Talk:Columbia

Space shuttle
The NASA Website gives the Columbia's registry number as STS-107 - here. Alex Peckover 19:24, Jun 3, 2004 (CEST)


 * That's not its registry number - it's the mission the shuttle was lost on. Its registry is, I believe, OV-102, being the second orbiter built. -- Michael Warren 19:31, 3 Jun 2004 (CEST)


 * Look no further than the Memory Alpha Super-Sized Enterprise (OV-101) article for a list of all the shuttle registries. --Captain Michael Kurt Tiberius Bartel 19:48, 3 Jun 2004 (CEST)

Transfer
I never got the impression from that Tucker's request for a transfer was denied, I'm not talking initally, but after he pleaded/explained, the final words/actions sure seems to indicate that he doing it. --Gvsualan 17:01, 19 Feb 2005 (GMT)

Latin
Does anyone know Latin? The article should include a translation of the slogan on the Mission Patch. --Werideatdusk 03:39, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)


 * Done and done. On the bottom, I put that "Fortune Favors the Bold." -Platypus Man | Talk 03:44, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Speculation
Regarding the background paragraph which reads: ''Fan speculations have lead to the belief that after the NX-02 was retired after the Earth-Romulan War, that it was sold to a private science organization, and became the Columbia that later crashed on Talos Four. Later to be discovered by Captain Christopher Pike.'' I have never heard of such speculation. Is there really any factual basis for this? --From Andoria with Love 04:09, 7 Dec 2005 (UTC)


 * I removed the above. That is even more speculative than saying that the Vulcans gave Earth Enterprise (XCV-330) because of the similar "hoop-arrow" design. --Alan del Beccio 10:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Sidebar
Old sidebar moved here. Some information might need to be re-included, eventually cited if it hasn't already. Also see Template talk:Sidebar starship. -- Cid Highwind 15:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

First image, affiliation and type are part of the new sidebar, defenses, armament and transportation are part of the article "", which is linked from the new sidebar. The second image will be added to the article now. I believe that should be it, then? -- Cid Highwind 16:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Mission Patch
I believe there is a spelling error in the mission patch. It says "juvat", but, actually, it should be "iuvat". In Latin a certain pronunciation scheme exists: Whenever a word starts with an "i" that is followed by another vowel, the "i" and the vowel "fuse", so to speak.

For example, there is the expression "de iure" (meaning: by rights), which can - at least in German (my mother tongue) - be spelled "de jure", too. With this language of today that is perfectly okay. In either case (and because the construction "iu" starts the word) it's spoken like: "de you-re".

This (namely replacing the "i" with a "j"), however, is an invention of modern languages, not a trait of the original Latin, which did not feature the letter "j" at all. Therefore, and because "Audentes F/fortuna iuvat" is an original quote from Virgil, I think the spelling is wrong. That could be pointed out to in a little footnote. (Or is there an explanation that proves it is correct?) Ambassador 00:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Someone asked me this: Doesn't "de' mean "down"?
 * Perhaps. I shall look that up in my dictionary. But it's best translated with 'of'. Ambassador 17:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Article Name
Although I know there's not to many instances of a vessel named Columbia, shouldn't the ships known, and established registry (It has even been referred to as NX-02) be in the title of the article? --Terran Officer 01:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There's no other ships known simply by the name of Columbia (there's a Columbia, an SS Columbia, and a USS Columbia), so the registry qualifier (NX-02) is not necessary. It's the same with USS Voyager, among several others. --From Andoria with Love 01:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect picture?
The sidebar for the Columbia shows a picture of what I believe is the Enterprise. Is that correct? Shouldn't it be a picture of Columbia? I don't have a picture or screencap so I can't change it. R2data 13:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope, it's the Columbia. If you look at the picture, you can see "NX-02 Columbia" inscribed on its hull. The image comes from . --From Andoria with Love 14:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Dates of Construction
It's been a while since I have seen, but was it mentioned that construction had began in 2153? I can see the references for it's planned (and eventual) completion in 2154, but I cannot recall if anyone said something that suggested the ship began construction in 2153.--Terran Officer 00:23, June 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a picture in the article of it under construction in 2153, from that episode. It might not have been named yet (don't recall), but it was at least designated NX-02. --OuroborosCobra talk 01:52, June 13, 2010 (UTC)

Right, but the article says it began construction in 2153, what I am asking is, is there evidence of this, because Enterprise was built from 2149-2151 and was launched early, I know that's not really 'evidence' but I meant so far as, that considering it was April, 2153 in that scene and how far it is, I was wondering if we know or not it had began in 2153, or in 2152, etc... but... I suppose... that is evidence it did in 2153, and that they could have gotten that far in a few months... --Terran Officer 03:12, June 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, the article says it was still under construction in 2153. It doesn't say when construction started. --OuroborosCobra talk 03:39, June 13, 2010 (UTC)

Oh... I for some reason thought it did, but I think tie 2153 article says it began that year, maybe this is where i got it from >< Yay for looking like a huge, mistaken dork.--Terran Officer 05:19, June 13, 2010 (UTC)