USS Enterprise NX-01?Edit

I'm sorry, but when was the NX-01 ever reffered to as USS? If I don't get an answer by the end of the month, I'm gonna assume this was put up by some unregistered fan and I'll take it upon myself to edit out the clip note in parenthesis. --AC84 18:44, 14 September 2006

Okay, scratch that. Appearantly it came from a graphic in season four. The clip note stays. --AC84 18:56, 14 September 2006

Since this has come up again, lets get this over with. The only reference to the NX-01 being USS Enterprise is an admitted fx error seen in only one episode, much like deck 78 on the Enterprise-A. Adding it to this list is unnecessary at best and down right confusing to new readers at worst. - Archduk3 08:03, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone know where the USS is officially stated to be an fx error, or is it only a fun popular fan nitpick interpretation. Is there a statement from the producers on it. Or a statement from the producers that the ship is spefically not intended to be an USS ship for some reason. There are similar wierd cases, like USS Raven with a dedication plaque that calls the ship The Raven and SS Tsiolkovsky being called К. Э. Циолковский in the dedication plaque, several ships that should presumably be USS ships but dont use the prefix on the hull, such as all the Antares-type ships, the Raging Queen. and btw we do note the USS Enterprise NX-01 "anomaly" as a canonical fact on for example the USS article... --Pseudohuman 11:02, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
I don't remember one about that particular shot, though I wouldn't be surprised if someone did say something about it, but I did read one somewhere about the ship specifically not having the USS prefix, though I can't remember where right now. Either way, if the ship is listed here, the page should be at "USS Enterprise (NX-01)", which it's not. - Archduk3 21:10, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
We could make a redirect. --Pseudohuman 08:52, August 22, 2010 (UTC)
There's already a redirect, either because of this issue or because people just like putting USS in front of things. Either way, we shouldn't have a link on this page unless the page is move to have USS in front, since currently it isn't USS Enterprise NX-01. The best place for that discussion would be either USS, where one was already started awhile ago, or a forum. - Archduk3 09:11, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

Pre-move discussionEdit

Since most of the comments below were about the USS Enterprise disambiguation, I copied them back here from Talk:Enterprise historyMJBurrageTALK • 20:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Starships names are already causing ambiguity :) I had already created a link to U.S.S. Enterprise NCC-1701 in "The Cage". We have to make a decision on what will be the real entry, and what links will become redirects. There are several possibilities:

  • U.S.S. Shipname NCC-1234 (which I think is the most correct)
  • USS Shipname NCC-1234 (easily redirect-able)
  • USS/U.S.S. Shipname (NCC-1234) (this is what you had originally.. It's good, but I feel most people will forget the parentheses)
  • USS Shipname (should either redirect or be a disambiguation page [Or a page on a registry-less ship, of course!])
  • Starship Shipname (disambiguation page like this one, or redirect to the obvious ship)
  • Shipname (definitely redirect this to either a proper U.S.S. Shipname or some disambiguation page)

Harry Doddema 07:06, 25 Nov 2003 (PST)

I think that we definitely need a disambiguation page, at the very least. For the various starships Enterprise or DS9's Defiant, I figured that we would use the appropriate registry numbers. However, for many names that applied to multiple ships, there isn't enough information to warrant a full article, so we can simply combine them into a single article with headings to separate the ships (e.g. the various ships named USS Lexington, or USS Hood, etc.).
So, we can probably use a system like this:
  • USS Shipname (which will have all ships of that name included in one article)
  • USS Shipname NCC-1234 (for ships that warrant their own full article -- we could also use it for redirects back to the simple "USS Shipname" title above)
MinutiaeMan 07:57, 25 Nov 2003 (PST)

Right. I've made USS Enterprise the main page about TOS's ship.
See the What Links Here page of abovementioned to see the current redirects.
So should we move this page to USS Enterprise?
Harry Doddema 08:03, 25 Nov 2003 (PST)

I added:
  • Dates of service for the American sailing ships that are properly named "USS Enterprise"
  • The listing of the USS Enterprise XCV 330
I left off of this page two American naval ships that do not—under U.S. Navy usage—get the USS prefix.
Neither was commissioned, as detailed at Wikipedia:USS Enterprise.
MJBurrageTALK • 16:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I can understand the desire to keep a disambiguation page as simple as possible, but sometimes just a list of links is too simple to be useful to someone trying to find a particular article.
I based my revision on the Wikipedia guidelines for a Ship Index, a sub-type of disambiguation, that I do not believe is inconsistent with Memory Alphas polices.
MJBurrageTALK • 14:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I did only notice now, but the information, especially the links must be removed. The reason to this is that the bots who will remove the links to this page will treat every linked year or episode as an alternative meaning. Currently that are 25 links. -- Kobi 14:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I can understand the desire to keep a disambiguation page as simple as possible, but... -- no, Kobi is right -- there really aren't any "but"s on this. The page can't be two things at once. -- Captain M.K.B. 14:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
how bout we split this information off into an "Enterprise history" or "Ships named Enterprise" page? -- Captain M.K.B. 14:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • List of links not good. List of links with descriptions linked worse. Link of links with brief descriptions of each (no internal links) by far the best. We've had this discussion several times over the last couple of months, and the third option is the one that we keep coming back to. -- Sulfur 15:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the user consensus is definitely to maintain disambiguations the way they are. MJBurrge seemed to be on the verge of disregarding the repeated reminders, so i figured moving this his work to its own section Enterprise history would alleviate the problem. -- Captain M.K.B. 15:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
the deletions and insertions above are to make the last comment read correctly given its current location. —MJBurrageTALK • 00:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Protection Edit

Due to constant addition of information directly from Wikipedia (which is a copyright vio), which also has tons of Enterprise info that's not related to Star Trek, this page has been temporarily protected. - Adm. Enzo Aquarius...I'm listening 00:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

New page style Edit

Hmm, this is the second time that a Wikipedia-esque version of the USS Enterprise page has been created here. Should we use such a style, or return it to its original disambiguation list style? - Adm. Enzo Aquarius...I'm listening 23:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Well I am in favour of the look copied over from Wikipedia, and that has nothing to do with the fact that I created the look on Wikipedia ;-) I was actually surprised when I came across this page because I recognized the layout right away. And was flattered that it had been adopted here. —MJBurrageTALK • 12:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Looks good, but disambiguation pages with links to pages other than those that are to be disambiguated are absolutely horrible for bot owners trying to clean up some of the links. Also, disambiguation pages are supposed to be "fallback" pages for "wrong" links or perhaps searches, not content pages in its own right. I can see how an image might help someone find the correct ship, but I think that having a paragraph of description for each is unnecessary. -- Cid Highwind 14:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
As a disambiguation, I would suggest that the most useful layout would be a short list of text links (what used to be here), followed by a gallery of one image per ship, with the captions repeats of the links above. This would take less space (less scrolling), and be useful to someone who does not remember (or know) which letter goes with which ship.
The article on Wikipedia is not meant to be a disambiguation, but a summary of details about the "Starship Enterprise" with links to the detailed articles. —MJBurrageTALK • 15:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Whatever is done with this, the shuttle, the NX-01, and the ISS Enterprises need to be removed. The page is called USS Enterprise, after all. --From Andoria with Love 21:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
That's true. Other than that, MJBurrage's comment sounds like a reasonable compromise, as it would remove the "distracting" links to other pages but keep the possibility to identify ships by picture. Eventually the image captions could even replace the initial text list completely, depending on the way a bot handles the resulting wikitext.
I think we need this page as a disambiguation more than Wikipedia does, because "USS Enterprise" is a much more common term around here ;) -- Cid Highwind 22:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I just implemented my suggestion, and it seems to work well. One question, Is there a way (other than making a custom table) to make the gallery be three, slightly larger, images accross instead of four? —MJBurrageTALK • 23:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, no. The <gallery> tag only does four across. You can only get three across through some sort of customized table.--Tim Thomason 23:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
From the discussion above, it seemed like there was consensus for a brief gallery to help users choose the right ship, and yet the gallery was uncermoniously removed earlier this year with the claim that disambiguation pages "should be formatted as such." If the gallery is useful, shouldn't that fact have weight in determining what the format of a disambiguation page is? If so, should the gallery be restored? Memory Alpha:Disambiguation doesn't address the subject. — LCARS 02:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

USS Enterprise (CVN-80)Edit

The next US aircraft carrier planned for deployment in 2025 is the USS Enterprise (CVN-80), a Gerald Ford class of carrier. There is a Wikipedia entry on the same at USS Enterprise (CVN-80) Shouldn't there be an entry? Jthhere (talk) 00:02, June 26, 2015 (UTC)

Why? It was never seen in Star Trek. -- sulfur (talk) 00:25, June 26, 2015 (UTC)
Actually, we do cover such info in a limited capacity, here. Feel free to add the ship. -- Capricorn (talk) 20:19, June 26, 2015 (UTC)
But the question was why isn't it listed in this disambig page which sulfur correctly answered. --| TrekFan Open a channel 13:21, June 27, 2015 (UTC)
That's a nitpick. See MA:NOT ;) -- Capricorn (talk) 13:27, June 28, 2015 (UTC)