Memory Alpha

Talk:Miranda class

Back to page

42,333pages on
this wiki
Add New Page


Can we have sources for the dimensions and the ships mass please ? I do not believe these were ever shown on screen or stated in dialogue. Alex Peckover 12:49, Aug 5, 2004 (CEST)

I examined the specifications, the armament and mass i could find no canon source for. I replaced it with new data from the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Technical Manual, since the tech manual data is given credence if uncontradicted by dialogue on this site. The measurement i'm still looking at, as i have to see if they are correct. --Captain Mike K. Bartel

Okay, if they're from a semi-canon source then that's fine by me. I just prefer to see references for this kind of information as I find it's common for Star Trek fans to make this sort of thing up. Alex Peckover 09:46, Aug 6, 2004 (CEST)

I don't find the mass of the Miranda class even remotely acceptable. The only official reference for the Big E (Connie) is 195,000MT . Why is the Miranda based on the 'million ton' hyperbolic statement from Scotty? If the FJ Tech Manual cannot be cited, I see no reason that the error-ridden and often rediculous DS9 TM be accepted. --Vanguard

Upside downEdit

When designing the new class of ship for "The Wrath of Khan", a mistake between the art department and the director when mailing the blueprints made the ship upside down. Instead of correcting the mistake, they decided that they liked the ship being upside down. I thought I heard this on the audio commentary to the director's edition of the movie. I don't have the movie with me right now, so I add this note here, instead of the main page. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) at {{{2}}}.

I can confirm this as I have the Director's Edition of The Wrath of Khan. I cannot remember specifically which director/crew members are involved, but the one who signed off on the design for the Miranda was in Israel at the time (possibly filming something else) and when he received the draft drawings, he took it out upside-down. He literally signed his approval of the design on the sheet and sent it back. When the art department got this back, they saw that his notes and signature were upside-down with regards to the true orientation of the drawing, and they decided to use it the way the director obviously viewed it. I'll further clarify this statement over the weekend by re-watching it. --Commander, Starbase 23 14:57, 11th August 2006
Wasn't that from the Search for Spock commentary? I could have sworn the crewmember in question was Leonard Nimoy, the director of that film... he might have been approving the design for the USS Grissom or the USS Excelsior. I thought Nimoy was doing a play or a mini-series or something in Israel just prior to the start of filming on Star Trek III. Eh... I might be wrong... --From Andoria with Love 11:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, right now I'm watching my "Disk 2 - Special Features" of the Director's Edition of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, specifically the "Designing Khan" featurette. According to the interviews in this, the movie's Art Director--Lee Cole--sent the sketch of the Reliant to producer Harve Bennett, who was in Israel making a film about the life of their PM Golda Maier. He pulled out the sketch upside-down, approved of it and sent it back. When Lee got it back, she saw that he'd signed off on the bottom of it saying "this looks fine to me"--but upside-down with regards to the intended orientation. They debated sending it back to Israel to correct this, but Production Designer Joe Jennings and Mike Minor realised their wasn't enough time to send it over and get it back, so they decided to go with it as Harve had seen it, and as we all know, it worked out pretty well as a result. Thus, we have the Avenger/Miranda-class we all know and love. The End. *grin* So, with this taken straight from the disk, should we put this up on the main page, as the original poster wanted? --Commander, Starbase 23 15:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Deflector dishEdit

Question: Wheres the deflector on this ship? AmdrBoltz 04:49, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't have one, in the sense we usually see it. Star Trek the magazine speculated that it uses a combination of forcefields and the shileld grid on the ships hull to make up for this. There are also those two round protrusions we don't really know what do, perhaps they're related. -AJHalliwell 05:21, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
It is also possible that the ship is fitted with a small, fixed-focus deflector array (such as the one mentioned in the Next Generation Technical Manual as being fitted to the ventral surface of the primary hull of Galaxy-class starships for use in separated operation). This would have to be supported by close examination of the ship, however. - 07:06, 18 Jul 2005 (UTC)
After examining a few high-resolution images of the ship, it seems the deflector array could also be mounted on the forward portion of the 'rollbar' atop the ship. It seems like an ideal location, especially when you consider the ship was designed to appear upside-down relative to what was ultimately filmed (see above). Close-up views show two ports that emit a purplish-blue glow. - 07:33, 18 Jul 2005 (UTC)
I always thought the round objects projecting from the square part of the upper hull were the equivalent of the single main defelector. They glow blue and they face forward.--GreatBear 06:07, 4 Jan 2006 (UTC)
Just an opening disclaimer: all this information I'm giving here is not canon. I have the deck plans of the original non-canon Avenger-class heavy frigate and the later non-canon Miranda-class cruiser, and both state that the small, "four-window" wedges found both port and starboard on the underside of the extended rear hull at the aft of the ship are "Wide Angle Deflector Emitters (or WADE for short). On a purely frontal view of the ship, these "emitters" would appear to be blocked by the curve of the ventral saucer, but that's what the non-canon plans state. If I can find a good screen-capture or schematic, I'll post it here, if that's acceptable? --Commander, Starbase 23 15:04, 11th August 2006
<--Image removed-->
Here's a picture with the yellow boxes highlighting the navigational deflectors as specified in th non-canon deck plans: --Commander, Starbase23 15:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
That positioning makes no sense. For the navigational deflectors to work, they need to be facing the direction of travel, not pointing straight down. I think the fans have got it very, very wrong. --OuroborosCobra talk 15:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
They're not pointing straight down. The four "windows" are sloped forwards, possiblty at a 45-degree angle. But since they are "windows" of a sort, they're just covers for the equipment behind them, which would be projecting the deflector beams forward. Of course, before I got all these deck plans and schematics, I thought the round protrusions from the built-up hull port and starboard of the bridge and on the top of the torpedo pod were the Nav Deflectors as well. The same fanon deck plans and schematics I have (Todd Allan Guenther's "Ships of the Star Fleet" and the "Miranda Class Cruiser General Plans" by Michael C. Rupprecht & Alex Rosenzweig) make them the sensors mounts that are at the 3, 6 and 9 o'clock positions around the main sensor disk of the Enterprise. --Commander, Starbase23 16:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I think that OuroborosCobra was referring to the two features highlighted on the image above -- they face straight down.
The features non-canon blueprints call deflectors, Cmdr23, are on the top of the saucer, and are not visible on this image. -- Captain M.K.B. 18:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
The original Starship Enterprise (NCC-1701) blueprints from the mid-1970's indicated that the three rounded lights on the front of the Enterprise's saucer section served as backup navi-deflectors. Maybe it's not so much of a stretch to say that the lights on the hull of the Reliant, et. al., are a kind of dispersed navi-deflector array. This would also explain the lights on the front of the command section of Klingon starships. Ol' Horta Face 02:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
i've always figured that the reason the deflector dishes are big and dish shaped was not the deflector part, but because they doubled as a sensor platform. i see no reason why a series of smaller emmitters couldn't line the front hull of the Miranda, maybe even combined into the Sheild gridwork. a big distributed deflector. the Constellation class would use the same set up. - Mithril 21:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


Just following through with the boilerplate. Needs to be overhauled, with an end result something like that found on D'deridex-class. Plenty of interior shots from "Emissary", ST II, "Night Terrors", and possibly others that can be intergrated into the page. --Alan del Beccio 06:40, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I am totally going to revise this article to look more like the Nebula-class article. I will keep the information from the current article though. Ensign q 16:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Not sure why you chose (at the time) this over this for the framework of your intended overhaul, but ok. Regardless, three years later, it's finally 'done'. --Alan 14:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

That 70's ShipEdit

I took out the reference to the 1970s and clarified the source of the name Avenger. I actually still have the drawings mentioned. The preceding unsigned comment was added by GreatBear (talk • contribs).

Pulse Phasers? Edit

If the Defiant is listed as being one of the first ships to use pulse phasers, why is the Reliant listed as mounting them? that would mean pulse phasers are technology 80 years older than implied. the discontinuity is odd. presumably the 'pulse phaser' referance is the result of the appreance of the Reliants phaser fire, which is in small pulses. but since we see the exact same type of weapons fire from the Enterprise's phaser banks, it stands to reason the Reliant merely mounted the same type of phasers, just in a unique location. the fact that the Defiants pulse phasers and the phasers used by the reliant have very different visual appearrance also seems to support the different system. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) at {{{2}}}.

The Defiant is the only ship type that has it. The Miranda Class has got Phaser Emitters no Phaser Pulse Cannons. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) at {{{2}}}.
Indeed, the reference of phaser cannons comes from the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Technical Manual, so it's a bg-designation only, to what appear to be simply phaser emitters that fire straight forward. It's possible they are the same tech, but something like "type-8 phaser cannons" on the Miranda and "type-XII phaser cannons" on the Defiant. It's even possible pulse cannon is a synonym, making the tech date back to the 22nd century, in some early version at least. --Pseudohuman 09:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Why did it outlive the Constitution-class? Edit

The Miranda-class is no where near as rugged, durable, or heavily armed as the Constitution-class. Why did it outlive it? The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) at {{{2}}}.

What is the basis for your statement about the Constitution being more rugged, durable, and more heavily armed? Granted weaopons load may make sense, but the rest of it is never stated in canon. The other thing is simply age of design. The Miranda was a new desgin, where the Constitution was a refit of an old design, with fewer growth prospects. The Mirandas in the 24th century indeed may have received upgrades to stay in service.
Here is a real world example. In the late 1940s early 50s, the US was looking at a design for a new long range heavy bomber. They had the existing B-36, and created a heavily upgraded version of it called the B-60. It was pretty much as good as a new design, the B-52. They opted for the B-52 over the B-60 because the B-52 had more capability for future upgrades, since it was an all new design itself. --OuroborosCobra talk 21:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The Miranda-class seemed to be the Stormtrooper of space. Those type of ships had trouble hitting any modern target, and were dropped by glancing blows. And, it is a light cruiser, not meant for heavy fighting, while the Constitution-class, in it's refit stages, was a heavy duty cruiser. Over the course of the 24th Century, the Constitution-class could have been further upgraded to be the Light Cruisers of the modern day. They seemed to be able to take more hits than the Miranda-class after all. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) at {{{2}}}.

Again, what is the basis for your comparison to the Stormtrooper of space? As for performance against modern targets, you have no idea how a refit constitution would perform, you've never seen one in battle. Now for the heavy cruiser/light cruiser problem. Yes, the Constitution was designated as a heavy cruiser, but perhaps it was not as good in that role as the Miranda was as a light cruiser. You also don't necesserily replace a light cruiser just because you have a heavy one. Heavy cruisers are big and expensive to operate, light cruisers are not. --OuroborosCobra talk 00:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Hate to break in on the conversation, the refit Constitution class was seen in battle in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, Star Trek III: The Search for Spock, and Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. Of course, I may not be understanding you properly, in which case, you can ignore this. ;) --From Andoria with Love 04:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I think this person is asking why the Miranda kept going after the refit Constitution was retired. We still see them in the Dominion War, while we don't see the Constitution again after the events of ST VI. --OuroborosCobra talk 05:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
actually, the USS Olympia appeared to be a refit constitution class, and it was still in active duty as of 2363. it crashed in 2371. so some constitution class ships were still in use right up to the dominion war. in regards to the miranda, i think it's versitility is why it stays in use. we've seen it as a warship, science ship, and cargo ship. it would not be a difficult stretch to assume some as transports for personell. since the basic hull seems to be easily modifiable to different roles, it was probably retained because it fills the non-combat duties well despite the age. -Mithril 15:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I think the reason that you NEVER see the Constitution Refit filming model in ANY episodes of TNG, VOY, DS9, or ENT is due to perhaps some obscure copyright arrangements between Roddenberry and Paramount that were first enacted when ST:TMP was created. Roddenberry had considerable control of several aspects of ST IP which Paramount went out of their way to break immidiately following the release of the first film. So I think this was more a matter of Hollywood politics than that of one ship "outliving" the other. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) at {{{2}}}.
Just pointing out that evidence for Connies in the 24th century is as old as BOBW II, as parts of at least one is seen at Wolf 359 (the aftermath).Capt Christopher Donovan 00:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
RE:Cobra: The designation does not matter. It is possible that the Miranda's designation could have been downgraded by the time of the dominion war. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) at {{{2}}}.
RE:Cobra (also): Firepower and shields were most likely equal, but if you remember the "The Wrath of Khan" the Enterprise clearly had Reliant beat in hull strength. Hence his/her statement about ruggedness and durability would be correct. Reliant took heavy damage with a few phaser shots; its torpedo tubes and warp nacelle was destroyed by torpedoes. Phaser and torpedo hits to Enterprise temporarily disabled ship systems, but its hull was relatively in tact. We see this again in "Star Trek VI". The Miranda Class has been cut to bits and pieces so small that a fire ant couldn't chew it in every appearance its made.
Secondly, we have no evidence proving the Constitution Class was retired. In the "Best of Both Worlds" we can see a Constitution hull in the debris field at Wolf 359, so StarFleet may have continued to refit them into the Mid TNG era. This would be plausible since the Constellation class continued service into the TNG era.
Also, there's no proof that the Miranda Class is a newer design that the Constitution. It could have been a refit Surya Class. But the truth is nobody will ever know the answer since Star Trek is fictional so the possibilities are endless. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) at {{{2}}}.
I think the answer is much simpler than many of the responses above. As stated above, the Miranda class vessels were used in so many differnt ways from the 2270's to the begining of the Dominion wars. So much of the Non-Miranda fleet was destroyed in the preceeding conflicts during the 2360's (Borg for example) in the run up to the Dominion war that most of the Miranda class vessels were probably refitted with better weapons and sheilding to help "fill the gaps". Due to the assumed fact that the Miranda was not a front line starship for so many years, it's logical to conclude that most would still be around, whether in active service or in the moth-ball fleet and would be rushed into service with some upgrades(or maybe none which explains why they ignite so easily). As for the Constitution, they were older, 1st commissioned in the early 2200's, refitted several times, and finally primarily replaced by the Excelsior class. One could deduce that most were destroyed, used for parts or scrap metal, etc over time due to conflicts with the Romulans in the early 2300's, Cardasian wars, borg, and the enumerous minor conflicts that occurred between Kirk and the Dominion war. But, this is purely conjecture but I think it makes perfect sense. User:Capt Ryan Bjerke 23:40, 13 Aug 2008
and that is a simpler answer... fact is we have never been given a canonical chart of what starships the entire federation fleet is made of in any given point in time. We want to assume that the ships we have seen are the average ships in use, no evidence of this, we assume based on background material that connies were phased out by excelsiors, again no proof of this. so there is no point in rationalizing something that is based on a false assumption. For all we know there were more connies than mirandas in the federation fleet in the dominion wars, they were just serving in the other fleets we didn't get to see. =) --Pseudohuman 08:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
the reason we never see an intact Constitution class ship in the 24th century is because the production staff hated working with the filming model and by the CGI era we had new canon fodder ships. starfleet seemed to have stagnated by the TNG era since we still see excelsior class vessels and oberth class ships when starfleet had ambassador class heavy crusers and didn't bother to replace the oberth class until around voyagers construction by the Dominion war starfleet seemed to refit any spaceworthy frame and deploy them to fill out the fleet during tng most of the class was configured as transport ships by the DS9 era we have them back in to there ST2 configs.-- 01:19, July 5, 2012 (UTC)

Apocryphal Appearances Edit

Everyone tells of this fabled USS Ranger NCC-1975 as "seen" in Star Trek: New Worlds, apparently from a teaser/trailer for the game back in '99. I spent 2 hours looking for it last night on Google and YouTube, to no avail. I got a teaser movie from '99, I have the trailer from the Klingon Academy installation, and I have the opening movie from New Worlds itself, and I've yet to hear mention of the Ranger. Can someone tell me where this data came from, and where I can find it? --Commander, Starbase 23 13:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It was not a movie, nor was it the game itself -- i observed a game demo which featured a control panel where you could make contact with other captains on a viewscreen, one of those contacted was the CO of the USS Ranger. No idea how to find it now, but someone else who has it located the ship's registry there, NCC-1975. -- Captain M.K.B. 16:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

extra impulse nacelles Edit

Miranda class upgrade, dorsal aft

This pic proves some Miranda class ships had extra impulse nacelles :\ -- 18:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

No, it proves that that part of the ship glows red. :P
By the way, there's no such thing as an impulse "nacelle" -- they usually just have red vents. You might be assuming that every part of a Federation ship that glows red is an impulse vent, but this is a pretty deep assumption, don't you think? Not much is "proved" by this picture. -- Captain M.K.B. 18:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

true, but how come not all miranda class ships have that feature? link -- 18:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Because they have rear torpedo launchers there instead? Regardless, just becaue one ship has a different lighting scheme, its a big assumption to say that the lights "definitely" indicate some feature the ship wasn't confirmed to have. --Captain M.K.B. 18:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
So, after brightening that pic, we have a fx F-up on our hands...unfortunately from what I understand about MA policy, that is not sufficient to ignore the pic. So, we have a Miranda Variant with the Impulse Engines sharing space with the torpedo tubed in the "roll bar" pod. Which is an idiotic thing to do, (the fuel and plasma transfer conduits must be a plumbers' nightmare)...but there you have it... The preceding unsigned comment was added by Capt Christopher Donovan (talk • contribs).

Name Edit

I just added reference to Miranda to the "Name" paragraph. – Ambassador 11:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Medium CruiserEdit

If the Medium Cruiser designation is only from the DS9:TM, it shouldn't be in the main article body, right (like all the measurements etc.) Kennelly 14:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Medium Cruiser? The Miranda Class is a science cruiser, or light cruiser at the very least. Every time I come back here there is more and more inaccurate information. I wish the moderators would clean up and begin posting accurate information. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) at {{{2}}}.
It doesnt take a moderator to clean up. If you feel you have the know how, perhaps you could sign up and help with making corrections. --Alan del Beccio 05:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Heh, heh, Sorry, thanks for the offer. I gave up in that department after my corrections were mercilessly slashed by other moderators. I even cited canon, on-screen sources in my corrections. At least you fixed this one. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) at {{{2}}}.
Then all I can offer you as advice is don't bitch complain about what does and does not need to be cleaned up by other users. --Alan 14:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Saratoga DID have torpedoes Edit

Watching "Emissary", I found out that the USS Saratoga configuration DID have torpedoes. The following line is from the episode:

Knowing this, I will modify the article appropriately.

Ambassador/Ensign_Q 15:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay... --Alan 20:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Crew compliment Edit

Sidebar says the crew compliment is approx. 26-35. Where is that referenced from?

We're told repeatedly in TOS (as well as TMP and WOK if I recall correctly) that the crew compliment of the Enterprise, a Constitution-class, is 430 persons. Seeing as the secondary hull of the Constitution-class houses the primary deflector array, main engineering and related power support systems, as well as both the shuttle and cargo bays. It stands to reason, therefore, that the majority of this 430 strong crew resides in the saucer section.

Now, the Miranda-class obviously uses the exact same saucer section, so why does this article suggest that the crew compliment is only a fraction of the size of a Constitution-class?

- Rob

We don't speculate on MA articles. USS Lantree had a complement of 26 and USS Brattain had a complement of 35. Presumably the 220 officers and crew is more closer to the truth for Mirandas that were used as cruisers, and not only for simple scientific and supply missions, but that information hasn't made it to canon yet, it's found only in the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Technical Manual, so we mention this only in the background section of the article. --Pseudohuman 18:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Phaser banks Edit

There is a discrepancy as to how many standard phaser banks the Miranda-class ship has. Everyone seems to think that the Miranda-class starship has but 6 phaser banks of 2 emitters each. However, I would like to point out that on the model of the Reliant, there are two additional phaser emitters just beneath the impulse engine (which would make sense for rear defense. I have added these to the Memory Alpha article.

In addition, there appear to be two single phaser emitters on each side of the 'roll-bar', in addition to two single emitters mounted on the dorsal side of each pulse-phaser. I am not sure of these, however, so I have left these out for now.EvanC 14:43, June 9, 2011 (UTC)

As far as i know the standard Miranda-class has six regular 2-emitter banks on the saucer-surface and those two additional heavy phaser weapons on the rollbar seen firing in ST2. (and the dome phaser of the Saratoga-variant) Is there some image of the model where you or someone could point out these additional "single emitter" weapons as they haven't been seen firing in any canon or non-canon production as far as i know. And i have never seen any indication of them. --Pseudohuman 01:52, June 10, 2011 (UTC)

The model of the Reliant is at Ex Astris Scientia, and in The Art Of Star Trek. The emitters are clearly visible beneath the impulse engines. 16:20, July 14, 2011 (UTC)

I've seen the pictures, but other than the formation lights and windows around the shuttlebays, i dont see anything that looks like a ball turret-phaser emitter of that era. or anything else that is clearly identifiable as a phaser. --Pseudohuman 18:46, July 14, 2011 (UTC)

The phasers are just under the impulse engines, and above the dome structure on the ventral side. A digital picture with these phasers is at hobbytalk. And please put that information back into the article when you are finished. 20:23, July 14, 2011 (UTC)

So in a picture like this, [1] you see aft phasers somewhere. I just don't. There "might" be, but since we dont see firing happening in any canonical episode or film, their existance seems completely speculative to me. --Pseudohuman 22:12, July 14, 2011 (UTC)

That is a private model, and most modelers do not know about the phasers, so they aren't on most of them. I have uploaded a photo here, which is a digital model based exactly like the studio model. Circled are the aforementioned phaser emitters.EvanC 23:34, July 14, 2011 (UTC)

Unless you add the copyright information and a citation, that image will be deleted. If you don't have that information, you may upload the image a image storage website and link to it here. - Archduk3 23:52, July 14, 2011 (UTC)

Here is the actual studio model that I just found after considerable searching [2] 01:02, July 15, 2011 (UTC)

The "Reliant5" photo can be found here. - Archduk3 02:37, July 15, 2011 (UTC)

If there are no further objections, I shall now add the aft phasers evident in the photos I uploaded. 22:08, July 15, 2011 (UTC)

Looking at stills of Digital Muse's cgi-Miranda that was used from "Favor the Bold" onwards, looks to me like that didn't have those emitters anymore though. here and here. :P --Pseudohuman 05:56, July 16, 2011 (UTC)

The area is somewhat hard to see due to the lighting. Also, it is possible that even the CG guys who made that particular ship did not know about the phaser emitters, so unknown were they. Actually, it does make sense to have aft phasers, because only an idiot would design a capital ship without the means to defend the aft firing arc. 15:50, July 17, 2011 (UTC)

List of ships from "Court Martial": A message to Pseudohuman Edit

The existence of the Reliant in that list raises reasonable doubt that the remaining ships are Constitution-class. If those ships are spurious speculation, then so is the list from the latter page. This list is based on fanon speculation from 1972. I know that you have little tolerance for fanon. So, if you are against one list, then you must be against the other. Be consistent in your approach. Do not remove a list because my username is associated with the change. I am restoring the list. The next time you remove the list, do the same with the Constitution-class page. Throwback (talk) 19:11, August 13, 2014 (UTC)

They are associated with Constitution class ships in several bg references. That is why they are there. The presence of one known miranda does not change anything. --Pseudohuman (talk) 02:08, August 14, 2014 (UTC)

The only ships that are associated with the Constitution-class is NCC-1831, the Intrepid, and NCC-1697, the Essex, in the Encyclopedia. The other two ships - NCC-1685 and NCC-1718 - are not associated in the Encyclopedia with any Connie. Are you saying now that you will accept a fanon source for the association between these registries and the canon ships? I am shocked, absolutely shocked.Throwback (talk) 02:18, August 14, 2014 (UTC)

Statements by staff members like Greg Jein are reference material, not fanon. --Pseudohuman (talk) 23:52, August 14, 2014 (UTC)
All else aside, the non-removal of somewhat similar information on another page is not a good reason to immediately revert removal on this one. -- Capricorn (talk) 06:05, August 15, 2014 (UTC)

Miranda-class was introduced to Starfleet in late 22nd-century, not 23rd. Edit

The Miranda-class was introduced to Starfleet in the 22nd-century, as per the Star Trek II: Wrath of Khan and this wiki state. So why is the first line of the article stating that the Miranda-class was introduced to Starfleet in the 23rd-century, that is incorrect. Someone please edit it, the administrator is preventing me from doing so.

In the first literally the first sentence of this page it is said that the Miranda-class was introduced to Starfleet in the 23rd-century, but as per Star Trek III: Wrath of Khan and this very wiki article the Miranda-class was infact introduced to Starfleet in the late 22nd-century. So why not say that? -- Theh5 (talk) 19:34, February 26, 2017 (UTC)theh5.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan takes place in 2285 - that's the 23rd century. There's also a massive title card at the start of the film that tells you this. So, no, we won't say that it was introduced in the 22nd century, because that is wrong. -- Michael Warren | Talk 19:51, February 26, 2017 (UTC)

To be accurate, it is the late 22nd-century. -- Theh5

Late 22nd century would be 2170-2200. 23rd century is 2201-2300. 24th century is 2301-2400. 25th century is 2401-2500. Etc. [Edit to fix one date in there] -- sulfur (talk) 11:09, February 27, 2017 (UTC)
I would further add that this is because there was no "0th century". The 1st century was 1-100. Further, as indicated, the film itself states what century it is. If you feel that is wrong, you will need to take that up with the filmmakers. 31dot (talk) 11:35, February 27, 2017 (UTC)

As Sulfur said though: 22nd century is 2201-2300. Then the wiki should still say 22nd century, just not late 22nd. -- Theh5

That was a typo. 22nd century is 2101-2200. 23rd century is 2201-2300. 24th century is 2301-2400. You can look them up on Wikipedia. --NetSpiker (talk) 14:17, February 27, 2017 (UTC)
No, Sulf got himself all confused there! 2201-2300 is the 23rd century - as 31dot says, the 1st century AD does not run 100-199; the century number is always one ahead of the calendar year. See 23rd century, for example:
The 23rd century will be the century of the Anno Domini or Common Era which, in the Gregorian calendar, will begin on January 1, 2201, and end on December 31, 2300.
Again, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan opens with a big, blue title card saying IN THE 23RD CENTURY - I really don't see what's so hard here. -- Michael Warren | Talk 14:21, February 27, 2017 (UTC)
This got me confused too. Yikes 31dot (talk) 14:25, February 27, 2017 (UTC)

Ad blocker interference detected!

Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.