Talk:USS Eagle

Removed
Removed:
 * ...although the Eagle&#39;s registry number seems too low for a Constitution-class starship, being even lower than Constellation&#39;s NCC-1017. It is possible that the Eagle was an older class of ship refitted to a Constitution-class, or the registry was a simple typo of "NCC-1956".

...this is all assuming that there is a numbering scheme based on a time-table. That has never been established. As for it's age, and refit status, that is even more speculated that the first sentence, as that sort of information has never been present in the Trek universe. That is not the POV an encyclopedia should have. We should simply state the facts and leave the rest for the readers to decide. --Alan del Beccio 01:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This starship may have been named after the  which on July 20, 1969 became the first manned spacecraft to land on the Moon.  Other possibilities include a long list of naval vessels both in the service of the United States Navy, and the Royal Navy.


 * removed obvious speculation &mdash; Morder 16:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * So are we removing now the naming history of most of the ships here on Memory Alpha? If you check, many of the ships have statements like, "May have been named for..." or "possibly named for..." I find such information interesting, and I'm sure I'm not alone. We're starting to approach the level of anality last seen when one person wanted the removal of the term "Norway class" since it was never mentioned in canon. Wangry 17:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The answer to your question is: "if we don't know, then leave it blank". You're not talking about history (verifiable, factual), you're talking about mythology (speculative, imaginary). The answer to your charming language is: Have some class. That "one person" may be the one you have to convince someday. --TribbleFurSuit 23:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * My question was very simple. "So are we now removing this info?" Your suggestion that I should have some class is a personal attack in itself. The words "one person" is not a slur, and the discussion regarding whether we should rename Norway class to Budapest type is an example of "being anal," which is about as insulting as saying someone worries too much . I did not say the editor was foolish, silly, or classless as you have called me. I simply noted that action as being anal, as in "concerned with meticulousness." If this is considered an insult, fine, I'll refrain from such charm in the future. :o) Wangry 01:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)