Wikipedia:Rachel Garrett lists 2332 as the year that she became captain of the Enterprise C. Does anyone know the source of this information? —MJBurrageTALK • 23:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what wikipedia allows into articles for Star Trek, or if they have a good canon policy. This could be from a novel. --OuroborosCobra 00:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Its not from an episode. Must be from that novel that came out about her a few years ago. -- Captain M.K.B. 01:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointers; I found the sources (Lost Era & Academy novels was correct). Reportedly, according to those, 2332 is both the year of the Enterprise-Cs launch, and the year Garrett was given the ship as her first command. —MJBurrageTALK • 19:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


Image removed Edit

USS Enterprise-C emerges from temporal rift

Emerging from a temporal rift into an alternate timeline

Again, I removed one image - looks similar to the other one, but is of lesser quality. Also, article is too short to have three images. Could be re-added if there's more content - or could replace the image that now is used, if we get a screenshot with better quality. -- Cid Highwind 18:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that this picture is a little better than the one currently up. It shows the ship mutch more clearly. I'll see what i can do about the length of the article. – 7th Tactical 23:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Again, the picture of the model from the Enterprise wall is kinda vauge. if no one objects, im going to switch it with the one on the talk page. – 7th Tactical 23:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
While somewhat vague, it does depict it among its predecessors and successor, and as well, shows what that design was envisioned to look like in its original pre-Yesterday's Enterprise incarnation. Otherwise, Ambassador class already has the above picture, and I don't see it as being necessary to duplicate that article in cap content. --Alan del Beccio 00:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed 7 Sep 07 Edit

Since the Enterprise-C was destroyed with all hands lost, however—the first Enterprise to meet such a fate—Starfleet may have held up commissioning a successor out of respect for the Enterprise-C's crew.

Moved the fate phrase into body of article. Dropped the spec. Usually the way to honor such a sacrifice is to get another ship out there with that name ASAP. It's possible that with no survivors, exactly what happened was uncertain so Starfleet made no moves until it had a better picture. Maybe there was no intention to reuse the name but that later changed. The previous statement said the reason is unknown so why speculate? Leave it at that. --StarFire209 22:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Removed NoteEdit

Few details are known about the actual battle. What is known, however, is that the Enterprise was destroyed with the presumed loss of all hands – the first Enterprise to meet such a fate. Starfleet would not commission another Enterprise until nearly two decades later in 2363.

I got rid of the line stating that the Enterprise C was the first Enterprise to be lost with all hands. Since it is not known what happened to the Enterprise B, this line is speculation. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nero210 (talk • contribs).


I removed,

Natasha Yars temporal incursion resulted in an ontological paradox wherein Sela later captured Captain Picard on a mission to Romulus. (TNG: "Unification II")

as I'm not really sure that constitutes a paradox, unless I'm missing something. -Angry Future Romulan 21:34, May 13, 2010 (UTC)


Is there any canon refrance to what the "C" stands for? I'm guessing Gamma, but can anyone confirm that? – 7th Tactical 23:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

  • There is no canon reference of the "C" refering to Gamma. - Enzo Aquarius 00:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

see my responce to this comment under Enterprise E Borguselinux 00:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I am guessing your question is geared towards the line in ST6 "NCC1701 Alfa". For the Enterprise C it would be "NCC1701 Charlie". It is a military lingo related to the NATO phonetic alphabet ( It is like saying "A as in Apple." I learned about this on the Stargate SG1 BBoard. --TOSrules 04:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Jumpers? (from Talk:Rachel Garrett)Edit

Why do none of the crew of the Enterprise - C wear the rollneck sweaters common amoung film era uniforms else where? I assume it's just a costumer's thing?

Remember that the Enterprise-C was not in the movie era. She was in service in 2344, a full 50 years after the last movie era stuff in Star Trek Generations on the Enterprise-B. It is possible that sweater was phased out in that time. I think the bigger question we should be asking is why so much of the uniform stayed the same. This is the single longest used uniform style I know of from all of Star Trek. --OuroborosCobra talk 04:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Production-wise, they simply used the movie-era uniforms to indicate a much earlier era, without spending money on designing new uniforms, and having the nostalgiac, familiar design from the movies (Star Trek fans would instantly recognize that the crew was from the "past"). I believe the sweaters were removed (as they would be in "Family" and "Tapestry") to indicate some change in the costume over time, per OuroborosCobra's sentiment.--Tim Thomason 04:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Cheers for that - I had not noticed the loss of the sweater in "Family" and "Tapestry" (I've also registerd) - Grible 14:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

In the 2227 - 2237 era, the original movie uniforms were worn with a department-colored tee shirt instead of the turtle-neck sweater. By 2244, even the tee shirt was omited (or maybe the two officers wearing them hadn't put theirs on that morning. Without some kind of shirt under the maroon service jacket, there is no department-color deliniation. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).
What are you talking about? That isn't even the same century were talking about 2 years ago, when this conversation was actually going on. --OuroborosCobra talk 06:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I think the anon is just off by about 100 years (2327, 2337, 2344). He's right that there is no visible undershirt in "Yesterday's Enterprise" vs. a smaller non-sweater undershirt in "Tapestry" (not sure about the 2337 reference, maybe something to do with Jack Crusher, although that would be after YE). However, there is still "deliniation" on department colors via the rank pin right shoulder backings. The undershirts were hard-to-see in Tapestry anyway, so they probably replaced them anyway, as they out-grew their usefulness when not in sweater (easily visible) form.--Tim Thomason 07:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Enterprise-C reference Edit

I am not aware of any reference to the Enterprise-C in the episode "A Matter of Time" It has been a while but I never heard anything in that episode that refered to the Enterprise-C. I would have simply removed the reference but I thought it should be double checked. Anyone that has the episode should watch it, if the Enterpise-C is not refered to this part of the article should be removed. Preator 07:29pm, 12 May 2007 (GMT)

In the episode, Picard wants to know from Riker what questions Rasmussen asked the First Officer. Riker replies:
All he wanted to know about was previous starships. What I thought was innovative about the last Enterprise, the one before that. He said he wanted to see if we had a "grasp of the fundamentals."
So, the Enterprise-C and Enterprise-B are mentioned in the episode. Why was there a problem anyway? It's all mentioned in the actual article:
Commander William T. Riker's questions on Professor Berlinghoff Rasmussen's questionnaire dealt mostly with previous Starfleet ships, including innovations of the Enterprise-C. (TNG: "A Matter of Time")

--Jörg 08:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC) articleEdit

Just came across this article on which has some interesting information on the design of the Enterprise-C. I don't have time to read through our article and see if any of it can be used but thought I'd share in case somebody out there does and wishes to use it in some way. --| TrekFan Open a channel 07:02, February 8, 2018 (UTC)