Talk:D'deridex class

Nomination

 * Self nomination (mostly). I think I've researched and added to this article as much as can be possibly added. I think it is well organized and well represented with appropriate images and background information. --Alan del Beccio 04:25, 30 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Great work Gv`, as always. I particularly like the now-included rooms, although I wish the series kept a little continuity with bridges. - AJHalliwell 08:48, 30 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. This is a areally nicely written article. To me it's comparable to those on the best-written Federation starship classes. One little comment though. Was the first episode where the name "D'deridex" was first quoted (by Data)? That could be of some use in the background information.--Scimitar 10:16, 30 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * Support, very nice. Jaf 17:02, 31 Jul 2005 (UTC)Jaf
 * Support I just fixed the list of appearances. Now everything about this article seems accurate, detailed, and complete.  Tobyk777 05:34, 1 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * There was nothing wrong with the list of appearance. They are supposed to be listed in order of appearance. --Alan del Beccio 05:42, 1 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Alex Peckover 18:18, 5 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Featured --Alan del Beccio 05:35, 6 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Reconfirmation

 * Needs a blurb, but otherwise I think this still fits the criteria of a FA; comprehensive and well written. 31dot (talk) 15:41, September 9, 2012 (UTC)


 * While I'm wondering if some tightening up of some of the "micro paragraphs" in the Interiors section is required, I otherwise Agree with 31dots assessment--Sennim (talk) 11:09, September 10, 2012 (UTC)


 * A good read, but still suffers from some inconsistent use of past/present tense in in-universe text. --Defiant (talk) 10:25, September 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * There are also a few bits that make very little sense to me and could do with some clarification, such as the use of "the following month" at the start of the text about the studio models, when no previous month has been clearly stated. Similarly, if there were 2 studio models created, wouldn't it be better to write the text from that perspective to make it clearer? For example, the first sentence says how Jein crafted "the studio model" (singular). Well, did he craft both studio models or just the first? --Defiant (talk) 11:51, September 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks to Sennim's work on the page, I'm now more-or-less entirely happy with the bg info. The mix-up of past and present tenses in the in-universe wordings could still be tidied, though, which I'll endeavour to do. --Defiant (talk) 14:20, September 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm now happy with the tenses, but would like to echo Sennim's assessment that some of the tiny paragraphs could maybe be tightened up. Also, I'm wondering about the "additional reading" link to Star Trek: Starship Spotter. If that book contains anything useful that could be added, it should be. Otherwise, deletion of the link would seem to be in order. --Defiant (talk) 15:14, September 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * Especially since it is not considered canon;)--Sennim (talk) 15:26, September 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, neither is the apocrypha stuff, so it doesn't mean it's a completely useless source, generally! I'm just wondering what relevance it has in this case; what info it has on the D'deridex-class. --Defiant (talk) 18:49, September 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I've checked my copy, it only has some general writing in a style akin to that of the Fact Files, that in essence is largely covered in the main body of text. It's technical specifications sheet, where coinciding, is the same as the Manual, but more extensive (and thus speculative)...I'm bit unsure what the status of the Spotter is. The pics are valid BG-info as they were constructed by bonafide production staffers from the actual CG-models; but the writers are no staffers...I'm leaning toward considering them as "fan" writers of tech stuff and as such I'm agreeing with your assessment that the book reference is superfluous..--Sennim (talk) 19:21, September 18, 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. I think it is a featured article. Well written and enough images to illustrate the article. Tom (talk) 19:49, October 7, 2012 (UTC)

Denominate
Though there are three votes in favor, including mine, according to current guidelines, this is not enough to maintain this article's FA-status...So, as this (re-)nomination has been up for 4 months (way, way, incredibly way beyond the alloted time), an admin should by now follow up and de-feature this one...-( May I notice that this procedure has gone down the drain, big time...Sennim (talk) 02:21, December 22, 2012 (UTC)


 * I have some thoughts about this whole process, but I will save them for later and a more appropriate location. 31dot (talk) 02:29, December 22, 2012 (UTC)

Lemme know, Duke's original intent was good, but it does not seem to work, unfortunately...Sennim (talk) 02:33, December 22, 2012 (UTC)


 * Fun fact, since it seems that there are no opposing votes, this passed months ago. You only need five if someone opposed the reconfirmation. Since this was never closed though, the reconfirmation could still be considered open, for dating purposes. - 05:57, December 22, 2012 (UTC)


 * Archiving. - 22:47, August 13, 2013 (UTC)

Plasma torpedoes
There is an image here of Warbirds firing torpedoes from. The caption says that they are firing plasma torpedoes. There is no evidence of this. It has been established that Warbirds carry both plasma and photon torpedoes. We have never seen green plasma torpedoes. There is nothing in the dialog or script that says they are firing plasma torpedoes (in fact, the script just says that the fleet fires phaser). I don't think we can say that they are either plasma or photon torpedoes. I am therefore changing the caption to just say that it is firing torpedoes, without stating the type. --OuroborosCobra 00:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the whole plasma torpedo thing can be attributed to their appearance in and the reference of their continued use in, which might lead one to extrapolate said connection. Otherwise, the writers seemed to be fairly careful about describing the armaments as simple "torpedoes" (as in the case of the Jem'Hadar, as well) versus a definitive type. --Alan 20:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Phasers
Just wanted to explain why I added phasers to the weapons on the sidebar. In the TNG episode, Riker asks Taris if she has phaser capability, and if she does, to use it to destroy a probe. --OuroborosCobra 00:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know if that's necessary, I think you are being too literal. While I haven't seen the episode in question recently, I remember thinking at the time that it likely was Riker asking if they had directed energy weapons capability online but brevity had him say "phasers" because that is what directed weapons were on his ship; the Romulan would have understood his meaning and not quibbled while they were pressed for time. Use this test: if these people had made this exchange in real life, and it was wrong, would they have still understood it and gone about the same action? In this case I'd say yes, so it's minor and inconsequential human error on the part of Riker, because I'm assuming he is neither computer nor android.--JCoyote 16:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I actually responded to that over a month ago in the forums:

'My opinion on Riker's statement on phasers is thus: Riker needed to have the Iconian probe destroyed. His own weapons were not functional. He was not asking if Romulan Warbirds had phasers, as that did not matter, he simply needed to know if they had working weapons. Since he did not ask "do you have weapons capability?" but instead asked "phaser capability", I therefore believe he already knew the Romulans had phasers, and was asking if they were working. He had no reason to need to know if they were armed with phasers or something else, he just needed a weapon that would destroy that probe.'

In addition, we put phasers in the K't'inga article for the same reason it has been done here. I was shot down when I tried to remove it there, so I put it here. We need to apply the same standards. --OuroborosCobra talk |undefined Pirates! 16:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, taking into account that the Romulans had recently come back from a 50-year withdrawal from interstellar affairs, I highly doubt that Riker "knew" the Romulans had phasers. I always interpreted this as Riker talking from his own Starfleet point of view: he was talking about directed energy as opposed to a torpedo detonation, therefore - in his world, anyway - phasers. I wouldn't have expected Riker to know everything about the armaments of a Romulan warbird. Also, it was never said that the beam Taris fired was a phaser beam. As mentioned before, it was crunch time during this dialogue and it looks exactly like all Romulan disruptor beams we've ever seen. In fact, we have never heard any on-screen reference to Romulan phasers, only disruptors. Therefore the most simple explanation is that there are no phasers on Romulan ships and I really think that we should remove it from this featured article. I don't see any solid on-screen evidence for it and I think that should take precedence, standards or no standards :). (I will admit that I haven't studied the K'tinga article in much detail yet, looks like I have to re-watch Emissary to form an opinion on that subject.) -- Defstar 23:57, September 25, 2009 (UTC)


 * also, later in the episode, geordi references romulan disruptors "hey commander, whether it's romulan phasers or our own computer..."

Set reuse
If you look at little closer at File:D'deridex class bridge, 2371.jpg, then you'll notice that the Enterprise-E set was used. This explains why this bridge was by far the most elaborate. -Mardus 18:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know how this would be possible, as was released more then 18 months after this episode aired and the Ent-E bridge hadn't been built yet. --Jörg 18:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Remember that Paramount approached Berman with the eighth film idea on 02.1995, after which I think preproduction soon began. While this is conjecture on my part, it does not appear illogical, as set building and scriptwriting could be done relatively separately, as the script could later be adjusted and I don't think the set had to be too different for any adjustments whatsoever. Since Enterprise-D was destroyed, the production team had to create a new set anyway. first aired on 01.05.1995 and they usually had like a week to film a new episode. This may be far-fetched, though. My idea is that while the Enterprise-E set was original, I am convinced that some of the Tal Shiar ship's set elements from "The Die is Cast" were reused for Ent-E, especially the walls. -Mardus 12:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The bridge of the Warbird in TDIC is a redress of the Nebula-class bridge that appeared in at least one episode of TNG prior to that point.Capt Christopher Donovan 23:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Probert-intended counts and placements
To solve a lot of argument problems, I took a schematic of the Warbird and highlighted the pertinent system placements per Probert as cited in the Flare article. 

Hope this settles a few things...Capt Christopher Donovan 23:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Currently, a background note in the article is going back and forth between the following two versions. To avoid continuous reverts, could you guys discuss it here?
 * User:Capt Christopher Donovan:
 * The positions of the disruptor arrays were originally intended to be: one pair on the "head" (one on either "cheek"), one pair on the vertical structure at the aft end of the ship (one on either side), two pair on the aft edges of the port and starboard dorsal and ventral wings (one emitter each location, total of 4), and one pair at the dorsal apex of the ship, just aft of the root of the "neck", for a total of ten emitters.
 * IP guy:
 * The positions of the disruptor arrays were originally intended to be placed in pairs on each "cheek" of the "head"; the highest center-dorsal point, above the "nape"; at the lowest point of the top aft-caudal section, in the "fin"; one pair each on the aft dorsal and ventral wings; and at the highest point of the bottom aft-caudal section of the "belly" – totaling twelve in all.
 * And here's what the source says:
 * beam weapons -- the round 'eyes' on either side of the ship's head are weapons (2). There are four other pairs (8=) of these on the ship. Two (2+) of them are on either side of the vertical portion at the back of the ship, and there's one pair each (4+) on the top and bottom of the ship along the trailing edge of the "wings" (near the center). There's also a pair (2=8) in an indented area on the top of the ship just aft of the root of the neck
 * – Cleanse 00:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 2 + 8(2+4+2) adds up to 10, which is true. But, for a grand total, these 10 added to the two others seen in the episode...namely the "nose" (pictured on the page) and top part of the upper "back" (shown in "Contagion"), which Probert obviously didn't intend in his original design, necessarily, but were included by the fx people makes for a total of 12. So 10 is correct in describing what was "originally intended", but is not taking into consideration what was "actually shown", which would add two additional emitters to make 12. --Alan 00:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The "acutally shown" emitters are totally irrelevant to the note in question, which is background as to Probert's originally intended number and placement of emitters.Capt Christopher Donovan 08:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Really? --11:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, really. The background note is about PROBERT'S number and placement of emitters, and those emitters alone.Capt Christopher Donovan 11:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * That's funny, because I was just trying to see from the IP's point of view as to where a total (be it grand total) of 12 might be coming from, which is an accurate response to a question only defended by one side. --Alan 20:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Illusionary Warbird
Should we include in the unnamed Warbird Section the Illusionary Warbird created by Nagillum in. The reason I thought why it should be is because there's an article on the IRW Decius which is Illusionary and unlikely to actually exist, so why not the Nagillum Wabird


 * It should probably go on the Unnamed D'deridex class starships page, since AFAIK it didn't have a name. 31dot (talk) 15:12, January 31, 2013 (UTC)

That's what I meant.


 * It is noted in Illusory starships. --Pseudohuman (talk) 22:42, February 8, 2013 (UTC)
 * It's probably better suited for that page, not the one I suggested. 31dot (talk) 22:52, February 8, 2013 (UTC)

D'daridex Class Cruiser
I was watching "Tin Man" today, and I noticed that the spelling for this class name was different. I checked the script - the close captioning matches the script. The class name is D'daridex. [] Throwback (talk) 14:55, May 28, 2013 (UTC)


 * CC spelling doesn't matter, because it is sometimes done by people not otherwise involved with the production. Script spelling does matter, though. We should check if (a) some spelling has actually been seen on-screen, or if that hasn't been the case, if (b) the other spelling has been used in a script as well. If neither, we might need to move the article. --Cid Highwind (talk) 16:29, May 28, 2013 (UTC)
 * Then the question becomes where did this spelling come from, because virtually all other sources out there use it(Encyclopedia, Tech manuals, novels, etc.). None of which are canon/accepted resources, I know, but I'm assuming all these varied sources didn't just make it up. 31dot (talk) 17:28, May 28, 2013 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the Encyclopedia spelled it that way, and everyone (including us) followed. I have to admit, I really hope that we find the spelling we currently use somewhere, so that we don't have to move the article - but if we don't, the fact that everyone else uses a spelling with unknown origin should not stop us from using one that can be cited. -- Cid Highwind (talk) 17:46, May 28, 2013 (UTC)


 * Ultimately, I agree, though I also agree that it would be nice to find this one somewhere. :) 31dot (talk) 17:57, May 28, 2013 (UTC)

I did provide a link to the script, which shows the variant spelling. Here is the link again - []. The image from identifies this class as Romulan warbird.Throwback (talk) 18:02, May 28, 2013 (UTC)


 * With "other spelling", I was referring to the one with 'e'. If we find that spelling in another script, or even with a better source (like an LCARS display), we should keep the article where it currently is. --Cid Highwind (talk) 18:27, May 28, 2013 (UTC)

The class name was mentioned only in. And, when there was a database image of it in the, it was identified as a Romulan Warbird, and, in Daniels' database, the class, seen from above, wasn't identified by name.Throwback (talk) 18:43, May 28, 2013 (UTC)


 * If we don't have a canonical spelling and two different bg-spellings, we should probably rename to "Romulan Warbird (2360s)". Since all displays seem to identify this craft simply as Romulan Warbird like "Drone" and "The Defector". --Pseudohuman (talk) 23:02, May 28, 2013 (UTC)


 * That does make sense, but if the class name was used in "Tin Man", then the script spelling is valid. 31dot (talk) 23:36, May 28, 2013 (UTC)

There is no "if" 31dot. The class name is mentioned in "Tin Man". I watched the episode this day, which lead me to check the script and write about this issue.Throwback (talk) 00:11, May 29, 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree that it is a valid canonical name, but the other spelling with "e" is found in the TNG writers guide for example, so that to me says that the spelling "a" in the script is more likely a simple typo. Since we cannot know for certain which is correct, I only suggest we don't use either one in the article name. I am not saying the class name is not canon. --Pseudohuman (talk) 00:28, May 29, 2013 (UTC)


 * I didn't mean "if" as in I was questioning the validity of the claim, only that if it is true (and it is) then it is valid. 31dot (talk) 00:38, May 29, 2013 (UTC)

What is the date of that writer's guide? Was it before or after "Tin Man"? Throwback (talk) 01:02, May 29, 2013 (UTC)


 * After. I was referring to the Star Trek: The Next Generation Writers' Technical Manual Fourth Season Edition, that uses the spelling "D'Deridex". --Pseudohuman (talk) 07:24, May 29, 2013 (UTC)