Talk:Wells class

Weapons

 * It appears that there are several (5-12) disruptors and one main subatomic disruptor located at the nose of the ship.

Who is to say that these are disruptors, not some other weapon, or different system all together? Jaz talk]] 22:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Is this article necessary? -- Excelsior 09:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, why wouldn't it be? Jaz talk]] 20:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Temporal Disruptors
This article says that the ship is armedwith 3 temporal disruptors. The problem is, these are not beam weapons like phasers or disruptors, but rather small, yet powerful bombs. Don't believe me? Then look at the Memory Alpha article on temporal disruptors. I am therefore removing them from this article. --OuroborosCobra 05:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Subatomic disruptors
This article makes the assumption that the Wells class is armed with subatomic disruptors. This was never stated in the episode. It seems to be based on the fact the the Aeon had subatomic disruptors, but I don't think it makes sense to assume what all of starfleet is armed with based on one ship. Imagine if the only 24th century ship we had ever seen was the Defiant. Imagine if we then assumed that ALL starfleet ships were armed with pulse phaser cannons. We'd be quite wrong ;-)

Here is how the article originally reads:
 * It appears that there are several (5-12) disruptors and one main subatomic disruptor located at the nose of the ship.

Here is how I am changing it:
 * It appears that there are several (5-12) weapons mounts and one large mount located in the nose of the ship. It is possible that these are subatomic disruptors, as with the, but this is never stated in the episode.

I am also removing subatomic disruptor from the sidebar, and replacing it with "unknown". --OuroborosCobra 22:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Additional weapons info
The Relativity appears in the "New Frontiers" graphic novel "Double Time", and some mention is given of it's weapons capacity. While not canon, shouldn't this information at least be in an "Apocrypha" entry?Capt Christopher Donovan 01:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure. Not having read that book, I don't know what to add. Can you do it Captain Donovan? --OuroborosCobra talk |undefined  01:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I would if I could find my copy...I'll have to dig around and see if I can scare it up...Capt Christopher Donovan

Temporal transporter
Shouldn't this article (and/or the USS Relativity article) mention the Temporal transporter? -- 71.113.180.189 03:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Added Temporal transporter section, but I think the Holomatrix and TCARS need to be mentioned. -- Reignfire 00:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Page locked
I've reverted this article to its pre-edit war version and locked the page down until we sort this out. -- Renegade54 (talk) 21:54, August 31, 2012 (UTC)


 * If the ship has been seen in the game, then this info is relevant provided that there is something more to say then "this is in STO". I feel that the seemingly random nature of the appearances is something more than just "this exists", so it can and should be on the page. If that's advertising, then it seems to be damn good advertising. - 02:43, September 1, 2012 (UTC)


 * Personally, I would wait until we know what the "intended role" is, or alternatively state who exactly made that statement. It seems somewhat vague to me now.  That said, I do not necessarily want it removed. 31dot (talk) 02:56, September 1, 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think we even need to go down that rabbit hole right now. We should just simply state that seemly at random a Wells-class ship will replace a Starfleet ship in missions, with the name and registry, if those are correct. All the rest is speculation and/or hearsay it seems, but it doesn't change the fact that the ship was programed into the game and is "live". The reason for all this can be added later when it is clear, but we shouldn't be beholden to a lack of official press releases for content already released. - 03:48, September 1, 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm with Archduk. Keep the random appearances in the article for now, and we'll update it once the purpose behind them is revealed. - Mitchz95 (talk) 04:14, September 1, 2012 (UTC)


 * As I said, I don't advocate removing it; I'm just saying what I would have done if it had been me. :) 31dot (talk) 09:34, September 1, 2012 (UTC)


 * It definetly needs to stay on this page. I have a feeling its one of the Cryptic Developers that keeps removing it, but in anycase, just because they don't wish the information to be released to the public doesn't mean a wikia should bend to their wishes. It should be promptly returned, as it definately exists in game. --STOcorrector (talk) 13:37, September 1, 2012 (UTC)


 * Unless it's an integral part of the game such as a mission, then it doesn't belong. -- sulfur (talk) 14:31, September 1, 2012 (UTC)