Talk:Enterprise (OV-101)

Too much information?
Well, exactly as it says in the title. Looking at the information presented here, the latest pieces added seem to be too much information when it comes to describing the Enterprise shuttle in terms of the Trek universe specifically. If this were the Wikipedia article, then such information may be invaluable, but I don't think it's suitable here. Any suggestions/comments? — Michael Warren 21:25, 31 May 2004 (CEST)


 * I think we should keep the info given here.we should appreciate contributions like that, but not encourage them...it is true that we have a bit too much info here, regarding the fact the the Space Shuttle is only slightly touching the trek universe. —BlueMars 16:34, Jun 1, 2004 (CEST)


 * I agree that we should probably remove some of the information. It's just not necessary for Memory Alpha, IMO.  It'd be much more appropriate to have external links to other pages where that information can be found. — Dan Carlson 17:35, 1 Jun 2004 (CEST)


 * Ok, let's remove a bit if the info, but i want Buran to do it, eventually it's his article. he would be the best man for it... the same should be done with the NASA contributions. —BlueMars 17:43, Jun 1, 2004 (CEST)


 * I agree with the requested removal of unrelated information, and also with the suggestion to give Buran some time to do it himself if he wants to do it. I totally disagree with the idea that it is his article, though - no article on MA belongs to anyone; every article may be edited by anyone to make it better and/or more fitting for MA, and if Buran doesn't want to, someone else should give it a try. — Cid Highwind 18:47, 1 Jun 2004 (CEST)

Error
The claim that the Enterprise was Earth's first reusable space vehicle is at best hightly questionable, since it was never space-capable. — 83.250.36.132 11:13, 11 October 2005 (CEST)
 * Read the article, it says reusable test vehicle, not reusable space vehicle. --OuroborosCobra talk |undefined  03:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Real-World point-of-view
I think that for topics such as this one and the HMS Enterprize should be written from the real-world point-of-view. This way, we can reference its significance with Star Trek while dodging the issue of what we should consider "canon." After all, the Enterprise shuttlecraft was only named so because of the strong Star Trek influence on pop culture at that time. Is that considered canon? Probably not, but it is interesting information that a reader would want to know. This also allows us to put some meaty information under this topic, rather than making it look like some abandoned Wikipedia article. Anyway, just my two cents. - 03:52, 25 September 2006 66.140.35.56
 * That does not fit into what Memory Alpha is. The only articles that should really be written from the real-world point of view are things like production articles. This is written in-universe as the OV-101 Enterprise was seen or refered to a number of times in canon. The real world stuff is relevent as background information, and that is precisely where it is. --OuroborosCobra talk |undefined  06:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * In addition, there's no need to reference what Wikipedia's already done (other than from an in-universe POV). That's why we link to the relevant Wikipedia article on topics that have real world significance. If there's meat to be added, please feel free to add it to Wikipedia... I'm sure they would welcome the help, just as we do. :) -- Renegade54 11:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

So if it's written from an "In Universe" POV...
...then the first paragraph needs to be revised. I think, perhaps, it should simply say, "The Space Shuttle Enterprise (orbiter vehicle designation OV-101) was NASA's first space shuttle, and Earth's first reusable test vehicle", and end it at that. The rest of the paragraph is written from a very "Real World" POV: it specifically states that the Enterprise never flew into space (which is very much in dispute from canonical clues) and informs us of where she is "currently" housed, which is in violation of that pesky past-tense policy.

All of that information is well and good, but should be moved to the "Background" section. Yes? ~ Jbshryne 08:30, January 23, 2010 (UTC)

Removed from article
I just removed this bginfo, because having a model of the Enterprise orbiter doesn't really suggest that - the in-universe creator of that model might just have thought it to be a cool idea, given the history of the "Enterprise" name. -- Cid Highwind 07:41, September 9, 2011 (UTC)