FA status Edit

Nomination (12 June - 15 July 2012, Failed) Edit

Self-nomination: I strongly believe this article fits the FA criteria. --Defiant 01:10, June 12, 2012 (UTC)

  • Support the article, but oppose the blurb. A quick look at any of the other blurbs should have been enough to know that blurbs only contain a link to the article in question, as previously discussed. Also, this blurb has little to do with the type itself, as it reads more like a blurb for the USS Kelvin, right down to the picture only being labeled as that ship. While blurbs should usually be the first few paragraphs, in this case a different section should be used instead of the history section. - Archduk3 13:06, June 13, 2012 (UTC)

Well, as far as I can see, you're the only editor here who has been fixating over this "blurb" idea. If it's so easy to do, I don't see why you couldn't have done it yourself, rather than just leaving the message that it needed a blurb and then criticizing my efforts to add one! I'm sorry that I even tried. --Defiant 13:45, June 13, 2012 (UTC)

With blurbs recently having been approved by the community, I'm also interested in getting this one right, though I'm unsure about exactly how to, due to the policy pages being unclear about them. Also, thanks for your comments so far, but the FA nomination policy page currently states, "If you approve of an article, write Support followed by your reasons," so is there any chance you could disclose some reasoning for your support vote? --Defiant 18:51, June 13, 2012 (UTC)

I've now had a go at rewriting the blurb. Is it any better? --Defiant 19:04, June 13, 2012 (UTC)

Blurbs have not been recently approved by the community, just by you, as the consensus you're claiming is now enough is actually less than the one you claimed wasn't. Since that is now stated for the record, my reasoning for supporting the article is I "believe this article fits the FA criteria". I would have just placed a "〃" in my original statement, but I don't believe in this strongly enough to warrant that. The blurb is also now acceptable. - Archduk3 19:49, June 13, 2012 (UTC)

Haha! Thanks for those compliments; you made me laugh. :) Any more comments from other users? --Defiant 20:18, June 13, 2012 (UTC)

Comment-Shouldn't there be a quick note after the first sentence "In 2233, a vessel of this type, the USS Kelvin, was deployed near Klingon space. " that she has returned that year to earth, as Kirk was born in Iowa in the prime universe? Or at least something like "She shortly thereafter returned to Federation space, where one of her female crew members disembarked in order to give birth."--Sennim 10:16, June 22, 2012 (UTC)

I suspect that would entail speculation, as we don't canonically know that, in the prime reality, the Kelvin didn't rendezvous with another starship that delivered Winona Kirk and her unborn baby to Earth. From what the writers have stated, this is not what they intended, though that bg info seems more suitable for the page about the Kelvin itself, where you can currently find such info. --Defiant 11:31, June 22, 2012 (UTC)

  • Support-You're right of course got my ship and type mixed up:)--Sennim 13:10, June 22, 2012 (UTC)

Cool; no worries! I'm basically happy to address any and all comments on how this page could be further improved, though I personally can't think of any ways. Thanks for your vote. --Defiant 14:30, June 22, 2012 (UTC)

The article is indebted to James Clyne for okaying the use of his Kelvin-type bridge concept artwork, so a big thanks to him. Any other comments and/or votes? --Defiant 18:20, June 22, 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the votes so far. Would anyone else like to make another? --Defiant (talk) 02:12, June 28, 2012 (UTC)

  • Support. Meets the criteria. 31dot (talk) 03:03, June 28, 2012 (UTC)

As stated, the votes are very much appreciated. With one more support vote needed to make this a featured article, are there any takers? Alternatively, if you think this article isn't worthy of FA status, feel free to vote "oppose," by all means. Thanks. --Defiant (talk) 12:27, June 30, 2012 (UTC)

New Timeline?Edit

Should the "new timeline" banner really be at the top of this article since the Kelvin was commissioned prior to Nero's incursion? -- TrekFan Talk 14:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Since most of the information here describes something that occurred before the creation of the new timeline, I would say, no, it shouldn't be here. :) --From Andoria with Love 04:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought so. I'm going to go ahead and delete it. If anyone has any reason why it should be here, please comment. -- TrekFan Talk 22:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Unnecessary Edit

Is this article even necessary? Since the USS Kelvin is the only known Kelvin-class ship, the two articles will be highly redundant. I see no purpose to this class page, since class pages help to link various ships and their histories to each other in the same class. As there are no other Kelvin-class vessels, I don't see the point. Feel free to correct me otherwise. --Kahwless 15:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Having this article here allows for expansion should we see any more ships of the class in the future. Also, if we removed this one, we would have to remove all the other "ship-type" articles on MA. No, having this article here lets us add to it in the future, should we need to. If not, then it's here for the sake of completeness, IMO. -- TrekFan Talk 15:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Your point is valid. With Paramount anticipating a 2011 release of the next film, I'm sure we can anticipate a better glimpse into early Starfleet ship history, possibly more Kelvin-class vessels. And with the onslaught of novels that I'm sure will come about as a result of the movie, I do see apocryphal vessels appearing as well. --Kahwless 21:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, well also the "Kelvin type" was a featured vessel in the film. The corridors, escape pods, bridge design, basic ship design, similarity to Saladin and Ptolemy class design, over 800 crew, phaser/photon complement, shuttlebay, turbolift, weird shielding arrangement, and probably more are just a few details that would be better off here than on the USS Kelvin page (which is supposed to focus on the History and crew of that particular ship). We've made good articles with quite a bit less, and this is a potentially feature-worthy (when we get DVD-quality images) ship-class. No need to worry about the sequel or apocrypha for all that.--Tim Thomason 08:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Size? Edit

I'm a little hesitant to accept the size given for the Kelvin class. 450 - 650 meters? Constitution class ships were only 300 meters long. If the class truly is 655 meters in length, this would make the Kelven-class one of the largest ships built by Starfleet that we know of, roughly the size of the Galaxy-class! Was Starfleet making ships of this size in that time??? Leonard McCoy stated that the Excelsior was a big ship in the movies, and that class measures less than 500 meters. Semiscaepera 08:28, May 11, 2010 (UTC)

Length and size are two different things. At its official size of 457 meters, Kelvin's internal volume would be nearly equivalent to the original Constitution class. More importantly, even at 655 meters in length, it would be barely a third of the Galaxy class' volume. If McCoy had said That's the biggest ship I've ever seen that would be one thing, but he never even says that much. The ship's official size makes as much sense as anything else in canon. Newtype alpha 05:20, March 31, 2012 (UTC)

However, "making sense" and "having canon support" are two different things. From the size identified in the film (none given) it could easily be any size at all, and 650 meters is certainly big for a ship of this era. Not even mentioning the Saladin, which is nowhere near that big. Idazmi (talk) 23:52, February 22, 2014 (UTC)

Blue boltsEdit

USS Kelvin photon torpedo launchers

Okay, so there are bound to be more people questioning the "blue bolts as photon torpedoes" factoid. Here is the reasoning on this, based on the visuals and the script.[1] In the dialogue all they say is "Fire all phasers" at the beginning of the battle when they are only firing with the red beams. So the blue bolts are at least not phasers presumably. Later on they start firing these blue bolts also after Captain Robau is killed on the Narada, the script says they are firing photons also at this point:


...which to me makes it a pretty clear case that the blue bolts slamming into narada torpedoes are the photon torps called for in the script. All they say at that point in the film dialogue is that this rapid firing of all weapons is part of the "Bravo-six maneuver" and there are no displays or other dialogue to say anything more about these blue bolts. However the Enterprise torps look almost exactly the same but a bit brighter blue bolts at the end of the film. And "photon" is synonymous in the script with "photon tordedo" if you read the whole thing through. So there you have it. --Pseudohuman 20:13, November 16, 2011 (UTC)

Question: If those are torpedos, then the Kelvin must have a literal SHITTON of them to be firing that rapidly. The Galaxy class only held what, 250? That and this would be the only second time we see a torpedo being turreted (first being the saber-class, first contact). The in ending, the Enterprise fires similar bursts only red. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs).

..and DS9 had those rotary rapid torpedo fire turrets they used in Way of the Warrior. And this was a last ditch-fire everything-situation for the Kelvin, so I suspect Kelvin-type ships don't normally fire hundreds of torpedoes in rapid fire. also it's worth noting that photon torpedoes used in this era by the Enterprise later on in the film weren't those large coffin sized capsules, but much smaller missiles. But in the end all we have is the script to go by, so i think we must trust that and leave it to our own imagination to speculate what type of photons torps those were. --Pseudohuman 11:54, May 7, 2012 (UTC)

However, in the film itself, the phasers were detonating the Narada's torpedoes, not the blue bolts. In addition, the clearly identifyable photon torpedoes used by Enterprise at the very end of the film do not resemble those blue bolts at all. Calling those bolts "photon torpedoes" based on that is a significant stretch. And I agree with "": The Enterprise's phasers were indeed very similar to those blue bolts, only red. Idazmi (talk) 23:47, February 22, 2014 (UTC)

Seems to me, that they were almost 1-to-1 duplicating the original Constitution-class torpedo effect as it was seen in "In a Mirror Darkly II" when you compare the two. --Pseudohuman (talk) 08:16, February 23, 2014 (UTC)

The difference is the extreme difference of magnitude between the blue bolts and a photon torpedo, the sound effects used, the absurdly high firing rate of the bolts as opposed to photon torpedoes (even in the same film!), the delivery system, the fact that the effect in "In A Mirror Darkly" doesn't match a single other instance of photon torpedo fire in Star Trek (unless you include this scene specifically), and the fact that the much more obvious photon torpedoes used by the Enterprise in the end of the same film bore no resemblance to those bolts at all. Even using In "A Mirror Darkly part II" as a definite guide, this would mean that 23rd century photon torpedoes are definitely energy bolts and not proectiles, (as they were shown in "In A Mirror Darkly Part II" and the blue bolts are in this film) and the blue bolts would be some kind of extremely miniaturized version of the original photon torpedoes with a greatly reduced yield. They are definitely not everyday photon torpedoes being spammed like machinegun fire. That would be a ridiculous assumption, and would turn the Kelvin into some kind of super-dreadnought, far more powerful than Enterprise. (and hundreds of times larger than Defiant was in "In A Mirror Darkly Part II) Idazmi (talk) 23:30, February 23, 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it is pretty unique, but you have to take the scene in context, the fact that the ship was about to be destroyed any second by an incredibly powerful enemy ship, narada weapons were going straight through the shields. The only use for any weapons they had left was at that point to use them aggressively as point defense. So at that point it is sort of logical they were rapid-firing everything to protect the ship and the shuttles. In any case we know for certain that they were not phasers, as I pointed out in the beginning of this thread, and the script says they were firing photons. The photon torpedo effect has been reinvented probably 20 times throughout star trek, this just happens to be identical to a recent portrayal of photons from a prime universe ship of that era. I dont think it's coincidence. And we know can be launched without the glow}}, and then we wouldn't really see them at all. The apparent huge size of photon torpedoes always comes from the amount of "glow" they are programmed to have. They just weren't as glowy as usual here. This also isn't the only instance where torpedoes are [ fired in machine gun like bursts at all. All ships can do it, usually it just isn't called for. But as a final note: I dont know why they depicted photons like this, you don't know why they did it, only the special effects guys know, and we don't know what they know. All we have is the film and the script to go with and even though it is unique, it isn't inconsistent with anything. --Pseudohuman (talk) 04:53, February 24, 2014 (UTC)

Stop being ridiculous. Not inconsistent? They're basically disruptor bolts. They don't act like photon torpedoes at all and certainly aren't used like them. If we assume that they ARE torpedoes, at those firing rates, the Kelvin would solo a FLEET of Constitution Class Starships effortlessly. (say, 16 or 20 of them) Furthermore, THIS actually represents photon torpedoes. They have the correct sound, and the correct usage. I highly doubt the Kelvin (a survey vessel) is thousands of times more powerful than Enterprise. (which is a cruiser) Idazmi (talk) 19:32, February 25, 2014 (UTC)

There is no such thing as correct usage for photon torpedoes, they can be used in a wide variety of ways. Those are all just your personal opinions. Also, according to TOS: "The Changeling", it would take 360 photon torpedo hits to shatter the shields of a prime reality Constitution-class starship, and several more to destroy the ship after that. The Kelvin was hardly as powerful as you suggest. --Pseudohuman (talk) 21:03, February 25, 2014 (UTC)

You and everyone else knows that the quote from "The Changeling" is a well known contradiction. In all other instances, only a hand-full of torpedoes is needed to destroy a ship entirely, whether Constitution Class or not. (Elann of Troyus, which you indicated earlier, being a perfect example. Six torpedoes devastated a Klingon D-7 warship while it's shields were up, and a D-7 is a match to a Constitution Class Starship in combat ability) In addition, the Kelvin's crew had no time to modify their torpedoes to suit the threat, and the "torpedoes" don't match anything you presented here in the slightest. Photon Torpedoes are warheads containing matter and antimatter. A Constitution Class ship only carries 100 of them, total. The blue bolts are clearly not photon torpedoes. The bolts don't have any solidity to them either, precluding them containing a missile. The "bolt" is all there is. (The similar-looking torpedoes in "In a Mirror Darkly" are at least used as photon torpedoes, and not like disruptors or movie-era pulse phasers) Idazmi (talk) 18:37, February 26, 2014 (UTC)

Seems to me, you are just nitpicking visual effects based on what your personal opinions are about what Star Trek should be. The torpedoes don't need to match 100% with anything, this is the first time ever in the history of Star Trek we saw the type of torpedoes a ship from the 30s uses. This is the precedent for what 2230s torpedoes should look like. --Pseudohuman (talk) 20:03, February 26, 2014 (UTC)

No, you are using scant-to-none evidence to support a claim that is inherently ridiculous. They need to at least match a TEENY bit. But they don't. They only match a single visual effect in one alternate-universe episode of Enterprise, and not even that by anything more that being blue and glowy. Idazmi (talk) 04:08, February 27, 2014 (UTC)
Policy on this is clear, "sophistication of optical effects...will not affect the validity of a resource" and production sources can be used "to name items...that were seen on-screen but not referred to by name". If anyone can find a "professional, published source" that mentions this "problem" we can include a bg note about it, otherwise we should simply state that the script IDs the bolts as torpedoes. - Archduk3 05:16, February 27, 2014 (UTC)

Just to round this up. We have seen 23rd century starfleet-issue torpedoes look exactly like this before in "In a Mirror Darkly, Part II". We have seen torpedoes used in desperate situations for a similar purpose as point defense in "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" by the Klingons. We have seen torpedoes fired in similar extreme rapid fire bursts in several episodes. We have seen pop-up torpedo launchers before in Deep Space Nine. We have seen photon torpedoes that appear more like they are transparent globes of energy before used by the Klingons in "Star Trek III" and "V" The production designer Scott Chambliss called the Kelvin a big warship. This is the first time in Trek history we have seen what type of torpedoes and launchers Starfleet used in the early 2230s. The script of the film identifies the Kelvin using photons to defend itself from the Narada torpedoes. --Pseudohuman (talk) 07:05, February 27, 2014 (UTC)

Lets look at your references, shall we? Your text in quotes. ("")
"We have seen torpedoes used in desperate situations for a similar purpose as point defense in "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" by the Klingons."
That's one lie. They aren't used like the Kelvin's "torpedoes" at all.
"We have seen pop-up torpedo launchers before in Deep Space Nine."
It takes place over a century later on a space station refitted for combat, not a survey ship.
"We have seen photon torpedoes that appear more like they are transparent globes of energy before used by the Klingons in "Star Trek III" and "V"
Again, no turrets, no rapid spraying. There is nothing in canon supporting the blue bolts as "photon torpedoes". At all.
"The production designer Scott Chambliss called the Kelvin a big warship."
It's a survey vessel unless you can provide a direct quote. Idazmi (talk) 20:05, February 28, 2014 (UTC)

Just because the visual effects are slightly different for something new that hasn't been seen before (2230s Starfleet photon torpedoes in this case) simply is not a good enough reason to disregard the naming of an unnamed object seen on screen from the script. In order to do that, you would need to prove that it cannot under any circumstances possibly be what it supposedly is. And all I have done is provided examples of situations when photon torpedoes have been used/looked like/were rapid-fired in the same way. Memory Alpha has no need for any other "canon support" in a situation when a previously unseen unnamed thing is named in the script. So what if this was some new microtorpedo- or antimatter spread-type version of photon torpedoes. We simply don't speculate on it in MA. That is not what MA is for. --Pseudohuman (talk) 08:50, March 1, 2014 (UTC)

Antimatter spreads are not Photon Torpedoes, mate, not at all. These are: [5] The big blue things. Not these little blue pulse things: [6] They are only similar in color: not in function or power at all. They just are NOT photon torpedoes.Idazmi (talk) 06:43, March 2, 2014 (UTC)

I have said all there needs to be said. This discussion seems pointless since you don't appear to comprehend Memory Alpha policy in these matters. As one last note, it simply has always been common for Star Trek that a weapon can have several completely different appearances: spatial charge, plasma cannon, plasma charge, plasma rifle, etc. Thank you for the discussion. I'm sure this is something that is in the minds of many fans of the Kelvin. And if you disagree with MA naming policy, it's completely understandable that you come to different conclusions. MA is not an authority or an official source of information. We simply have our policy for how we deal with and report about canon and reference information. You are free to have your own personal method of dealing with them. We simply try to be consistent here. --Pseudohuman (talk) 08:38, March 2, 2014 (UTC)

Where does my comment imply that the "sophistication" of the effect affects the validity in any way? The blue bolts show all signs of being a turreted pulse weapon, not a torpedo. In addition, the weapons used in the film to destroy the Narada's missiles were clearly the phasers, not the blue bolts. It is not uncommon for a scene to change in production, as is obviously the case here. Idazmi (talk) 22:11, March 7, 2014 (UTC)
I have protected this article as a heretofore uninvolved party; there needs to be a consensus to make the suggested changes. Keep the dispute to this page, please. 31dot (talk) 22:18, March 7, 2014 (UTC)
Understandable. Idazmi (talk) 22:27, March 7, 2014 (UTC)

If someone wonders, are we sure the upper and lower weapon arrays are identical. You can see the lower array clearly just before the secondary hull breaks apart and it has the same set of two twin phaser banks and six torpedo launcher guns. --Pseudohuman (talk) 11:37, March 8, 2014 (UTC)

Oh, just realized, the blue bolts felt quite similar in size and power to the rapid fire torpedoes the jellyfish fired, though obviously different tech, but still similar. And the script identified those weapons as torpedoes too. --Pseudohuman (talk) 00:45, March 12, 2014 (UTC)

Those weapons on the Jellyfish were pulse weapons unless you can provide a clear reference. Idazmi (talk) 00:40, March 15, 2014 (UTC)

Background information or apocryphaEdit

So we seem to have a disagreement with user Defiant on what is apocrypha and what is background information. As far as I can tell these notes are licenced non-fiction sources that would be listed as background information sources and not apocryphal:

Could someone help us here? --Pseudohuman 07:10, March 30, 2012 (UTC)

The first note would probably be Background because it was on the official movie website, which suggests the information was associated with the production of the movie. The other two notes would be Apocrypha because Intel writing information about the ship and the model company doing so are likely both those respective companies making up information themselves(at least as the notes are written now, with no evidence the info came from someone associated with the production).--31dot 10:16, March 30, 2012 (UTC)
Looking at how MA considers sources, websites are invalid resources unless the info is also available somewhere else, so I thought the bg info from a website might be useful if presented together with where it says the same thing, if you know what I mean. Anyways, I'm happy with the info being integrated into the bg info instead. --Defiant 16:41, April 4, 2012 (UTC)
I think it should also be taken into consideration that the website info directly clashes, at least in my understanding of what a survey vessel is, with a statement made by someone we know played a large part in the movie's production. --Defiant 16:51, April 4, 2012 (UTC)

I don't really care where it is, bgnote or in the bgsegment of the article, it's fine how it is now. but official websites are valid reference sources. It doesn't matter if the info is presented in in-universe style "the ship is X" or "a model designer said in an interview that the ship is X"-style. both are just as valid and equal statements as far as MA is concerned. --Pseudohuman 19:25, April 4, 2012 (UTC)

AR Edit

This will mostly likely need to be moved, but it's the alternate reality, just like it's the mirror universe. We used the term alternate reality to describe only one alternate timeline or quantum reality, not several. - Archduk3 13:38, March 30, 2012 (UTC)

The difference is, whereas there is only 1 mirror universe, there's multiple alternate realities. That's a fact and cannot be changed upon a user's whims. --Defiant 16:29, April 4, 2012 (UTC)
There's one we call "the alternate reality" here on MA (for simplicity). The rest are alternate timelines and quantum realities (as AD3 noted above). -- sulfur 16:38, April 4, 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. That's a much better way of wording it, rather than something akin to "we're gonna change the nature of reality by wishing it was this way"! --Defiant 16:43, April 4, 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps we could also spell it out in such a clear-cut way for newbies, somewhere in the policies and guidelines. MA is starting to use a lot of words in a different way to how they'd normally be used, such as the AR. I think these should be noted. --Defiant 16:48, April 4, 2012 (UTC)

Engines Edit

"The low warp nacelle had an unusual extra exhaust at its aft end, which lit up when the nacelle was energized."

I think we should strike out "unusual" as most/all alternate universe starfleet ships seemed to have nacelle design in a similar way, thus it wasn't unusual for the alternate universe. --Jaguartalon 06:00, April 12, 2012 (UTC)

Well, I took that observation from here – [9]. It points out that the presence of the exhaust is odd because it's "unlike on any other Federation design of the old continuity." I personally agree that's a fair enough point and, since the quantity of ship types we've seen in the prime universe still vastly outnumbers those from the alternate reality, the exhaust is still technically "unusual". --Defiant 19:20, April 12, 2012 (UTC)

Peer review Edit

As can be seen above, on 20 June 2009, User:Tim Thomason commented, "We've made good articles with quite a bit less, and this is a potentially feature-worthy ship-class." I tend to agree with him and would be interested in learning any ways to improve on what is already here. --Defiant 20:16, April 12, 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the galleries and redistributed the images to where they are supported by the text. Most other class and type pages have entire sections on the corridors, bridge, sickbay, etc. Throwing all these images in a gallery is less helpful than just linking to the Kelvin-type section of the articles for these, assuming that those sections have actually been written of course. While the background sections have loads to say about these, we don't really spend any time describing some of them in universe. - Archduk3 20:38, April 12, 2012 (UTC)

I would definitely disagree with you on that point. The bridge is described in lots of detail. Granted, there's less on the other interiors but that's because everything that can be made out on screen is very minimal. The sickbay, for example, basically isn't shown at all; only the doorway is. The other areas are also nondescript, though each one has been described here in some detail (all that can be managed, IMHO). If you're willing and able to pick out other details, you're welcome to go right ahead, or at least provide further info as to what else you think could be described. Thanks. --Defiant 22:42, April 12, 2012 (UTC)

While individual corridors are mentioned, the overall height, shape, color, and lighting of the corridors isn't described, and since they are vastly different from other ships both before and after it's worth mentioning. While other areas features are described, they're not in different sections, and the text tends to be rather unfocused because of this. I'll have some time to do a once over on this later. - Archduk3 23:16, April 12, 2012 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for your those more detailed comments. :) --Defiant 23:51, April 12, 2012 (UTC)

As you can probably see, Archduk, I've reorganized the in-universe info into sections relating to the different areas, as you suggested. Any better? --Defiant 01:44, April 13, 2012 (UTC)

I think the changes make the article much more readable, especially moving the bg notes to the relevant sections. Finding information is much easier now. - Archduk3 02:46, April 13, 2012 (UTC)

Cool! Do you think you might be willing to describe the corridors in more detail? I've been having a bit of difficulty of thinking up how you would describe the shape of the arched partitions (sort of triangular, but not!) Also, any other tips or comments, anyone? --Defiant 09:06, April 13, 2012 (UTC)

For some reason, I can't get the third bg note under the "tactical systems" heading to appear on this page; must be some sort of programming error, I imagine. --Defiant 10:19, April 13, 2012 (UTC)

One of the links used an = sign. They break the bginfo template. There's a workaround by replacing each sign with {{=}}. It should be then all good. :-)–Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 11:41, April 13, 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. :) Any more comments on how this article could be improved? --Defiant 11:55, April 13, 2012 (UTC)

Would it be permissible to incorporate one of the concept illustrations created by James Clyne, taken from his own website? --Defiant 22:28, April 14, 2012 (UTC)

Provided he allows those images to be used, it shouldn't be any different than this. - Archduk3 22:36, April 14, 2012 (UTC)

How do you mean? Would someone have to specifically contact the runner of his website and request that the image be used here? --Defiant 22:45, April 14, 2012 (UTC)

If the copyright info on his website says that you can't use images from the site without doing that, then yes, you would. If the website places no such limits on the images, you can claim fair use and use one. If you check the example, only one image is used and a link back to that site is provided on both the image description page, where it's required, and on the page where the image is used, because using that image didn't replace the reason one would want to view that website. - Archduk3 22:58, April 14, 2012 (UTC)

Certain pages just say copyright James Clyne, but none of those pages link to or display either of the bridge images, one of which I'd like to use. There's 2 other images of the Kelvin/Iowa on that site (besides the 1 I'd like to use), which is a fantastic website anyways, so it shouldn't deter anyone from using it even if the image was here, I imagine. Plus, it's already available elsewhere on the web, without it having been taken down from there (as well as being additionally printed in the book Star Trek - The Art of the Film). --Defiant 23:11, April 14, 2012 (UTC)

I noticed small print saying, "any unauthorized use of production artwork is strictly prohibited," however, so I've emailed the website runner, kindly asking for their permission. I'll let you know the outcome. Thank you for your help. --Defiant 23:30, April 14, 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, I completely didn't expect that so much info could be gleaned from a mere 10 minutes (approximately). Any more comments on how this article could be further improved? --Defiant 14:33, April 15, 2012 (UTC)