FANDOM


Past and special-purpose discussions related to this article can be found on the following subpages:
Help icon
Sovereign class/archive

Memory Alpha talk pages are for improving the article only.
For general discussion on this subject, visit the forums at The Trek BBS.


FA status Edit

FA nomination (28 June - 26 July 2004, Success) Edit

Self-nomination. I think it's quite good. ;) Ottens 12:36, 28 Jun 2004 (CEST)

  • Seconded. Very good work, but it still needs lots of additional pictures, IMO. -- Redge 12:51, 28 Jun 2004 (CEST)
  • Support. But there are already plenty of images... don't go overboard, please!-- Dan Carlson 16:18, 28 Jun 2004 (CEST)
    • I checked back and almost all pictures I was looking for are now there. Thanks! -- Redge 16:36, 28 Jun 2004 (CEST)

Archived --Alan del Beccio 10:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Update I readded the tag, as it was apparently removed inadvertently on 07:22, June 3, 2006. --Alan del Beccio 06:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

FA removal (30 Jan - 07 Feb 2008, Success) Edit

Sovereign-class: This article is hardly complete - even though I noticed reference to Stellar cartography and Transporter room 3 in Star Trek: First Contact, there was no mention of any of that in the article! It instead states that the Sovereign-class has 29 decks when Picard states, again in Star Trek: First Contact, that the Enterprise has 24 decks! What's more, the vast majority of the images used come from Star Trek Nemesis to the extent that I believe there inadequate visual attention paid to Star Trek: First Contact and Star Trek: Insurrection - for example, I'm pretty sure a better image of sickbay could be taken from Star Trek: First Contact, and that's just for starters! --Defiant 02:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Deck 29 was referenced twice in Star Trek Nemesis. --Alan del Beccio 02:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep Featured With only minor touching up, this could easily meet the standards you would like to see. I could probably do it on the weekend. And as for sickbay, it comes from Star Trek Nemesis because that was the only film which got a special sickbay built for 1701-E. FC used Voyager's sickbay. --Nmajmani 02:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Remove, while I'm sure this article is "almost there", what needs to be factored into this is the fact that it became featured in 2004, with only 3 "yes" votes. While acceptable then, today's FA standards require 5 votes of support. I would much rather see all featured articles run completely through the ringer before becoming featured, leaving no stone, or reference unturned. Compare original featured to now. Big difference, in fact, not even the same article. In contrast, I can point out more than one FA that is nearly as old that has barely changed since the FA tag was added. --Alan del Beccio 02:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment As both 24 and 29 decks were mentioned, why not say something like "between 24 and 29 decks" - it doesn't need to be too specific as it's a ship class, not just a single ship and both amounts are canon & true! Also, why not have images of sickbay from both Star Trek: First Contact and Star Trek Nemesis? I really don't see why it has to be one or the other! The fact that the sickbay set used for Star Trek: First Contact was borrowed from Star Trek: Voyager makes very little difference as it is still a Sovereign-class sickbay in canon! --Defiant 09:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Just looking at the diff Alan provided convinces me of this suggestion - the revision that was featured back then is a completely different article than what we have now. Re-nomination seems like the way to go. (As an aside, stating that the ship has "between 24 and 29 decks" seems a little - strange.) -- Cid Highwind 10:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I take my comment back. After seeing the info provided by Alan, I support the removal of this article as FA. --Nmajmani 02:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Support removal of featured status. As Alan has pointed out, it has changed a great deal and isn't close to the same article, even ignoring the fast-track approval it seemed to have. If someone wants to improve it, fine, but the featured status should be removed and the article should be renominated.--31dot 11:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Archived --Alan del Beccio 05:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Phaser power per strip Edit

I think the weapon power needs to be added into the tactical systems sub article. http://www.ditl.org/article-page.php?ArticleID=29&ListID=Articles This explains the weapon power of a galaxy class max. Now the sovereign class uses type XII phasers while the galaxy class uses type X phasers. The article shows that the max power of mk X phasers is 100,000 TerraWatts/Joules(Drawing power from the warp core(12.75 x 106 TeraWatts)10%. http://www.ditl.org/article-page.php?ArticleID=26&ListID=Articles Each II progression in types gives a 25% higher yield so in the article, it should be a 125,000 TerraWatt maximum power output(100,000 average). The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vgaserty (talk • contribs).

I think the weapon power needs to be added into the tactical systems sub article. http://www.ditl.org/article-page.php?ArticleID=29&ListID=Articles This explains the weapon power of a galaxy class max. Now the sovereign class uses type XII phasers while the galaxy class uses type X phasers. The article shows that the max power of mk X phasers is 100,000 TerraWatts/Joules(Drawing power from the warp core(12.75 x 106 TeraWatts)10%. http://www.ditl.org/article-page.php?ArticleID=26&ListID=Articles Each II progression in types gives a 25% higher yield so in the article, it should be a 125,000 TerraWatt maximum power output(100,000 average). The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vgaserty (talk • contribs).

Part of that info does not fall under our canon policy, the rest is not permitted because it amounts to original research, so please do not add it. -- Capricorn (talk) 20:12, March 13, 2016 (UTC)
Ehh, it was exawatt man, confirmed in a episode. Just search exawatt here in MA. Making 1.275x10^19 Watts.
The 10% figure, from TNG tech manual right? Should make mk-x 1.275x10^18W.
25% was not established, but go with this it should be about 1.6x10^18W. Just put it in, you guys can see if the 25% number should be included or just go with "above 1.275x10^18W", or not writing it at all.
random babble on my part- is it total power, or for one array? Since in-show they did concentrate their fire on a enemy with a single array instead even when there are several aray pointing at them. If per array, but then they would logically not be able to power all of the arrays, but then do they need to? They are "transfering power" all the time anyway. Ehh, it is not important.
What was Enterprise doing when it was orbiting but still generate this much power, well no idea, might as well be charging emergency power batteries? Or in process of doing some warpcore testing with energy would be radiated out and then new antimatter supply will be filled in afterward? The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.248.183.143 (talk).
The phaser arrays located on a Sovereign-class had an output of 2-4 exawatts. It did this by drawing power directly from the warp core. (Star Trek: The Motion Picture)
I've removed this here so any reference that comes directly, and only, from these sources without including original research can be offered, because info from TMP about refit Constitution-class starships can NOT be a reference for anything on Sovereign-class starships roughly a century latter in-universe, not to mention 17 years and 7 films latter, at least, in the real world. - Archduk3 06:44, May 11, 2016 (UTC)
I've now protected the page because I can't see any reference to 2-4 exawatts for output anywhere. And the used keeps adding it referring back to TMP. What is true in the 2270s is not necessarily true in the 2380s. Let's get some serious citations for this please. -- sulfur (talk) 12:12, May 12, 2016 (UTC)

Locks and subclass Edit

I suggest that the lock level be changed so others editors can edit. The debate over phaser power has ended.

There should be a link to the Regent Class since it is a version of the Sovereign class.

Syalantillesfel (talk) 17:07, February 10, 2017 (UTC)

Those various versions of the Sovereign class don't need to be linked. We don't need to try to track all of the variants that STO decides to create along the way. -- sulfur (talk) 02:26, March 30, 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.