the article until then. How do we know that I won't have to wait for two months until someone joins this discussion? QeylIS (talk) 18:03, January 1, 2013 (UTC)

History. We've had discussions about the number of decks, the number of rows of windows, etc numerous times in the past. It has become one of those "talk first, change later" things now. -- sulfur (talk) 18:15, January 1, 2013 (UTC)
 * But what is the deadline for someone to appear in this discussion and question my revisions? If nobody shows up by a certain deadline, will they be accepted by default? History also shows no activity in this section of Talk since 2009, and you don't want to be personally responsible for leaving someone's errorneous logic in a Memory Alpha article, when you could've simply reviewed my revisions and accepted them if you agree. Like I said, I have no problem discussing specific points of contention, but if you want to do it your way, there must be a process that would allow my revisions to be accepted/modified by a certain deadline. You can see there are factual errors and mere assumptions, none of which are permissible in an encyclopaedia. QeylIS (talk) 18:29, January 1, 2013 (UTC)


 * There is no hard and fast deadline for discussion to result in an addition to an article; but generally if no one posts disagreement or has other comments, there isn't a problem. That said, this being a wiki, content may be questioned at any time. 31dot (talk) 23:33, January 1, 2013 (UTC)


 * This article doesn't need to make a reference to the number of decks in universe, since the class page already deals with this issue by not choosing a number. If the addition of anywhere from three to five decks is mentioned, it should only be as a bg note, since the fact of that matter is there is no one, consistent figure for the number of decks. - 02:50, January 2, 2013 (UTC)

Source for shipyard?
Do we have a source for the shipyard the Enterprise-E was launched from? StarSword 20:24, July 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * The dedication plaque. --OuroborosCobra talk 20:41, July 17, 2011 (UTC)

Enterprise F

 * Cryptic Studios, the developers of Star Trek Online, held a contest with CBS in early 2011 to design the Enterprise-F, as the Enterprise-E is nearly forty years old by 2409, when the game is set. The winning design by Adam Ihle was announced in June, and the fully-rendered model - christened the Odyssey-class - was in July. The Enterprise-F, and the fate of the Enterprise-E, will play a major role in an upcoming feature episode series.

I removed the above comment, as it doesn't really deal too much with the Enterprise-E. Information about the game should be on the game's article, and when the "upcoming" episode series is released, then information about the Enterprise-E can go here.--31dot 01:06, July 25, 2011 (UTC)

???
In Season 4 ep 1 of DS9 Worf States The Enterprise was destroyed Was Destroyed..Was he talking about D? or E?


 * The Enterprise D.  occurred before . --31dot 23:09, February 12, 2012 (UTC)

Leading Photo Discussion
Rather than enter into an edit war, we'll settle it here. Which photo would qualify as a better leading image for this article?



or



My votes goes for the Insurrection photo. That image from First Contact is a bit "played out", it's been associated with the Enterprise-E article for a very long time. Maybe it's time to change it up a little? Kyle C. Haight (talk) 18:46, November 10, 2012 (UTC)


 * As we say where I come from; if it ain't broke, don't fix it. There is nothing wrong with the current image, so I don't see any need to change it.  The angle of the ship in the proposed photo just doesn't seem right. 31dot (talk) 18:53, November 10, 2012 (UTC)


 * Definitely the shot - it's the first appearance of the ship, a strong shot, it gives you a better idea of the ship's design, and the angle just looks more formal, which suits the encyclopaedic purpose. That it has been in the infobox for a very long time isn't especially relevant IMO. -- Michael Warren | Talk 19:11, November 10, 2012 (UTC)