Formatting errorEdit

Somehow, a ? got stuck on top of the Specs box when i made the page. Can't seem to find it in the edit. Feel free to zap it, anyone! -- Valaraukar

History rewriteEdit

I updated the "History" of this page. However, I am not 100 percent sure if everything is completely canon, as some is from "quasi-canon" sources (such as the DSN Technical Manuel and the Spaceflight Chronoloy) as well... I will be working on "Interior" in a few days, perhaps tomorrow or so... Oh, and the writers of the refences books may be added, if anyone knows this...? Ottens 19:05, 26 Jun 2004 (CEST)

Would someone please explain me where all this History stuff comes from? I cannot remember one episode where it was stated when the Excelsior was laid down, nor how many vessels were ordered. We don't even know for sure if our understanding of Transwarp is the same as of 2285 -- maybe it doesn't mean anything else than "ships got faster" and they had to recalibrate the warpscale! -- Kobi 20:18, 26 Jun 2004 (CEST)

Confusing paragraphEdit

Could someone who completely understands this paragraph rewrite it to be a bit more understandable? The way it reads now, it says that the Miranda class did everything in the fleet, but still the Constitution class was called greater. -- Redge 20:09, 26 Jun 2004 (CEST)

Canon examinationEdit

I recommending removing all data to this page for examination, and incorporating only data we can confirm as accurate. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel

Here you go! You can add comments at the end of every paragraph. -- Redge 20:44, 26 Jun 2004 (CEST)
Just so you know, I've removed all the points of discussion we already agreed upon; this page is crowded! I hope you don't mind, but I removed only that were everyone agreed upon in the first place. Ottens 17:03, 27 Jun 2004 (CEST)

Just to reiterate all the points made below, unless any of this data has references, it is pointless and baseless speculation, and against the rules of Memory Alpha to include it in the article (logical or not, its still untrue unless there is a reference). --Captain Mike K. Bartel 20:34, 27 Jun 2004 (CEST)

True. Therefore, I've again looked over the entire article, and made a lot of changes. However, I must also point out that much of the information I had written on the Galaxy class page comes from the TNG Tech. Manuel, and because it has never been stated on the show, this book might just as well be considered non-canon (every reference book is non-canon that way). Still, I received few criticizm on that. :\ Well, as I said, I changed a lot, read all over again, and if you think anything should be changed, please write it here, underneath this comment. Thanks. Ottens 21:47, 27 Jun 2004 (CEST)
I've removed the items that are disallowed by MA policy.

Do you have any valid source for any of the interior section information. To my knowledge, no Excelsior sickbay or engineering section has ever been seen except for brief glimpses in Star Trek III and Generations.. are you describing the sections as seen there? --Captain Mike K. Bartel

Yeah you're right. I've removed all interior information we've never seen on screen. For what we know, the Excelsior doesn't even have a conference lounge; I've never seen it. I've also removed the note that there is a door leading to the Captain's Ready Room; in Star Trek III, we saw Captain Styles arriving from his quarters/ready room by turbolift, so as far as we know, there is no door leading to the Ready Room...
He didn't come from his Ready Room, he came from his quarters. Unless you would expect to find a bed in a Ready Room? -- Redge 11:45, 28 Jun 2004 (CEST)
I'd also like to point out that I think it isn't exactly polite to simply remove the parts you didn't agree with: we were still discussing it. Ottens 11:22, 28 Jun 2004 (CEST)
When I read this page I keep wondering where exactly specific info came from. Could you add some in-line references? And also repeat the episodes you used as sources in the =References= section? -- Redge 11:56, 28 Jun 2004 (CEST)

I'm sorry if it wasn't polite, but information that is without any reliable source doesn't have much place on the page. The entire page as written remains in the history in case we find something we can reinstate, I'm simply following up on another user's request that we verify this data. (I'm sure that earlier contributors consider it impolite that previous edits contained sourced, canonical data about the Defiant/Lakota battle that was removed needlessly and replaced with non-canon sections, so I consider my edits to be a partial restoration of the article from its history). I went through point by point, made a general call to verify it, but no one could find any valid sources, so the data was removed. You maintained some might be from the TNG Tech Manual, but I have yet to find it. I've gone through and added sources for many individual data points, but I'm sure there is still a lot to contribute from individual episode dialogue references. --Captain Mike K. Bartel 16:11, 29 Jun 2004 (CEST)

Is there still non-canon info on the Excelsior page? I was under the impression all non-canon information was already removed... :S Ottens 17:46, 28 Jun 2004 (CEST)
I think we can clear a lot of this discussion by adding in-line references and/or notes to every paragraph of info on this page. That way, if a piece of info has no valid source, it may be removed, and if it does, it can be further investigated. It would save a lot of trouble and discussion. Now: I've read the current revision, and added references here and there. There may be a repeat of (Star Trek III: The Search for Spock), but that is th only way all info can be proparly referenced. Almost every paragraph now has either a reference or a note, but I think refrences are still missing for paragraphs in:
  • History
  • Main Bridge
  • Armament
I also took the liberty of replacing the inline comments with notes so as to create a better readability for people who are little concerned where the info came from, as long as they know they can trust it. I made the notes links to the notes section. I don't know if wiki has problems with >sup< tags inside links, but if so, I haven't seen them on my browser.
PS: As most of the text discussed on this page was already outdate, I deleted all discussions that have reached a conclusion, moved general discussion back up and old discussion don, so this page won't clutter up.

-- Redge 22:50, 29 Jun 2004 (CEST)

Inline commentsEdit

I suggest you return the inline comments, as the version now presented is more cluttered than before. In the new version, if people want to see the note, they have to click on the link, then scroll back up to where they were to carry on reading the article. This makes browsing the article much more complicated, when the alternative is simply to skip past the note if one doesn't want to read them. -- Michael Warren 23:01, 29 Jun 2004 (CEST)

You have a valid point. However, I think more people won't read the notes than will. It just like the references at the end of paragraphs. If you're curious as to where conclusions came from, you follow the link, otherwise you do not. And in this case, the link doesn't even lead to a seperate page. Besides, the previous version was a stress on POV for people who want to read articles in POV, like you said a few minutes ago in Ten Forward. They just keep throwing you of, and that makes for irritating reading (so does the red inkt, but that will disappear in time). Overall, I think this version is better. -- Redge 23:11, 29 Jun 2004 (CEST)
I also support the restoration of the previous edit. I don't think there's any precedent on MA for such an overengineered footnote section, nor any need. Perhaps inline references can be restricted to the end of each ==subsection== if they are disruptive to the POV, but they were placed in the article for a reason. Facts don't exist in a vacuum, they must have sources... I put references in to illustrate a point. I don't understand the continued resistance to factual accuracy this article has entailed, its not like theres much thats controversial about the Excelsiors canonically, their appearances are pretty cut and dried, if the editors would be willing to research the canon info, rather than researching conjecture and backtracking to find what data is official. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 23:16, 29 Jun 2004 (CEST)
Just take a deep breath... I'm not in any way resisting to this page being canon, I just think the way it was organised is disruptive. But if this new method isn't satisfactory, I'll just put them back in there and hope somebody finds another solution. -- Redge 23:27, 29 Jun 2004 (CEST)

Except they're not the same thing. A reference is simply to say where the information came from, these notes say why the information is presented as it is, and also provide background information on those areas. The 'indentation and italicisation' style intended for such information clearly marks them as separate from the POV of the article, so, it's only breaking the POV because it's meant to. And, I believe you're wrong that more people would prefer to not read the notes. Even so, the previous version would still make it easier in either case - people wanting to read the notes don't have to travel across half the page, then come back, whilst people who don't aren't presented with them in a huge block at the end that they have to get past. -- Michael Warren 23:28, 29 Jun 2004 (CEST)

Well, the previous version has been restored. I must say I disagree. If I weren't intrested in pages and their sources as an Archivist, I would find the indented info highly disruptive and distracting. If you check the page now you'll see there's an indented paragraph for evey two normal paragraphs. It disrupts the flow of the article in a very obtrusive way, IMO. And though it may not be so because MA is still in it's early fases, I hope that someday a lot of people are going to use MA just as a reference and encyclopedia, and not be interested in the justification of conclusions right in the body of an article. That is not the way it's done on other internet pages, books, references, etc.. Anyway, anyone who would like to think of a better sollution can view mine here.
PS: We could try the same system I used (see link above) and place links back to the paragraph at the notes, so people who want to read the note can click, read, and click back. It can be done, and it shouldn't prove to difficult. Or alternatively, the browser 'Back' button would do the same thing (we could remind people of that at the start of the notes).-- Redge 23:38, 29 Jun 2004 (CEST)
I like Redge's proposal better. It makes the site more clear. Now its crowded with notes... Ottens 10:18, 30 Jun 2004 (CEST)
I have tried navigating the notes on my version by clicking a note and hitting the back-button. It seems t work perfectly. -- Redge 11:51, 30 Jun 2004 (CEST)
I have made another pass at a satisfactory notes system at [[Excelsior class/temp]]. -- Redge | Talk 12:18, 21 Aug 2004 (CEST)
I think this new system works well enough to be used. Click notes to go to the notes section, click note in the notes section to return to where you were, or use browser 'Back' button. Happy? -- Redge | Talk 12:56, 21 Aug 2004 (CEST)

Design and Construction HistoryEdit

In the mid 220s, the Miranda, Oberth, and Constitution class vessels represented the backbone of Starfleet. The Miranda served a multitude of roles in deep space war patrol along the Klingon and Romulan Neutral Zones, but also as police frigates and hospital ships throughout the Federation. With the Miranda class supplanting the Oberth as a surveyor and deep-space scientific platform, the Constitution class was the true ship-of-the-line for the Starfleet.

Could someone who completely understands this paragraph rewrite it to be a bit more understandable? The way it reads now, it says that the Miranda class did everything in the fleet, but still the Constitution class was called greater. -- Redge 20:09, 26 Jun 2004 (CEST)
I don't remember the 220s, must've been all that LDS. We don't know the state of the fleet in the 2260s, 70s or 80s, except that Constitutions and later Oberths and Mirandas, were part of it, and the Constitutions were fast and powerful, the Oberths were weak, the Mirandas weren't. The only thing we know about the Excelsior in relation to them is that it was faster and bigger, and probably stronger. We can leave a mention of the political atmosphere in, however. There were the stirrings of conflict with Romulans in the 60s, and the continuing cold war with the Klingons that broke into random fighting depicted in the films, could be attributed to the need for a ship of Excelsior's size and such.--Captain Mike K. Bartel
The Oberth Class starship is clearly a science vessel only. The Constitutions were the most powerful in the fleet at the time, but there were only a hand full of them. The Constitutions were for the "real though" explorations missions. So it is a logical assumptions that the Miranda (classified as a frigate) took some of the less heavier explorations, police, and scout missions. To make things more clear, I made some minor changes to this paragraph. It now reads as followed. Ottens 13:19, 27 Jun 2004 (CEST)

In the mid 2200s, the the Oberth, Miranda, and Constitution class vessels represented the backbone of Starfleet. The Oberth class was a deep-space scientific platform, dedicated almost solely to science missions. The Miranda served as a multi-role starship in patrol along the Klingon and Romulan borders, but also as a police frigate throughout the Federation. The Constitution class vessels, however, were Starfleet's true ship-of-the-line starships, representing the Federation's most advanced technologies in her time.

However, the Constitution class was showing its age in engagements and endurance as the threat to Federation safety from the Klingon Empire increased. Starfleet was in need of a starship that would not only compliment the Miranda class, but also supplant the highly succesful Constitution class. Further, this vessel had to have a longer on-station time than the Constitutional class, more firepower, and most of all, be faster than the ship it was replacing.

  • The Miranda is irrelevant here also, its not the only ship in the fleet! The relations of the Excelsiors' size and power in comparison to Constitutions is acceptable, however --Captain Mike K. Bartel
    • The Excelsior was not only to replace the Explorer Constitution, but also the patrol frigate Miranda. Ottens 13:19, 27 Jun 2004 (CEST)
  • Your version of the Miranda's role is entirely made up. We've never heard one called a police ship or a frigate. I think it is entirely speculative to cliam the Mirandas and Oberths had any roled besides what was shown. Can't you just take a general context and say
    • The Excelsior replaced many current classes WHICH INCLUDE the Miranda and Oberth rather than blindly assuming they are the only ships in the fleet.
  • DS9 TM lists Miranda as a medium cruiser, by the way, not a frigate.
      • We don't know that the Miranda was a patrol vessel.
      • We don't know that it was a frigate.
      • We don't know whether it was a "backbone" of anything. We only saw 2 or 3 in the whole Original movie era!
      • We know the Excelsior wasnt designed to replace it, the Miranda continued in service at least as long.
      • The only thing we know is that the Excelsior representing a phasing out of the Constitution, but we have no idea of its relations with other smaller vessels like the Miranda.--Captain Mike K. Bartel
It was shown the Oberth was a science vessel, and seeing how it isn't exactly the most powerful ship in the fleet, it is safe to assume that it was constructed with the idea of being a scientific platform.

The Constitution was the state-of-the-art mid-2300s starship. Because it was a new, advanced vessel, there were only a hand full operative. Besides the Miranda, we know of no ships in that era, so it is quite safe to assume that the Miranda was for the tasks to dangerous for the Oberth, and not "dangerous enough" for the Constitution; a police/patrol frigate.

About "backbone": the Constitutions were "new" and there were not so many of them available. The Oberth was to weak to do the more dangerous missions, so having no other vessels besides this three seen, the Miranda is quite logical to be the "backbone" patrol frigate. Please make sure you read the new "Design and Construction History" paragraph, as I've already changed most things. Ottens 17:40, 27 Jun 2004 (CEST)

  • Quite logical, but not necessarily true. Speculation is the bane of a reference work, i highly disapprove of this pointless supposition.--Captain Mike K. Bartel

Construction HistoryEdit

After action reports indicated that Captain Scott had succeeded in sabotaging completely and totally the transwarp drive. The complexity of its design was its downfall, and the Excelsior class returned to spacedock under impulse power, and it's transwarp drive was removed and repliced with a conventional warp drive system.

  • Not exactly canon, but "the logical thing to conclude". -- Redge 20:44, 26 Jun 2004 (CEST)
  • comes from the TNG Technical Manual, if I may guess -- Kobi
  • i think everything after "impulse power," should go, even if it is Tech manual speculation--Captain Mike K. Bartel
Logical assumption. Ottens 13:19, 27 Jun 2004 (CEST)
Does any one have objections on this paragraph still? Ottens 17:46, 27 Jun 2004 (CEST)
I still disagree with speculating that the drive was replaced. We only know that transwarp failed, not that they did anything to the engines. possibly the engines were standard, but they simply no longer tried to use them to gain transwarp speeds.--Captain Mike K. Bartel
As far as I know, warp drive systems and transwarp drive systems are competely different, and it is quite unlikely that the transwarp system was just kept in place and used for warp instead. The engines/nacelles were probably quite identical, but I think there's a big difference between a warp reactor core and a tranwarp reactor core... Ottens 21:47, 27 Jun 2004 (CEST)
Although I agree that the removal of the transwarp enignes isn't strickly canonical, I do think some leniancy is permitted here and the fact that they were removed seems so implicitly logical that I think the writers never even bothered to put it in. -- Redge 11:45, 28 Jun 2004 (CEST)
The circumstance that all Excelsiors were retrofitted with standard warp drive to me is one of the silliest pseudo-facts in ST's history. Were was this ever mentioned?

Just because Scotty stole four screws from the main engineering computer the Federation's attempts to successfully achieve faster-than-usual-(=trans)warp-capability failed? Preposterous! Simply absurd! Just because starhips in the 24th century do not travel via huge, green tunnels in subspace (--> Borg) it doesn't mean that there was anything wrong about Excelsior's transwarp-ability! Since when is a system a failure as soon as it becomes rather complex? This is all so grotesque! On the one hand starships in Trek are highly advanced, and on the other hand something as revolutional as the "We'll go a whole lot faster than the fastest warp of today! WITHOUT GREEN TUNNELS!!"-transwarp is a flop, just because it is a very sensitive machine?? I don't get this, really. If someone had taken a few screws from Cochrane's Phoenix it would not have worked either! Nevertheless the project would have been successfull without the sabotage! Goes without saying for the "Great Experiment", too!

The whole "Excelsior was a failure" thing should be removed from this article or at least be augmented with a reliable source.

As the section in question is written now it's heartbreakingly unreasonable! – Ambassador 15:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The FutureEdit

While the expected life span of the Excelsior class was listed at 50 years, the class has lasted twice that. Sturdy, accommodating to crew and passengers, the Excelsior class is perhaps the most widely recognized class of starship in the Federation. The last refit of the Excelsior and Excelsior-Refit classes saw the addition of Type VIII Phaser Turrets, and saw a complete overhaul of her warp and computer cores. However, this was deemed the last refit of the class, with Starfleet wishing to integrate more and more Ambassador and later Nebula class vessels into the roles that had traditionally been served by the Excelsior class.

With Excelsior class ships serving as the bulk of the fleet in engagements against both the Borg and the Dominion, the vessels have seen a startling attrition rate. Nearly 60 percent of the active Excelsiors in the fleet were destroyed or decommissioned following fleet engagements against threat vessels. In combat missions, recommissioned and revamped Steamrunner-class vessels replaced the Excelsior class, the Excelsior was relegated more and more to both the exploration and diplomatic arms of Starfleet until the end of the Dominion War.

While nearly 80 Excelsior class vessels remain in active service, Starfleet has officially retired the design and is keeping the remaining Excelsior class vessels in service until their estimated refit dates before decommissioning the vessels.

  • all three paragraphs: nice to know, but where does that come from? -- Kobi
  • The only revisions we know about to the original Excelsior-class design are
    • the changes made to the NX-2000 when it became NCC-2000 for ST:6
    • the variation of the Enterprise-B add-ons
    • The Lakota, which was souped up with 24th century era tech (shown with E-B fittings)
    • An assumed refit to 24th century tech for all TNG era ships, but this is unproven --Captain Mike K. Bartel
How is this? Ottens 13:19, 27 Jun 2004 (CEST)

While the expected life span of the Excelsior class was listed at 50 years, the class has lasted twice that. Sturdy, accommodating to crew and passengers, the Excelsior class is perhaps the most widely recognized class of starship in the Federation. Although the Excelsiors was refitted several times, Starfleet wishes to integrate more and more Ambassador and later Nebula-class vessels into the roles that had traditionally been served by the Excelsior class.

With Excelsior class ships serving as the bulk of the fleet in engagements against both the Borg and the Dominion, the vessels have seen a startling attrition rate. In combat missions, recommissioned and revamped Steamrunner-class vessels replaced the Excelsior.

Starfleet has officially retired the design and is keeping the remaining Excelsior class vessels in service until their estimated refit dates before decommissioning the vessels.

Star Trek: BorgEdit

I'm trying to figure out if I should add the information about the Star Trek: Borg game. It used the Excelsior Bridge from the movies or something similar to it while using the Star Trek: Voyager sets such as Engineering and the corridors. Vice Admiral Colorge 01:53, 15 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Video games fall under non-canon, so I would think not. There was a skit the TNG crew did for a charity that was filmed on the observation lounge set, but we certainly don't count that as canon. And Patti Yasutake (Nurse Ogawa) was in a commercial for the Hallmark Ent-D ornament in the quarters set, needless to say...- AJHalliwell 02:01, 15 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Heavy CruiserEdit

I just had discussions over in the Heavy cruiser article, adding a few designations and removing those that couldn't be cited to a source. Most of the sources come from the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Technical Manual. What is the source for the Excelsior as a "heavy cruiser"? Once identified we can add it back to the heavy cruiser article too. And if not identified we should remove it from here. Thanks! Aholland 17:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Anyone on Exclesior and "heavy cruiser"? Aholland 02:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know of any source/citation for this. I think it needs to be removed and the pna can go as well once the objectionable material is gone. Logan 5 17:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

There's a lot more that needs to change in the article besides just the heavy cruiser bit. Baseless speculation, wrong verb tense, claims made without attribution - you name it. I'll take a crack at it if I can find time. Aholland 17:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Armaments Edit

To be consistent, I've edited the refit configuration just slightly. Where it said "12 dual phaser banks," I've changed that to "24 or more phaser emitters."

Paradise Lost evidence: 5 dual phaser banks on the ventral side of the saucer, plus at least one single/dual at the bottom of the engineering hull (seen firing on the Defiant); 5 or more dual phaser banks on the dorsal side of the saucer (5 to the front and sides, plus at least one single/dual between the pink bulbs near the impulse engines); at least one more single/dual phaser bank between the warp nacelles Torlek 14:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Jaz talk 21:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Armaments: 12 dual Phaser emitters, 4 Photon torpedo tubes
Should be checked, cited and eventually added to the class article instead. -- Cid Highwind 16:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Four torpedo tubes forward identified in MSD of Ent-B, same slots visual on Excelsior, and at least one place aft. I count 10 double emitter on the saucer (5+5 t/b). Furthermore two places are marked Phaser Emitter at the rear end of the vessel on the MSD. Furthermore there is a similar pattern on the bottom of the vessel which would indicate 4x1 Emitter. See IDIC Page and EAS -- Kobi 19:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
The above was first posted on Talk:USS Excelsior, I now moved it here. The above information should, I think, be a part of a "class" article, not a part of individual ship articles. Exact terminology aside, it already is listed in this article, so I'm just keeping this here as a reference. -- Cid Highwind 19:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Shuttlebay Edit

Question: Can someone please clarify with pics exactly where on the "dorsal bow" the shuttlebay is? Torlek 03:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Answer: Well, here is something:

It looks very similar in location and appearence to the shuttlebay on the refit-Constitution. Not sure where the Type-7 reference in the article comes from, though. -- The preceding unsigned comment was added by OuroborosCobra (talk • contribs).

Reply: That would be the aft - and I do know two possible locations, both of which are aft (the other being that big cavity below the yellow-circled area).

"Dorsal bow" was referring to the saucer section. Torlek 03:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. I can't think of anything on the model that could be a shuttle bay on the saucer. My guess is that whoever wrote "bow" meant "aft", or didn't know the difference. --OuroborosCobra talk 03:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
the E-B "master systems display" visible on the E-B bridge in "Generations" supposedly depicted one (or -possibly- two) shuttlebay in the saucer, but only under close-up analysis. Would these forwardmost bays be classified as "bow" bays perhaps, as being forward of the "aft" (upper and lower) bays? The preceding unsigned comment was added by Captainmike (talk • contribs).
Maybe we should just say "shuttlebay in the saucer" like we do in the Galaxy-class article --OuroborosCobra talk 07:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

PNA? Edit

Exactly what information in this article needs citation? I know there are some lines without citation, but most of those are technical stuff based on visual evidence and can be attributed to pretty much any of the six movies and multiple episodes in which the class appeared. Other than that, however, everything else seems cited and the PNA should be removed. --From Andoria with Love 10:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

failure of the transwarp drive Edit

i have adjusted the section on the events of ST:III to reflect what was seen in the movie, and removed speculations on how that constituted the failure of the transwarp project. no such conclusion can be reached, and it is highly likely that after the embarrassing failure to catch the enterprise, the ship was repaired and later tests were conducted. the revised passage is now result nuetral, merely detailing the failure in that one instance. -Mithril 18:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Maximum SpeedEdit

Do we have any reference for a maximum warp-speed in a canon-source? --Örlogskapten 09:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Although a line cut from the Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country script indicated that Sulu ordered the ship to "warp nine" to get to Khitomer in time. "Maximum warp" was mentioned in Star Trek Generations, but no factor was given. "High warp" was stated in "Tin Man", again no factor. "Maximum warp" was again mentioned in "Flashback", but again, no factor given. On a vaguer note, in "Paradise Lost", O'Brien was concerned about what "tinkering" that may have been "done to [the Lakota's] warp drive." That's about all there is to work with. --Alan 04:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Registry chronology "theory" Edit

I removed:

  • While there is no on-screen information to directly establish how long the Excelsior prototype was under construction, a clue may be found in the fact that in the early 2270s, there already existed an active-duty vessel with a registry 120 units higher than Excelsior's (the dreadnought USS Entente (NCC-2120)). If registry numbers are assigned sequentially, then Excelsior would have been in existence prior to that point.
  • A decade plus might be considered an extended developmental period, but the fact that Starfleet was still tinkering with transwarp nearly a century later makes the amount of time spent on the prototype easier to understand.
  • Many Excelsiors seen in TNG and later series have high registry numbers concurrent with the ships being built decades after the prototype but share its basic design.

This would be all well and good if there was a canon reference to registry number sequences being derived by date.

  • After-action reports indicated that Captain Scott had succeeded in sabotaging the transwarp drive. The complexity of its design was its weakness, and the Excelsior returned to spacedock under impulse power.

Also, "after-action reports" and the entire last sentence were not referenced in any way. The Excelsior went kaput, and that was the last of that. --Alan del Beccio 02:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed about the after action reports bit...not that it is unsourced per se, but it is already covered elsewhere in the article.
The rest I reformatted and returned to the article (since I WROTE much of it in the first place), making it clear it is BACKGROUND information, not part of the "canon" article.Capt Christopher Donovan 03:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed it, as I stated, not because I have my head up my ass and don't know what I am doing, but because there is no evidence regarding registry number assignments ever referenced it trek to support such speculation. In the future, it would be much appreciated if the discussion of questionable removed content was actually discussed before it was readded. Thanks. --Alan del Beccio 03:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

You mean other than the fact that registry numbers increase over time (as in between eras in general)...the older the ship, the smaller the number (conversely the newer the ship, the newer the number).
If the background note needs to be reworked to reflect that, we can work on it...Capt Christopher Donovan 03:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
One issue here... registry numbers tend to increase over time. We can only assume that they always do, and that they indicate ship creation dates. Tend is not does.
Not knowing the "formula" for registry assignment, we can only assume so much from what facts exist: older ships tend to have lower registries... that's all we can figure. As such, that isn't definitive. So, we can't base any dates on that. At all. -- Sulfur 02:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


  • Some fandom works interject that this class was named in honor of a lost-in-action USS Excelsior NCC-1718, of a subclass of the Constitution design. This is due to the fact that this ship name was originally proposed in the auxiliary list of possible Constitution ship names circulated behind-the-scenes in the last two years of The Original Series. This list was the basis of a ship list (the Bonhomme-Richard subclass) in Franz Joseph's Star Fleet Technical Manual. This is how that ship's existence was further perpetuated, even though that manual is no longer taken as a canon reference by the producers.

Removed "fandom" from "apocrypha" section --Alan 03:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

uss alliance Edit

it was a ship used in the TOS novels but wasnt put into an episode where does these vessel stand? The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shaunj01 (talk • contribs).

The ship is non-canon so it has no place here. The right place for that kind of information is Memory Beta. The Memory Beta article for the ship can be found here. --Jörg 16:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

isnt that silly as the author intended that to be in the episode but the director decided to cut it out? it should at least have a long apocrypha The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shaunj01 (talk • contribs).

Why? It was cut. --OuroborosCobra talk 17:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

i just think its unfair that it doesnt get mentioned at all beacuse its scene was cut, after all isnt the point of this is to be a reliable source for star trek infomation and in my opnion books are and deleted scenes are just as reliable as epsidoes and films The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shaunj01 (talk • contribs).

No, the point of this site is to be a reliable source on canon information, and the definition of canon is well defined. We may mention short entries from a real world perspective on novels or deleted content, but we do not weigh it heavily or create long sections on single ships. That is what Memory Beta, our sister project is for. --OuroborosCobra talk 18:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
More importantly, cut from what exactly? --Alan 18:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I've got to question that to. If this is from a TOS novel, what episode could it be from? Couldn't have been a TOS episode, Excelsior class hadn't been conceived of. Movie? --OuroborosCobra talk 18:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)