Talk:Federation starship classes

Completed?
I think that the starship pages need to be completed.

Needs attention

 * Federation starship classes, (1), (2), (3). These four pages should probably be combined into the first. Alternatively, information on those pages should be checked for completeness. -- Cid Highwind 02:39, 21 May 2004 (CEST)
 * Is this statement still standing? --Gvsualan 13:58, 29 Jan 2005 (CET)

Chronological
Is it possible to have an alternate form of this list exist that puts the classes in Chronological order? :)


 * it wouldn't do much good because we don't know the majority of ships were commissioned. The only ones we can really be sure of are where we saw the proto-type launched.  If you subscribe to the belief that the registry numbers are chronological, I believe we have a page listing all known ships by registry.  Also, please register with MA.  Its very easy, and we don't require any personal info. Jaz 04:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Intrepid Problem
The Intrepid class was just changed by an IP from a Light Cruser to an Explorer. Looking at their respective pages, that is not correct. The explorer is more like the Galaxy class and the light cruser is (what I thought was) the Intrepid class. Should it be changed back to the way it was? Sloan47 03:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Antares Class
Someone (an IP) just made an edit to the Antares class, filling in unknowns, calling it a Surveyor and giving it a length of 222m. I am wondering, what is the canon evidence for any of this? While we know the class exists, I don't know of any time we actually see one, or learn anything about it except for its name. Should we restore the unknowns? --OuroborosCobra 22:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC) In that case, I am going to remove the length. What episode was something like "Surveyor" mentioned? The only reference that I can remember was a ship in the blockade fleet in the Klingon Civil War, and no information like Surveyor is there. --OuroborosCobra 22:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think "surveyor" is acceptable, although not really a class, as that is essentially how it was described in the episode. The length is bogus. --Alan del Beccio 22:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, I was thinking of the USS Antares itself. Sorry, I haven't been onsite for a few months. Getting rusty. --Alan del Beccio 22:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Apollo Class
That same IP address has just classified the Apollo as a Destroyer. Again I ask, what canon evidence is there of this? As with the Antares, I can't think of any, and the only possible Apollo ships we have seen on screen looked more like transports than destroyers. --OuroborosCobra 22:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Way, way ahead of you on this. --Alan del Beccio 22:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Forum:Federation Ships 2195-2240?
What class of ship was used by Starfleet after the Daedalus Class was retired ~2196 and the Constitution Class was commisioned ~2240?

--NJ


 * Judging by the information on Federation starship registries, the starship classes that were used between the Daedalus class and are the following:
 * Hermes class
 * DY-245/DY-950 (Possibly, close to the Daedalus time)
 * J class
 * J class


 * There is also the slight possibility that the following were developed before the Constitution:
 * Class 4 stardrive vessel
 * Ptolemy class
 * Saladin class
 * Ptolemy class
 * Saladin class


 * Hope this helps! - Enzo Aquarius 22:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Bonaventure type would be a good candidate. --Alan del Beccio 18:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Excalibur Class?
I recently learned about a ship class I never heard of before. The Excalibur class which is supposed to be a Federation Dreadnought. A friend at work told me about it but I can't seem to find any mention of it being canon nor can I find any mention of it not being canon. Memory Alpha has no record of it except in the Star Trek Online game page. Apparently it may become a ship that will be usable in STO.  Does anyone know if the ship is already canon or if STO having it in the game will MAKE it canon. Most video games don't count I know but STO is unique in that it will be the most recent incarnation of the Star Trek Universe (relative to the Universes Time line that is) Meaning that it will be showing events set in the future of all known canon shows (with the exception of the weird time travailing episodes of course.) It will also be a persistent universe meaning certain points may end up being inducted as canon from the game. Well any thoughts as I'm not really a canon expert.69.150.59.27 08:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Those things you listed actually don't set STO different from other games all that much. When was Star Trek Armada set, for example? Right after the Dominion War, right after the end of Deep Space 9. When was Star Trek Elite Force II set? Right after Nemesis (the single most "future" main canon event). As far as I have read, there are no plans to make STO canon. Looking at that ship, I can say it was never seen in a canon source. If they ever end up doing another series/movie set in the late 24th/early 25th century, who knows? Until then, though, it is non-canon. The only canon materials are those from on screen media (the TV series and the movies). --OuroborosCobra talk 08:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The Excaliber class in STO is just a cruiser, 4 tiers lower than a dread, that is considered as having the same stats as a constitution and STO is going to be canon. It starts off with the events that occur in the recent movie, the destruction of the star that destroys the Romulan homeworld and it moves on from there to say that it was actually the Remans that destroyed the star and framed Spock. The whole reason that Cryptic studios made the game was to prey on trekkies curiosity by making it so if they wanted to know what comes next as canon they will have to pay monthly for it. The only thing I blame Cryptic for is thinking of it before me. In fact, If you play the game and see a player that is liberated Borg it means that person paid an additional 300 dollars for a lifetime membership to the game. Bravo.

-STO Rear Admiral Amalric Antero
 * Thanks for your angry rant. When the studio declares STO canon, we'll consider it so. Not before. --OuroborosCobra talk 03:16, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

Anon additions
An anon made several changes today with the edit comment canon changes, though most of the sources are indirect, they are in fact canon, because they are stated on screen somewhere somehow:
 * Marking as "Cruiser" (from Unknown)
 * Marking as "Scout" (from Unknown)
 * Marking as a 23rd century ship (from Unknown)
 * Marking as "Explorer/ Battleship" (from Unknown)
 * Marking as "Explorer/ Battleship" (from Explorer)
 * Marking as "Multi-Mission/Cruiser (from Multi-Mission)
 * Marking as "Destroyer" (from Unknown)
 * Marking as "Science Vessel/ Scout" (from Science Vessel)

The Akira is mentioned as a "Cruiser" by the model builder. The Apollo is a Scout in a video game. Bonaventure was mentioned to have gone missing several decades before the 2260s. Excelsior never mentioned as either specifically. Galaxy mentioned as a Battleship in two alternate timelines and a video game. Intrepid never mentioned as a Cruiser, nor was Norway mentioned as a Destroyer. The Nova addition is fine. I've reverted all of the rest. -- sulfur 00:37, June 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * The two alternate timelines are canon, because they are in fact part of Star Trek, othewise Star Trek XI is non-canon. I thought that what the model builders stated was also canon.  I see your logic with the Apollo, Intrepid, and Norway as they were from video games.  Bonaventure can't be unknown then because it was put in service either 22nd or 23rd centrury, and so if 23rd only is unacceptable than 22nd/23rd is acceptable, because there is no way a ship of that design was constructed in the 21st, due to its technology.  My apologies for the video game addtions.  Live Long and Prosper 70.252.72.139 03:32, June 30, 2010 (UTC)