I thought the new Enterprise was the exact same size as the old one. 289 meters x2 would make it 578 meters. A little longer than an Excelsior and a little shorter than a Galaxy.– The preceding unsigned comment was added by RedShirtGuy96 (talk • contribs).
- I don't think any length has been canonicaly revealed for the new Enterprise and official sources are inconsistent as to what it is. Speaking of which, should the article's background bit really be giving out a figure for this ship's length when it could really be anything. It was a rough comparison quickly drawn up in the movie and I doubt the crew had access to Section 31's specs. StalwartUK 21:30, May 22, 2013 (UTC)
Spelling of Name Edit
I am seeing the spelling of this name as Dreadnought-class, which would imply there was a USS Dreadnought. However, I view the matter differently. I think that Starfleet is using a system that was seen briefly in Star Trek III, and has become accepted as canon. We have a genus of ships - the Starship Class - and several species of classes - Dreadnought, Heavy Cruiser, Destroyer, Scout, Transport/Tug. Each species is then divided further into sub-species, for example, Constitution-class Starship would belong to Heavy Cruiser Class. (Charts showing the breakdown is seen at Ex Astris Scientia, http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/sftm.htm) So, in my opinion, the Vengeance is of the genus Starship, species Dreadnought, and sub-species unknown. Vengeance-type, perhaps?Throwback (talk) 03:18, May 27, 2013 (UTC)
- Ex Astris Scientia is not a valid source. While you may be correct and Dreadnought-class may not be the specific shiptype, unless we have a canon source explicitly identifying the Vengeance as another class, we have to go with what was stated on-screen. - Mitchz95 (talk) 03:43, May 27, 2013 (UTC)
I am not opposed to the name. I am opposed to how it's spelled. When it is stated Dreadnought-class, it is read as, This class is named after a ship named Dreadnought. I am saying that the spelling should be, Dreadnought Class. (I used Ex Astris Scientia, for this site has the cleanest view of the schematics seen in the movies. These schematics are considered canon.)Throwback (talk) 04:17, May 27, 2013 (UTC)
- As far as I know the way we write these class names "Galaxy-class" etc. is not how they are spelled in canon anywhere in the first place, instead if you look at the dedication plaques for example they are always just "Galaxy class" "Constitution class" "Starship class" I think the convention we use comes from Okuda and Star Trek Encyclopedia and has nothing to do with anything canon. --Pseudohuman (talk) 08:36, May 30, 2013 (UTC)
- Although the vessel really could be Dreadnought-class (given the unexpected designation NX-class), it could also be a way of saying "it's a dreadnought". Until this is confirmed one way or the other, it would be best to use the neutral title Vengeance type. MA is now clearly siding with the class name interpretation. --188.8.131.52 06:32, March 27, 2015 (UTC)
Federation class Edit
I think the relationship between this class and the Federation-class under "Apocrypha" is speculative at best. While that design might be a dreadnought, there's nothing to suggest that it's this design's prime universe counterpart. Unless, of course, we can find a note from a producer suggesting otherwise. - Mitchz95 (talk) 14:34, May 29, 2013 (UTC)
- I have removed this section to spare everyone a headache.
- === Apocrypha ===
- The prime universe counterpart of the Dreadnought-class (β) was first depicted in the 1975 Star Fleet Technical Manual by Franz Joseph. According to the hierarchy established in that book, the species was Starship Class, the genus was Dreadnought-class, and the family was Federation-class.
- The design of the prime universe version was more reminiscent of the refit-Constitution-class. This version was equipped with a third nacelle, a secondary shuttle bay, and two additional phaser banks. This ship required a crew of 500. A ship of this class, the USS Entente, was mentioned in the comm traffic heard at the beginning of Star Trek: The Motion Picture. This movie would mark the first time that the term dreadnought was spoken of or referred to in the canon.
- When we are arguing semantics, I think that is when a section should be removed. So, here it is.Throwback (talk) 15:25, May 29, 2013 (UTC)
- I don't understand how indents work, so I am forgoing them. A rule here, Pseudohuman, is that if you are removing a section, that you should put that section in the talk pages. I don't see the relevance of your apocrypha. Who cares about some comic book page? I don't. I don't see its relevance here.Throwback (talk) 10:54, May 30, 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry. When you didn't post the apocrypha section you removed here, I assumed you didn't care about that policy. But here goes. I removed the following information from the page because it should be covered in my opinion the Dreadnought page and not here since this is the page for ships of the "Dreadnought class" and the other is about "Dreadnoughts" in general:
- The Entente belonged to this class. In comparison to the Constitution-class, the ships of this class were longer, wider, and higher and possessed a larger deadweight tonnage. Additional features of a Federation-class ship included a third nacelle, a secondary shuttle bay, additional tractor beam emitters, and two additional phaser banks. A ship in this class had a crew compliment of 500 and had a maximum warp speed of w/f 10. An outlined image of a ship of this class appeared briefly in a graphic seen in the background of Star Trek III: The Search for Spock. According to this graphic, which was dated to the 2260s, the Federation ships were under construction.
- Apocrypha note is relevant because it is about a class of dreadnoughts that has the same class name. Where as "Federation class" is a class of dreadnoughts that has a different class name. But the main reason is that it is info that just is not relevant to this article. --Pseudohuman (talk) 11:18, May 30, 2013 (UTC)
- I am speaking through the pain induced by my anxiety. (I suffer from severe anxiety.) If I am rude, I am sorry. My concern here is this - are we dealing with a family name or a species name? According to the hierarchy established in that book, the species name was Starship-class, the genus name was Dreadnought-class, and the family name was Federation-class. This alternate reality Starfleet appears to be using the same hierarchy, using information from both the canon and the semi-canonical sources. Enterprise is of the family Constitution, genus Heavy Cruiser, and species Starship. So, in the case of the Vengeance, is this a ship belonging to the family of Dreadnought-class or a ship belonging to an unknown family in the Dreadnought-class genus. The example cited in the apocryphal is of a family named Dreadnought; however, even that is in dispute, for some sources, according to the background note, identify ships belonging to this family actually belonging to the family Ascension-class.Throwback (talk) 12:07, May 30, 2013 (UTC)
- I understand what you are doing, and I am familiar with all the information, so there is no need to explain. But you have to understand that Memory Alpha is not here to "connect dots" like that. We are here only to report that which is clearly stated in canon/bg/apocrypha without the speculative fan-interpretation of how it all fits together and explains everything. The reason why we don't connect dots like you are doing is because we understand that Star Trek is often leaving things intentionally vague, so there is room for some future episode or film to make things more complex. If something is "established" in a reference book, that doesn't mean it has any effect on how canon Star Trek should be interpreted as far as Memory Alpha is concerned. --Pseudohuman (talk) 13:33, May 30, 2013 (UTC)
Where was the Mark IV mentioned in the film? In the novelization Carol Marcus uses the term in a line "He's been developing a ship that has Mark IV capabilities" but in the film the line was replaced with "He's been developing a ship that has advanced warp capabilities" --Pseudohuman (talk) 13:43, May 30, 2013 (UTC)
- I think it was when Kirk asked Khan about the Vengeance in sickbay. Khan said, "Dreadnought-class. Twice the size, three times the speed. Mark IV capabilities." Or something like that. Could be wrong, though. - Mitchz95 (talk) 15:07, May 30, 2013 (UTC)
He says "Dreadnought class. Two times the size. Three times the speed. Advanced weaponry. Modified for a minimal crew. Unlike most Federation vessels, its built solely for combat" --Pseudohuman (talk) 15:40, May 30, 2013 (UTC)
- I saw the movie again yesterday, and Mark IV was never stated (at least not out-loud). So keep it under apocrypha. - Mitchz95 (talk) 05:04, June 3, 2013 (UTC)
Drones or Fighter PodsEdit
I was wondering might there be any reference that those torpedo firing automated kamikaze drones were called the Fighter Pods. ;) would seem logical if they tied into the merchandising. --Pseudohuman (talk) 16:41, June 3, 2013 (UTC)
- Except that "Fighter Pods" is a line of toys... so... not quite the same. -- sulfur (talk) 17:16, June 3, 2013 (UTC)
Saucer section hole? Edit
What's with the doughnut hole? With the intention of making the ship more menacing, sinister looking for the mysterious & secretive Section 31, I couldn't help wondering if The Pentagon was an inspiration for the design. Kinda fits with the G-Man conspiracy vibe goin' on. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 184.108.40.206 (talk).
- I don't really see a "doughnut hole" in the ship; can you describe where it is and when in the film you saw it? 31dot (talk) 11:25, July 29, 2013 (UTC)
- Looks like a U-shape to me. After the crash at the end, Khan couldn't just slide from the broken bridge viewscreen down to the street on the hull, but had to to jump the 30 meter gap between the bridge and the primary hull. Only reason I can come up with based on the film is that it was designed that way by the film makers to demonstrate Khans superhuman abilities yet again. --Pseudohuman (talk) 19:12, July 29, 2013 (UTC)
Disclaimer on class name Edit
The problem is simply this: what is canon is the pure audio saying /dreadnought class/, but the article must be titled one way or the other: Dreadnought class or dreadnought class. If you choose the former without a disclaimer, the neutrality of the article is compromised. I also proposed in the discussion the neutral title Vengeance type, but that would require more changes and presumably more debate.
For the time being, it is important that even the most casual reader, the one merely skimming the introduction, doesn't conclude that there was a USS Dreadnought simply because of the capital letter and the italics. The disclaimer doesn't speculate one way or the other — those are two possible interpretations of the canon, especially since even the JJ Enterprise is "starship class" on its dedication plaque, and the prime dreadnought Entente is canon. The neutral uncertainty must remain, otherwise we risk tipping both fan and possible official publications towards the class name interpretation, which is not permissible in a canon-based (not fanon) encyclopedia. --220.127.116.11 16:14, March 28, 2015 (UTC)
- Our job is to simply present the information given and allow people to draw their own conclusions. We don't have the script(that I know of) to know if the word was capitalized or not but since it seems like a proper name I see no reason not to capitalize it. Your disclaimer states "could have been" which suggests speculation. It seems pretty clear to me that since this was the only ship of the class(since it was experimental) that there was no USS Dreadnought. 31dot (talk) 16:38, March 28, 2015 (UTC)
It would "seem like a proper name" only to someone who doesn't have a clue about naval terminology, but most Star Trek fans will be familiar with terms like dreadnought, cruiser, battleship, heavy cruiser. So will anyone who has taken the slightest interest in real-world navies. Orci was probably thinking of Franz Joseph's tech manual, which introduced the Federation-class dreadnought as a type of ship larger than the TOS Enterprise.
However, I'm willing to entertain the class name possibility as well, but only because the first historical dreadnought was actually named HMS Dreadnought, and because of the unexpected NX-class as well. You would have MA decide one way without a disclaimer, make a speculative decision based on the canon. How is my neutral disclaimer more speculative than MA's decision on the italics and capitalization? --18.104.22.168 16:49, March 28, 2015 (UTC)
- Without the script, what basis do you have to argue that capitalization might be wrong? I'm not having MA decide anything; I'm simply saying we only need to post what was given and allow people to draw their own conclusions. You are also treading close to personal attack territory by suggesting I "don't have a clue". I'm also interested to know what qualifies you to judge what "most Star Trek fans" think. 31dot (talk) 18:05, March 28, 2015 (UTC)
You're not "posting what was given" because Khan didn't give the spelling. He gave the audio. MA speculates that it's a proper name same as any other class name, despite the fact that "dreadnought" is more commonly a designation for a large naval vessel. If Khan had said /fearless class/, there would've been no reason to doubt that it's a proper name. If my disclaimer is such a problem, why not avoid the whole issue by renaming the article Vengeance type?
Anyway, I'm out of this, since I know from past experience how difficult it is to change even a line on MA once it is disputed by administrators. Take it or leave it. --22.214.171.124 18:36, March 28, 2015 (UTC)
- Has any cruiser or escort ever been referred to as such by using the term "class" in Star Trek? The answer to that would be more helpful than soapboxing about "how hard it is to get things done because of administrators" and then leaving. Starship class is too problematic to be used either way in-universe because we know in the real world that what that meant changed. Also, we only need to be neutral if there are at least two different interpretations of equal likely-hood, and right now anon, you've presented nothing to support your point beyond the term itself, while Name-class is supported by all the other examples we know of. - Archduk3 19:56, March 28, 2015 (UTC)
- Not sure what my being an admin has to do with anything. I haven't even reverted it a second time yet, nor have I exercised any admin powers in this matter. I guess when arguments fail, blame the admin status. That said, I'm still interested in hearing your response to the questions I posed in my last post. 31dot (talk) 20:46, March 28, 2015 (UTC)
You mean how I know that "most Star Trek fans" are aware of Franz Joseph's Star Fleet Technical Manual, which has popularized the dreadnought throughout fandom, thus coloring the interpretation of this line? A dreadnought which just happens to be bigger than the prime equivalent of the Enterprise as well, like the Vengeance is bigger than the alternate Enterprise? Online interaction.
Archduk3: given the change in "reality" and writers, and the use of "starship class" on the alternate reality dedication plaque, are you willing to stake your reputation on Khan referring to a class name when the meaning of dreadnought as a term is well known and even used in previous Star Trek? It makes all the difference that he said "class", and therefore all reasonable doubt is gone?
The problem with the admin status here is that the administrators are seemingly monitoring every change and are highly interested in preserving the status quo. Changes which are supposed to address unfounded assumptions are often reverted and put to discussion, which can easily not happen if nobody is interested, the result being that either nothing is changed or the persistent user is blocked. Even when the discussion does happen and changes aren't reverted many times, people aren't critical enough. Precedent from previous Trek is not sufficient when "dreadnought" also means something else, when there is a real risk od MA making a creative decision and influencing tons of websites and other sources rather than merely reporting the facts (which in this case are currently limited to the canon audio). --126.96.36.199 23:32, March 28, 2015 (UTC) (with slight revisions on March 29)
- Yeah, I am, because you've presented nothing of substance. There is doubt, clearly, but it is not reasonable enough to warrant forcing some supposed neutrality in the name by ignoring what was said on screen, as well as MA approved background resources in naming this article. Either way you look at it, this page is not going to be renamed. Now as for your note:
- The wording is unhelpful to say the least, since the Enterprise's class, regardless of what reality we're talking about, is known to have two names, but neither of those ships are known as, or ever referred to, as a "Cruiser class". Also, since the written form can be derived from StarTrek.com, the second sentence is completely superfluous, unless you want to argue about the italicization now, which StarTrek.com doesn't do in any class name. - Archduk3 08:07, March 29, 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)I'm not interested in preserving the status quo, nor am I "monitoring every change", I'm interested in reasoned arguments, that have support and are consistent with established conventions and policies, for changes that are made. Precedent works in the absence of other evidence like the script or comments from Trek staff; people or other websites can assume whatever they wish. The beauty of a wiki is that if more evidence comes up later(such as the script being released) we can change things. You are acting like things are written in stone when they are not. 31dot (talk) 08:08, March 29, 2015 (UTC)
- I wouldn't agree that they are attempting to maintain a "status quo". I think they are adhering to a belief system that can be seen as restricting by others who don't share that belief system. I don't know these people for they are unknowable and they don't seem real to me as people, so it can be easy to ascribe to them any attribute I want to them. When I am in communication with them, I don't feel there is a conversation taking place. Conversation is a complex process of listening, responding, and affirming to the other person. That doesn't exist here, so the conversation is always in a loop. There is no progress. In light of this, I would recommend dropping the topic..Lakenheath72 (talk) 03:31, March 30, 2015 (UTC)