Memory Alpha

Talk:USS Enterprise (alternate reality)

Back to page

40,777pages on
this wiki


The prime Enterprise was launched in 2245. It would be interesting to know the backstory about how exactly Nero's temporal incursion in 2233 prompted such a long delay in the launch of the Enterprise. --Da Cheez 17:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Might that have something to do with this version of the Enterprise using a series of smaller intermix chambers instead of the more familiar one (or two?) depending on which MSD you're using? I also thought that the ship at Riverside was the 1700 but I might have misread the number. --Archduk3 17:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
One possible explanation could be Captain Pike. His entire life was probably changed because of his experience with the distruction of the Kelvin. Perhaps he had something to do with it? i.e. he was involved in the design but he would have started sooner had he continued on the undestroyed Prime Kelvin. -- 04:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I would speculate that the entire Constitution class went back to the drawing board after the encounter with the Narada. And I did misread the number, so that would make the Riverside Yard part of the San Francisco Fleet Yards? Archduk3 07:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
As I said on the other talk page, no it would not. --OuroborosCobra talk 07:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Then that would make the information listed below this from the Enterprise tour even more suspect. Archduk3 07:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


There is some apocrypha concerning the ships length, height and so on. From the Enterprise Tour website:

  • USS Enterprise.
  • Class: Constitution class ship.
  • Type: Heavy Cruiser.
  • Registry: NCC-1701.
  • Designer: W. Matt Jeffries.
  • Construction Site: Starfleet Division, San Francisco Fleet Yards.
  • Overall Mass: 495,000 metric tonnes.
  • Length: 2500 feet.
  • Saucer Diameter: 1100 feet.
  • Ship Height: 625 feet

Also ILM has her down as 3000 feet or 914 meters in length in the following article [1] --Amasov 11:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I've been toying with the information we have on the alternate Enterprise, along with other people on the official Star Trek film forums. We've been extrapolating the size of the ship from any visual evidence we can scrape together (viewscreen size, height of the shuttlebay, anything), and we keep on coming back to this ~900m in length number, as supported by ILM. I invite you to: [2], where the discussion is ongoing. -- 04:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
In the discussion section of the Constitution Class page, here.
The size figures have been removed because websites are not an allowable resource for such things, besides the fact that the film CLEARLY disproves those insanely huge size figures. I believe for the sake of consistency, the size figures should be removed from this page as well. --Rogue Vulcan 21:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
You say the film clearly disproves the large size figures, but... it doesn't. It simply doesn't. It does quite the opposite. Compare [3] from TMP and [4] from XI. Are work bees the size of 20-man personnel transports? I'm not saying that this visual evidence should be used within the article, but it's pretty clear that the ship is more than 300m long. -- 00:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Is the bridge 75ft across? (At 757m) Or 105ft across? (At 914m) Where are you getting the idea that the ship in the XI pic is a 20-man personnel transport?
For one thing, when Pike leaves the ship in a shuttle, the shuttlebay clearly is about the same size relative to the shuttle as the TOS shuttlebay is to a TOS shuttle. Furthermore, there aren't NEARLY enough decks on the XI Enterprise for it to be ~800m long. Also, the saucer has almost identical dimensions to the TMP-type saucer, so logically, it should also be a similar size. And just think about the logic of it, if they're building a 400m tall ship on earth, they are building scaffolding the size of the Empire State Building just to assemble it!
Finally, think of the alleged mass of just 450,000 tons. At that density, the XI Enterprise would float better than an ice cube in a glass of syrup! I simply cannot see any logic by which we can assume those size figures to be anywhere near accurate. (Not to mention the fact that the ship would be longer than the Sovereign class, and MUCH more volumonous than ANY ship from any race besides the Borg. And the Narada, a "simple mining vessel" would be the size of MULTIPLE Borg Cubes put together!)
Besides all that, websites simply aren't allowable sources of information for Memory-Alpha, so the figures should still be taken down. --Rogue Vulcan 05:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
No, the bridge is not 105ft across. The bridge deck on the other hand could be (as shown in the film by the corridor leading to the bridge, that deck is now substantially larger and contains more than just the bridge itself - and on another note, there is another deck sitting on top of the bridge deck). I'm getting the idea that it's a 20-man shuttle by the fact that I and others counted at least 20 people on it in the seating section alone. It's evident from the images posted that five shuttles could stack up in the new shuttlebay, which incidentally is proportionally shorter than the TMP bay, which could barely stack three. The notion of building an Empire State Building sized scaffold may make no sense, but whether it makes sense to us or not is irrelevant. It's what's being shown that matters. And the figures are accurate, because the people who made the ship told us as much, and it's backed up by repeated visual evidence. As for the Narada, if you've read Countdown, you'll know that your comparison of the ship to Borg Cubes is very, very apt, and reasonable, considering the ship's origins. /walloftext -- 05:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Uhm, just because the people that make the model think that it is a certain size doens't mean it gets to be that size on screen. Producers, VFX supervisors, Directors, etc have ALL said things that end up not being true on screen. And like I said before, websites simply aren't an allowable resource anyway. (Not to mention that the sites can't even agree on a size to begin with. And again, the mass figure is clearly wrong, so they aren't very knowledgeable people to being with either.)
And as far as the "actual" size of the ship, I am FAR from convinced. Like I said before, when Pike's shuttle leaves the bay, the bay is normal sized, not 800m-sized. Furthermore, it is simply unreasonable to believe that they created a ship larger than ANY other Starfleet ship from 120 years later. Obviously, no real size figure can be discerned without screencapture analysis, which we have precious few of, but even your picture of the shuttle proves that it isn't that large. The shuttle is what, maybe 8ft tall? That makes the shuttlebay doors only about 35ft tall. Which is just a hair taller than they are on the TMP-type Connie.
As I said before, even the structure of the ship proves its size. The windows would be ENORMOUS at 757m, like spanning two or three decks each. The nacelles would be about twice as large as the ENTIRE TOS Enterprise.
For more evidence, compare the following two images:
Notice that the viewscreen/window is maybe six or seven feet tall. And notice how large it is relative to the ship in the second pic. That makes the ship (Nacelles included) about 300ft tall. The TOS Enterprise is 229ft tall. To be 914m long, the viewscreen would have to be over 16ft tall.
So yes, it is a little bigger than the TOS or TMP versions, and it has a large shuttlebay, but the ship overall is nowhere NEAR 757m or 914m long. And yes, the film DOES prove that. Rogue Vulcan 16:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I would just point out that the website in question (the "virtual tour") is not some "fan" site, but an authorized production related source. This information comes FROM the production, just like information used to be posted over at before it was closed down. We permitted, so why should we NOT permit this site?Capt Christopher Donovan 18:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
For one thing, because they can't even agree on a size. For another, because we can't even be sure that anyone at Paramount is approving the content. For another, the ship isn't actually that size. Rogue Vulcan 19:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't really know for sure that it isn't that size (two different sources, both with large numbers?), but I agree that we should wait for more solid info before adding anything to the canon section. We have no clue where the various websites fall on the canon scale. – NotOfTheBody 19:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
That's why it was in the BACKGROUND section. It's behind the scenes data, not on screen data. BTW, everyone keeps talking about Pike's shuttle vs the size of the bay. I have to remind you that these shuttles are a LOT bigger than the original ones. I've seen at least one still (don't know where they got it, and not about to ask) of the bay close up where they scaled everything and the bay works out to 20m tall, confirming a ~900m ship. --Capt Christopher Donovan 19:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, I just showed a comparison with the viewscreen that proves that it ISN'T 900m. And why do you think that the shuttles are that much larger? They may be longer, but they aren't anything like 16ft tall, or 40ft wide, or something. It's made quite clear on screen that the shuttles are just as tall and wide as they were in TOS. (Remember Kirk having to duck under the ceiling beam before taking his seat? Where's the 20ft ceiling in this supposedly huge shuttle?) This is just a case of people WANTING to believe that it is an unreasonably huge ship, when the canon clearly proves that it isn't. The viewscreen image proves it quite plainly. Spock stands in front of the viewscreen, showing us how tall the screen is, and the scene with the spacedock proves how big the screen is relative to the ship. Case closed. --Rogue Vulcan 20:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I assure you, the case is not closed. It's quite possibly even more open than ever. Again, I invite you to the forum thread I posted earlier on this talk page, where evidence is being thrown around like snowballs. -- 20:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I've seen the thread. It seems the only "evidence" that supports the 900m size is the shuttlebay holding racks of shuttles. However, that fails to account for the fact that the shuttlebay is in fact winder in relation to the ship than the TOS ship's bay was. (And the new Enterprise's shuttlebay is probably also taller in relation to the ship as well.)
However, none of that stands up against the things I have mentioned. The viewscreen is rather easier to measure than a shuttlecraft, because Spock stands right in front of it. There is no guesswork involved as to how tall the screen is. And in the second pic I posted, the screen is about 1/44th as tall as the ship. So, multiply 7ft by 44 and you get 308ft. That's how tall the new Enterprise is. Disprove that, and you might have the beginnings of a case. --Rogue Vulcan 20:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
As you wish. As seen here, the viewscreen is much smaller than it appears in the picture you posted, due to the miracle of bloom. If you adjust your calculations accordingly, you should see a much taller Enterprise emerge. You may need to register an account on the Star Trek official movie forums to view the image, and if you do need to, I apologise for the inconvenience. Do you have any refutation for the shuttlebay evidence? Just because the shuttlebay is wider doesn't make it any less able to stack five shuttles atop each other. -- 20:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Me again. I think it would be better for us to discuss this on the official movie forums, rather than clog up this article's talk page. And it will get clogged up; the thread has gone on for over 70 pages so far. :P -- 20:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
No, I can't see that image. And I'm not going to sign up to another forum just to see it. Can you host it on photobucket or something?(And I'm not going ot debate it there either, since the debate moves FAR too quickly for any evidence to be effectively viewed by large numbers of people.) But allow me to post the following:
As can be seen here,
The Kelvin bridge is not large. And as can be seen here,
The Kelvin also uses a window for a viewscreen, establishing the size of the Kelvin's bridge dome to be roughly the same size as the bridge. That allows us to get an approximate scale of the Kelvin, based on the size of the bridge. Without viewing the film again, I have no real idea of the size of the Kelvin's bridge, but I'd say it maxes out at 40-50ft across. Assuming it is 50ft across, and using as small of a space as possible on the ship model to represent that, the Kelvin is a maximum of 352m long.
And that is a very generous estimate. Where I being more realistic, the size would easily drop below 300m. Now, as far as the Enterprise goes, here is an image illustrating a few flaws with the 914m idea,
Furthermore, the fleet scenes clearly show that the Enterprise is more or less the same size as the other ships in the fleet, yet at 914m, it should be 3x longer than anything using Kelvin-Type parts. It simply isn't 3x larger than those other ships. Instead, they are all roughly the same size. Therefore, the Enterprise cannot be 914m, because it does not dwarf the 300m ships.
As for the shuttlebay scene, yes it can be easily explained. The shuttlebay is a deck or two taller than the doors are, look at the ship model. Therefore, just because the shuttlebay INTERIOR can hold five shuttles stacked on top of each other, (About 50ft total) that does not mean that the DOORS are 50ft tall. It makes perfect sense. --Rogue Vulcan 21:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm, sorry about the images. I guess I don't know how to just link to them on here, instead of imbed them... --Rogue Vulcan 21:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I fixed all my images. Sorry about that. Also, I am actually already registered over there, so I can actually see your image, and I don't see that it proves anything other than the idea that things farther away from the camera look smaller than things closer to the camera. No surprise there. And it doesn't disprove a comparison shot based on a full-on forward view at all. --Rogue Vulcan 21:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Definitely, this:

I think it would be better for us to discuss this on the official movie forums, rather than clog up this article's talk page.

Correct: Our talk pages are not meant for all sorts of discussion related to a topic, but only to discuss the structure and content of its article. This discussion has shown that the size may be under debate, and any "definite" size probably is assumption and thus should not be a part of the article without further confirmation. This is enough for us, and if you want to debate, some forum would really be the better place for you! -- Cid Highwind 21:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Aw. And I had a rebuttal all typed out. :p Ok. The discussion on the topic here is ended. 21:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

One last point about this: Based on the rather low quality picture of the Enterprise before it going to warp, i got this:

The height is about 150 pixels and the saucer diameter about 350 pixels. This alone shows, that the official numbers we have can't be correct.

"Saucer Diameter: 1100 feet. Ship Height: 625 feet" = saucer diameter less than two times the ships height based on the picture (150 to 350): = saucer diameter more than two times the ships height.

So this discussion is useless. If i had to guess, i would say, that the Enterprise in this movie is about 650 meters long, 300 meters wide and 120 meters tall. That's based on all footage available so far. -Matt

Here's a thought. The admin said to stop having this conversation here, so maybe trying to get a "last word" in after that isn't the best decision to make on your part. --OuroborosCobra talk 23:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

PNA Edit

The Technical Data section needs rewriting to conform with our point of view. At the moment, it reads like background information. -- Michael Warren | Talk 07:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Transporter Edit

Just to be clear, where they using the transwarp beaming (or whichever it was) to get Kirk and Spock to the Narada, since Saturn is 1.2 billion km from Earth?- JustPhil 21:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

It was never directly stated but I would say its probable. It would go a long way to explain why nobody on Earth or elsewhere in the system was able to beam aboard the Narada- because it had its shields up. I think the "transwarp beaming" may have been partly inspired by the subspace transporters used in TNG. If we conjecture that they are one and the same then that would explain both their range and ability to beam through shields.--Hribar 02:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Is it ever stated that the Narada's shields were up? Generally, in Star Trek, people don't waste time having their shields up when they don't need them to be up. There were no Federation Starships (that were any threat) in the system, and therefore the Narada didn't need to be a full combat readiness.Bowenthebeard 20:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
There is no canon evidence that their shields were up, just as there is no direct evidence that they used transwarp beaming. However, as far as speculation goes, they were attacking Earth which probably has no shortage of transporter systems. To assume that the Narada's shields were not up would seem to also assume that nobody on Earth thought to beam armed personnel aboard the Narada.--Hribar 21:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
There is somewhat flimsy canon evidence to support the fact they used transwarp beaming. Montgomery Scott previously mentioned he had an argument with his instructor in which he said his instructor thought the range of transporting a grapefruit-sized object was limited to about 100 miles. This is obviously using the style of transporters they were using beforehand. He mentions with his transwarp equation, he would be able to beam an organic life form from one planet to the adjacent planet in the same system (which is apparently a great leap ahead in transporter technology). As he already had the transwarp equation before he boarded (given to him by Spock Prime), it is reasonable to assume they used this - as they beamed two people from Titan to Earth. ( 01:41, September 18, 2013 (UTC))

Picture Edit

Shouldn't the picture of the Enterprise be one that isn't juxtaposed in front of a space station? My low res computer couldn't tell the ship apart from the thing behind it. -- 22:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Removed from article Edit

I've removed the following speculation about the differences between this Enterprise and the original universe's Enterprise from the article:

There are several possibilities for this, including the possibility that the vessel intended to be Enterprise 1701 was renamed USS Kelvin in honour of the destroyed vessel, and that this Enterprise is in fact a totally different vessel, although this idea is pure conjecture. It could also be a lack of continuity information on the part of the producers.
Since it's admitted conjecture without any evidence supporting it, I don't think it belongs in the article. Of course, other opinions are welcome. —Josiah Rowe 15:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Deflector Dish Edit

Did anybody else notice that the deflector dish seems to become more animate right before the ship goes to warp? I noticed this before they jumped to warp just before the end credits.--Hribar 17:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe there was an interview with ILM about the design of the new Enterprise which stated that one of the changes they made was to include a very animated deflector dish, capable of changing shape, size, and orientation. So, good eye there! :) 20:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


What resources are being cited that this ship is Constitution class? Obviously, we're not using the website info (yet), so where else is it referred to? Dangerdan97 21:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

While looking at the website bridge panorama I noticed a couples of things that looked like they could be the dedication plaque. It would fun if we could verify if there is one and find out what it says.--Hribar 22:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

POV Edit

Can someone explain why we cannot say that the Enterprise is a Federation starship? It will always be one, even when it no longer exists. I wanted to avoid "was" because it tells the reader that it no longer exists far into the future, but we have no evidence for that. Am I the only one to whom this wording sounds strange, and specifically, how is my proposal different from the POV sample about the Constitution class, which is a class of starship that was used in the 23rd century? – NotOfTheBody 13:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

We do have evidence it doesn't exist in the future because this site decided that it would be written from the point of view that nothing exists anymore. please read MA:POV if you have any trouble. — Morder 14:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

But how does that work with the Constitution class example above? Why doesn't it say that it was a class of starship that was used in the 24th century? As I see it, the only problem is that we want to be safely into the future in order to use past tense for events that the TV/movie/book/etc. viewer has seen, because that is the natural POV for the viewer who is reading these articles ("Timeship X was invented in the 29th century" - it happened for the viewer) as opposed to "The Enterprise-D will be comissioned in 2363". However, I see no reason to pretend that nothing exists. If we've seen it destroyed, then we can say that it was because it no longer exists for the viewer, if not, then it was in year X, but we don't know about year Y. – NotOfTheBody 14:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Just like we say "the Confederate ship Virginia was an early ironclad class ship that was active in the Atlantic Ocean in the 1860s"... We are looking back at it from the future in past tense. It doesn't matter that some ironclads might still exist or not, and the ocean still exists too -- its still a completely past tense issue when we form the sentence. -- Captain MKB 14:59, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but the audience has seen none of Enterprise-style ships decomissioned or retired. You won't write "Barak Obama was President of the United States". That is how the movie Enterprise feels to the audience, as a present ship that exists, not as something in the distant past. We are writing these articles primarily for the present day audience, which naturally sees events that already _happened in the show_ in the past ("Vulcan was destroyed in the movie", not "Vulcan will be destroyed in the 23rd century"), regardless of whether it was the 22nd or the 29th century. However, it does not feel natural to presume that nothing exists when the audience hasn't seen it destroyed. First reaction: "Huh? When was the movie Enterprise decommissioned? Must have missed that one." The language should not deviate unnecessarily from the language used in natural discussion. If we were to see the Enterprise destroyed in the next movie, then it would be natural to use the past tense for its existence. – NotOfTheBody 14:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Whether it lasts to the 40th century or not, a person in the 40th century would still say "it was a ship in the 2260s" .. that is how we approach this site, we write from the POV of the far future, after all this has happened. The aircraft carrier Enterprise still exists today, but we would say "it was in service in the 1960s" because that is the past. Please write from this point-of-view on this site from now on, because that is our policy. -- Captain MKB 15:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
RE: Morder It isn't technicaly accurate to use the term evidence. The MA POV policy is a postulate set that guides the writers but does not assume, imply, require or demand the existence of evidence one way or the other. A postulate cannot be construed as a form of evidence.--Hribar 15:30, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

2379.75 feet, 2500 feet Edit

The first figure is not someone's analysis. I emailed the Gizmodo writer, who confirmed that it comes from the "model/specs" and said that the referenced David B. of Bad Robot Productions told him the size. The second figure comes from the official tour. Neither figure is fan analysis, although the size chart is obviously Gizmodo's own. – NotOfTheBody 04:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

In the case of Gizmodo, it's just not good enough. It needs to be from the horse's mouth. In the case of the tour, it's a bit of a grey area. I can't confirm that anyone involved in the movie's production was ever involved in the development of the tour. Paramount is the registrant of the domain name however. Personally, I think that the tour belongs under apocrypha (because it's obviously sanctioned by Paramount) but if people are adamant about it being background then I guess I don't care.--Hribar 15:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the websites seem to be as canon as any novel or comic becuase they're made separately, after the production. -- Captain MKB 15:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Gizmodo is just reporting what David B. of Bad Robot said, just like the other article is reporting what the ILM supervisor said. I'm not sure why you think it's not good enough for the background section. If it's a quote you need, then why did the Post Magazine reference stay - it doesn't have a quote either. It is highly unlikely that such a precise number (2379.75 feet) is simply someone's invention - the two that remained on the site are more likely to be rough estimates. – NotOfTheBody 18:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

NOTB, you're right, it is fine for mention in the background section, and the way the bg is written it on par with the rest of our articles discussing similiar topics. --Alan 18:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I disagree, between NOTB and Gizmodo all I see are two anonymous sources referencing "David B" (whoever that is). The two remaining citations reference articles that were written by named authors who gave fully named and titled sources. Because of the inclusion of this information, what's stated in the article could be (hypothetically) independently cross referenced by a reader. I doubt many readers go to that extreme but it should be something that they could do.--Hribar 18:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
For what it's worth, David B is likely Associate Producer David Baronoff. Dangerdan97 19:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The Gizmodo writer is named Jesus Diaz (see the top of his blog entry), while I'm not a second source referencing David B. - I'm only referencing an email conversation with Jesus Diaz. Any reader could email Jesus Diaz likewise and learn that he obtained the size from David B. of Bad Robot Productions. Personally, I didn't bother emailing Bad Robot independently with more detailed questions, such as exactly where the 2379.75 feet come from, because the Enterprise is such an important ship that we're likely to see other sources provide more details simply by waiting a while. However, if someone from Bad Robot gives such a precise number, I would think it's good enough at least for the background section. – NotOfTheBody 21:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Propulsion System removed text Edit

I removed the following text:

The warp propulsion system, called the warp core, was powered by eight individual core segments instead of a single module.

In an interview/Q&A at: , the screenwriters revealed that the objects ejected were not in fact the core itself, but the antimatter storage bottles.Capt Christopher Donovan 08:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The exact quote is, "We think of those as being the matter/anti-matter chambers of the reactor assembly. Just like a battery compartment can have multiple batteries." Antimatter and matter don't come near each other until they reach the reaction chamber. This, in addition to his analogy of batteries and cells, strongly suggests that they are individual core reaction chambers, and not just fuel storage bottles. I won't change the article back until this has been properly discussed out though. 16:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
At the end of the film Scotty reports from engineering "dilithium chambers at maximum" so that proves that the alt-Enterprise warp core is composed of several matter/antimatter reaction chambers working in unison. and that those were in fact the things that were ejected and detonated. --Pseudohuman 04:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Flagship? Edit

Didn't Pike say something about not being able to give the new flagship a better send-off?– NotOfTheBody 16:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Yup. --OuroborosCobra talk 18:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I wonder if it was only meant to be the flagship for that particular TF.--Hribar 17:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
TF? --OuroborosCobra talk 18:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Task Force--Hribar 18:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I think Pike referred to the Enterprise as "our" flagship, "our" being Starfleet. He also referred to pomp and circumstance being put off, which would not be done for the flagship of a task force.--31dot 18:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

--IT IS GREEN Wasn't the prime Enterprise the flagship? As was NX, 1701-D, and E. I think they're just copying the prime universe.

Since he actually says it's the newest flagship, my interpretation is, as the A-1, top-of-the-line model, the Constitutions as a whole are regarded as the "flagships" of Starfleet. --Ten-pint 17:10, December 10, 2009 (UTC)

Speed Edit

The new Enterprise is very fast. While the highest speed mentioned is warp 4, this appears to be a lot faster than the 64C that Warp 4 is supposed to be on the Cochrane scale. The actual time is hard to establish, but the journey to Vulcan cannot have taken more than a few hours, and probably less than half an hour. Speed anomalies were common in TOS, but this is a very extreme one. From a real-world perspective, the effects used for the acceleration to warp resemble those used in Star Wars for the "jump to light-speed". Although this may be a deliberate reference, it suggests that the warp drive used here operates on a different principle from prime universe warp drive. It may even be transwarp, which would explain the inordinately high speed.--Indefatigable 20:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Or they just changed the effect. The effect used for entering and exiting warp in ENT: was different than every other series as well. --OuroborosCobra talk 20:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I think they just changed the thread to make it look more modern, though it does seem alot 'faster' than the old 'jumps' to warp. I don't think it's such a radical change as transwarp, but many have speculated that with the Kelvin's scans of the Narada, a 24th century super-warship, it can be assumed they may have reverse engineered some of it's specifications. Perhaps even it's propulsion systems. Also wasn't the original series warp scale different that in the newer series? Perhaps they're using a newer scale. – Joshwall 13:27, 17 June 2009

If it really did take 30 minutes, then that is an average speed of 280,512 times the speed of light (assuming the established 16 light years). On the Cochrane scale, that's Warp 65.5! I know that the ship's speed in TOS was distinctly variable (see TOS That Which Survives where the Enterprise crosses a distance of 990.7LY in at most one day, which works out at about 600,000C - Voyager would take a year to cross the same distance), and the Cochrane scale was only ever seen in the Tech Manual, but it seems to be accurate. Transwarp seems to me to be the most likely option, since it explains both the visual difference and the very high speed.--Indefatigable 00:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I know that every fan likes to nitpick trek speeds to the warp scales and conviniently always forget that a: the warp scales are non-canon so no writer has any need to follow them and b: in the tech manual it is clearly stated that interstellar conditions, gas density, electric and magnetic fields in different regions of the galaxy, fluctuations of the subspace domain, quantum drag forces and motive power oscillation cause the actual speed to be pretty much anything that it happens to be. So you cannot quote a bgsource about a warpscale and then forget that the same source says that the subspace domain of the galaxy actually fluctuates, so the c value can at different times and in different places be completely different. The alt-Enterprise traveled to vulcan in 3 minutes in the film as stated in dialogue, and already noted in warp factor, so the relative speed at maximum warp was about 2,9 million times the speed of light. But this is nothing new as we have seen the prime-Enterprise in tos, tas and st5 to travel within hours or a few days accross the galaxy, out of the galaxy and to the center of the galaxy also, every time without transwarp. To me the most likely explanation is that subspace conditions were good at those times. And thats it. During Voyager they weren't so good. --Pseudohuman 04:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd just like to say that the ship going to warp and the ship arriving at Vulcan takes place within one scene on the bridge. The scene cannot have been more than a few minutes long and the flow of the script is such that either the scene took place well into the journey, or the trip only took five-ten minutes. Given that Vulcan has been established as being 20-odd light years from Earth, that's 2-4 lightyears a minute at whatever warp factor that was. --IT IS Green

To be honest, warp anomalies are extremely common in Star Trek. Let's take examples from Voyager and Enterprise. On Voyager, they clearly stated that if they remained at maximum warp indefinitely, it would take Voyager 75 years to reach home. Since they were flung 75,000 light years away from home, that equates to 1,000 light years per year. This is corroborated in the episode where they traverse a large void with the Malon, which is 2,500 light years across. They make references in that episode to having to spend the next two and a half years crossing it (and I'm assuming they would be in a damned hurry to clear it!) So, if 1,000 light years per year at constant maximum warp is their scale, that equates to roughly 2.7 light years per day at maximum warp. This, however, is at odds with The 37s, in which Tom Paris states maximum warp is around 4 billion miles per second. 1 Light Year is roughly equivalent to 5,878,499,814,210.014 miles (5 trillion 878 billion, 499 million, 814 thousand 210 miles). At 4 billion miles per second, it would take 1,469 seconds to clear a single light year at maximum warp, or around 24.5 minutes. With this figure, Voyager at maximum warp should easily have been able to clear a distance of 58.8 light years per day remaining at maximum warp. At this speed, it would have taken Voyager only 1,275.5 days to reach Earth from the Delta Quadrant, or around three and a half years. And that's within the same show! Now let's look at Enterprise (the show). Over on that show, in the Season 2 finale, Archer stated that the Delphic Expanse, previously established as being 50 light years away from Earth was going to be a 3 month trip at maximum warp (Warp 5). Assuming by "3 months" he meant "month" as people do colloquially - so 4 weeks per month. This equates to a journey of 12 weeks, or 84 days. This means that per day, Enterprise was covering a distance of around 0.6 light years per day. This also conflicts somewhat with Broken Bow, in which Archer states they would be at Kronos from Earth in 80 hours. Now, granted, that conversation took place AFTER the launch, and as is always true in television, we have no idea how much time had passed between the launch and Archer's conversation with Phlox. We can reasonably assume it is the same day, as Phlox was still in the process of unpacking all his things. I doubt even he would leave it a week before deciding to unpack medical supplies - something rather vital for Humanity's first mission in space. At 0.6 light years per day, that means Enterprise is at a speed of 0.025 light years per hour. We also have to take into account Enterprise was not exceeding Warp 4.5 for this journey. But even at maximum warp, the journey length of 80 hours to reach Kronos means that the Klingon homeworld is exactly 2 light years away from Earth. Which is totally ridiculous. Given the relations between Humans and Klingons, that's like having Russia located where the Caribbean is. This also ignores that the closest star to Earth is 4.5 light years away. The speed of Enterprise established as 84 days to cover 50 light years is plausible, which means in Broken Bow (given they were just starting out) they were simply throwing numbers around without caring if they made sense or not. Admittedly Enterprise does seem very, very fast in the new Trek. In Star Trek Into Darkness, it managed to reach Kronos and then back to Earth within the same day, as well as reaching Vulcan and back within the same day - a journey of 16 light years (if we assume that Eridani is the location of Vulcan). ( 13:00, September 17, 2013 (UTC))
  • Further general discussion or essays about the speed of the Enterprise should be placed elsewhere, as article talk pages are for discussing article changes only. 31dot (talk) 18:59, September 17, 2013 (UTC)
For example? ( 19:41, September 17, 2013 (UTC))
I would make use of a search engine to find an appropriate place, such as TrekBBS.31dot (talk) 20:36, September 17, 2013 (UTC)

Talk Page Too Long Edit

Per the WARNING at the page top, the present length can produce browser problems. And, it does. What are the arguements against a continuing second page, or breaking this one into two pages ?? – Pfslakes1 23:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

There are many pages that are much longer than this. That's why you edit sections and not the full page unless necessary. — Morder (talk) 23:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
The warning only applies to editing the document and not viewing - though it's a bit slower on slow connections. If you're talking about the talk page itself then we archive texts when they're sufficiently old (sometimes). — Morder (talk) 23:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Information on proper pages?Edit

I was looking at this article, and noticed that there seemed to be information relating to the design of the ship, wouldn't a more proper place for this sort of information (until told otherwise, such as it being different then the class or something) be the class page? --Terran Officer 06:27, October 23, 2009 (UTC)

Though I tend to agree with you on this I'm wondering if it wasn't placed there because each ship of a class tends to have different configurations. Take the Intrepid/Voyager - Voyager has Bio neural circuitry where the Intrepid doesn't. Let's see what others say before any changes are made. — Morder (talk) 08:05, October 23, 2009 (UTC)
The information here shouldn't be generalized for the alternate Constitution class until we've actually seen other Constitution-class ships and obtained evidence that certain specs apply to such ships in general, not just to the Enterprise. For example, I don't like the level of detail on the Sovereign-class page, as we've only actually seen the Enterprise-E. Yes, other ships will probably have the same size, but how do we know that the interior layout will be exactly as on the Enterprise-E? Will they have all the torpedo launchers seen on the Enterprise-E? Etc. – NotOfTheBody 16:54, October 23, 2009 (UTC)

I realize that different ships of the class might have some minor (or extreme) differences, but the fact of the matter is, some of this information seems more appropriate for the class itself. The Galaxy-class is like this, the information there could rightly be stated to mostly be referred to the USS Enterprise-D yet it's all on the class page, with the differences between the timlines/realities and sister ships being noted in the appropriate section. The same thing is said for the Constitution-class of both configurations relating to the USS Enterprise in both configurations with minor (and major) differences being noted between the refits and ships of the line. The point is, especially with a sequel on the way, the page should concentrate on the history of the class itself with the technical aspects of it on the class page, like any other ship class/type where possible. The NX-class is another example, with extensive information relating to Enterprise itself, but it's on the class page with differences between the ships being mentioned. --Terran Officer 23:57, October 23, 2009 (UTC)

"Seems more appropriate" isn't good enough if we stick to the basic principles of writing these articles: we need actual sources saying that it _is_ more appropriate, because these aren't fan- or official technical manuals, where one can research and generalize (be creative) at the same time. You argue that this page should follow the example of other pages, but as I said, I don't like the detail on other pages. Take the Galaxy-class page, for example:
The bridges of Galaxy-class ships were subject to several minor cosmetic changes over their first decade of service. The first major refit came in 2371 as seen aboard the USS Enterprise-D. Six new stations were added, three on each side of the bridge replacing the equipment lockers.
How do we know that all Galaxy-class ships were changed at the same time as the Enterprise-D??
We should write about this Enterprise on this page, and as we obtain confirmed information about the Constitution class in general, the Constitution-class page should be expanded. What do we really know so far? The class is named Constitution, Enterprise is one of the ships, they're all the same approximate size, they _probably_ have the same number of decks and torpedo launchers, they _probably_ have the same interior...see what I mean? – NotOfTheBody 06:13, October 24, 2009 (UTC)

I suppose so, but I'd still say that information could go on the class page, but whatever the general consensus is, I'll accept it. I just often find it much easier and neater for a ship page to focus on the ships history, but I do somewhat see your point, in that for whatever reason, the previous ships of the class (if there are any) might have the prime reality configuration still (considering the time Enterprise was launched in the previous continuity's timeline supposedly, it's very possible). --Terran Officer 23:47, November 10, 2009 (UTC)

Information from the Dedication PlaqueEdit

According to a dedication plaque located on the bridge, the Enterprise is a Starship Class vessel that was commissioned at the San Francisco Naval Yards and her motto is, "Where No Man Has Gone Before". I first learned of this plaque at [| dedication plaque]. I didn't add this information to the text, as I thought it best we discuss how best to include in the article.– Throwback 02:20, October 30, 2009 (UTC)

Considering that this wasn't seen on screen (to my knowledge), and that the information contained therein does not seem to mesh (but I wouldn't say so for sure) with what was shown/spoken on screen in clarity (the plaque is rather hard to read), it's probably, at best, worth a minor note. This looks to me more like a piece of set decoration that's referencing to something shown in the original series, which was later proved to be different to later continuity/references, whatever one wants to call it (such as what the actual class name is). --Terran Officer 23:44, November 10, 2009 (UTC)

Service history Edit

The service history in certain places read like a plot summary of the movie, so I tried to remove insignificant details, unnecessary paragraph breaks and convert the text to a more impersonal, ship-centered tone. I'm also not sure whether the naval tradition of using "she" is applicable in this kind of neutral context (sounds too emotional to me). Here are some of the parts I removed/altered:

when James T. Kirk drove his motorcycle to her construction site while considering Christopher Pike's advice to enlist in Starfleet. (Someone was being emotional here and overlooked the more relevant fact that he enlisted and that his shuttle departed from the same shipyard, but even so, such an observation is more relevant to Kirk's history than to the history of the ship, so I removed it altogether.)

because Hikaru Sulu, who had replaced the main navigation officer after he had fallen ill, failed to disengage the external inertial damper

a single barrage of missiles reduced the ship's deflector shields to 32%. Nero did not destroy the Enterprise, however, since he recognized her as the ship which Spock served on when he was younger. (The shield percentage is an insignificant detail, and Nero's reason for not destroying the Enterprise is useless to the reader without more context, which is irrelevant to the ship's service history.)

but the ship was saved when chief engineer Montgomery Scott ejected the ship's warp core and detonated it (Does it matter whether or not it was Scott who ejected the core?)

, and took the Enterprise out on her first mission of exploration. (We know what the mission was?)

NotOfTheBody 21:02, December 10, 2009 (UTC)

Newest and most advanced ship in the fleet? Edit

Quiscustodiet just added this note to Service History, but I'm not sure where it comes from in the dialogue; I only recall that the Enterprise is the newest flagship according to Pike. Quiscustodiet: could you point me to the line of dialogue you were thinking of? Thanks. – NotOfTheBody 18:32, December 11, 2009 (UTC)

The newest line would probably come from Pike's line of the "commissioning will have to be our reward for a safe return" which would suggest (but not overly state) that the Enterprise had not yet been placed into active service. That is still, probably not enough to say it was the "newest" ship in the fleet, though. --Terran Officer 05:12, December 29, 2009 (UTC)

"Compromised" engineering concept? Edit

The captions for the engineering concept images currently say "compromised engineering concept". I assume that the word "compromised" is meant to indicate that these concepts were devised, but unable to be realized due to budgetary restraints; but the wording is slightly confusing, as it could be read as saying that the images themselves represent some sort of compromise (rather than saying that they represent an earlier concept that was later compromised). Can we change the captions to say something like "early engineering concept" or "original engineering concept", depending on how the images are described on the Blu-Ray? (I've only got the DVD, so I can't check for myself.) —Josiah Rowe 05:00, February 1, 2010 (UTC)

Max Warp Edit

I'm confused as to the maximum warp capabilities of this Enterprise. Was not the Enterprise NX-01 the first ship in the Federation to be able to achieve Warp 5? If so, which I believe it is, should not, after all of these years, this Enterprise be able to greatly exceed that speed? However, when determining to catch up to Nero at Earth, Chekov states that if Scott can reconfigure some system they should be able to achieve Warp 6.73 (or something). How does that make any sense? I'd figure this Enterprise to be able to achieve warp 8 by now...or am I, in fact, completely screwed up?--Obey the Fist!! 19:39, February 24, 2010 (UTC)

The Enterprise had been damaged in battle at that point, if I recall correctly. --OuroborosCobra talk 19:40, February 24, 2010 (UTC)

AHHHH, why didn't I think of that?--Obey the Fist!! 19:43, February 24, 2010 (UTC)

I assume they're using a different scale for warp. Some people say that they're even traveling transwarp..The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dudebroman (talk • contribs).
The evidence of any of this being? --OuroborosCobra talk 16:51, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

After watching the movie again, Chekov states very quickly (in response to a status report to Spock, that they can only achieve a warp level of....something. The point is, that the Enterprise's maximum warp WAS affected by the damage from the Narada. (Bows to Cobra's logic).--Obey the Fist!! 17:51, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

sector 47 Edit

Sector 47

Slightly blurry but it was hard to find a single still frame

I'll start this since no one else seems to want to. I'm going to assume the "Sector 47" the anon keeps posting comes from the sign at the shipyard that says "SFC DIVISION UNITED FEDERATION OF PLANETS SECTOR 47". I'll post a screenshot in a bit. — Morder (talk) 20:17, May 26, 2010 (UTC)

I'm aware of that as well. I don't believe it's appropriate to state that the Enterprise was constructed in Sector 47, as that could just be one section of the shipyard (in otherwords, construction on the Enterprise could have taken place in Sector 47, 48, 49, and a dozen other sectors. It's a big ship, after all). -Angry Future Romulan 20:48, May 26, 2010 (UTC)
Or it could be that in the alternate reality, the sector where Earth is located is designated 47 not 001, or that the surface of the Earth is divided into sectors and the part of US where Iowa is located is in Sector 47, or that the division of Starfleet Command managing shipbuilding of the fleet has it's HQ not on Earth but somewhere in Sector 47. I agree on keeping it out. It is a valid 47 reference, but not specific enough to be interpreted as a section of a shipyard. --Pseudohuman 21:14, May 26, 2010 (UTC)
Agreed on keeping it out- it could mean anything.--31dot 21:18, May 26, 2010 (UTC)

Move Information? Edit

Reviewing this page, it seems like this information is more informative about the Class itself, rather than the Enterprise. For example, you see from pages such as the Galaxy class, the information is about Weapons, Corridors, Engineering, etc. While a page like the USS Enterprise NCC-1701-D explains events and missions the ship participated in during the run of the series. So I propose we make the the USS Enterprise page and change the information to events from the movie, and eventually second movie. Such as her construction, battle over vulcan, fighting the Narada, etc. And the Constitution Alternate Reality Page could be the weapons, engine room, corridors, etc. What does everyone think about that? --Nihilus Shadow 07:56, June 2, 2010 (UTC)

I think, in this case, it's more because we're not sure of the capabilities of the class and the information might be specific to enterprise...but overall I'm not sure. — Morder (talk) 08:22, June 2, 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it seems no different than, say, the Sovereign Class. We've only seen one Sovereign Class 3 times and all times it was the Enterprise. So under the same logic, we can assume everything in the Sovereign Class page is specific only to the Enterprise since there are no canon Sovereign Class ships to compare to the Enterprise. I just thought it would be a good idea to clean up both pages. The Alternate Reality Constitution Class needs more info and personally I think the Alternate Enterprise should be redone to describe its action in the Film. --Nihilus Shadow 06:09, June 3, 2010 (UTC)

Not precisely. Sometimes we're given specific data on the class itself in the shows/movies. Like if someone said a "sovereign class vessel is equipped with 5 torpedo tubes" or something. I'm not to keen on this particular movie's details so I can't really give a solid answer :) — Morder (talk) 06:50, June 3, 2010 (UTC)

But they have never said anything like that about the Sovereign Class. In fact I can't recall them refering to the Enterprise E as a Sovereign Class at all in dialog. The closest thing to that in dialog is Geordi's comment "The Enterprise E is the most advanced ship in the fleet". He mentioned the Enterprise specifically, he didn't say the Sovereign Class was the most advanced. I suppose we can wait for the next film to be released before deciding to mess with the pages but I personally believe would could do so now just to clean them up. --Nihilus Shadow 01:30, June 4, 2010 (UTC)

I have brought this up before as seen here, and the consensus had seemed to be that the technical information as seen on the Enterprise should be seen and if anything, the other class pages used from a single ship or two should be split up and moved to the ships. Personally, I am all for moving the technical information to the class page, until we see other wise I imagine that this is the intended specs, look/design, etc... of the class, but to be honest I have seen a conflicting viewpoint on what the community does and doesn't want when it comes to the information from the alternate reality so I've somewhat given up on arguing the points. In short though, I'd support such a move of information if not to keep things consistent with the rest of Memory Alpha, then because for the moment this is all we know of the class. We have not seen evidence of a pre-Nero interference version of the class in this "timeline" (such as it is) and should not assume there may be and therefor not fill the class info in with the stuff that otherwise, would have been.--Terran Officer 02:13, June 4, 2010 (UTC)
I would support moving the tech info to the class page, since we have no reason to believe that this information wouldn't be the same, or similar, for all ships. - Archduk3 04:25, June 4, 2010 (UTC)

Torpedo Bay? Edit

One of the pictures is labelled "Torpedo bay", when what are being loaded look to me a LOT more like phaser power cells, as seen in on DS9's Defiant ("Favour the Bold"). Is there a source confirming that they're meant to be torpedoes? KingDaniel 12:51, November 9, 2011 (UTC)

Script of the film. -Pseudohuman 08:09, November 11, 2011 (UTC)
Torpedo bay on USS Enterprise (alternate reality)
Just to make this clear it is scene 97 in the script [9] with this description "WEAPONS BAY: TRACKING DOWN rows of PHOTON TORPEDOES stacked for war -- WEAPONS OFFICERS arming the cannons." and in the scene we see stacked rows of those torpedoes, that are called photon torpedoes in the script, and in the film we see the officers loading those same tubes into the launchers, so based on that the "cannons" called for in the script are the torpedo launchers. --Pseudohuman 12:30, November 12, 2011 (UTC)

Mirror disambiguation Edit

I'm not sure if we should have a disambiguation link to the ISS Enterprise here. That ship is the counterpart of the prime Enterprise; this one exists in a distinct reality from the others and probably doesn't have a counterpart at all. - Mitchz95 (talk) 15:42, April 27, 2013 (UTC)

I think calling the other one ISS negates the need for a disambig here; the one on the prime Enterprise page should be enough. 31dot (talk) 15:45, April 27, 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. Done. - Mitchz95 (talk) 16:55, April 27, 2013 (UTC)

phasor weapons. (pulse and beam.) Edit

just wanted to find something out. the kelvin had two types of weapon batterys. beam and pulse... im also part of the wolf shipyards currently making pixel arts of new fan made jj ships. iv noticed that they seem to have secondary battery's aswell as the main.... take the kelvin as an example. i believe the kelvin is fitted with the beam banks in the normal arrange meant while she also has pulse weopons fitted in a half cirlcle on the forward part of the saucer.

i believe the enterprise has two weapon battery's. beam and pulse. hence the ball turrets have different looks on the prow. giving me the thought that the ship may have defensive and offensive or different attacks for different situations. as beams damage shielding better than pulse weapons do. mainly because of being able to overload the shielding systems of the ships they are firing at.

capability. im currently classing beams as long range while pulse are short range defensive barrage weapons. they can fire faster than the pulse. and produce more damage--Chaosdemon99 (talk) 10:42, May 28, 2013 (UTC)

You state that you want to find something out, but don't really post a question. If you're asking if we agree with you, I will just say that you can think and do whatever you wish- but such original thoughts are not appropriate article content. 31dot (talk) 12:07, May 28, 2013 (UTC)
According to the script of Star Trek, the Kelvin fired phasers and photon torpedoes, as you can read from the Kelvin-type article. Article discussion pages are not forums for discussing fan fiction, these are for discussing edits to the content of the article. --Pseudohuman (talk) 12:34, May 28, 2013 (UTC)

i tryed doing research and i dont know. i cant imagine the three-four torp per second compared to the prime universe one per two second. i do believe the enterprise tos. had a rapid fireing torpedo launcher. but the question was that an image shows that the enterprise has two types of ball turrest and could that meen that they both do differnt things. beam and pulse/rapid fire reds shots.

so my question is.. does the enterprice have two differnt turrets. considering they dont look the same.

i would believe that the - and o in this arange ment -o if you get my meaning by looking at the picture.

--Chaosdemon99 (talk) 14:29, May 28, 2013 (UTC)

Ah. In Star Trek, both of the side by side turrets were clearly seen firing those red phaser bursts, in the scene where the Enterprise is firing at the disintegrating Narada. --Pseudohuman (talk) 15:52, May 28, 2013 (UTC)

Sulu as acting captain in Commanding officers Edit

I removed Sulu from the list of Commanding officers. Even though he revers to himself as acting Captain he was clearly only intended to be in temporary command. Placing in Sulu would be like placing in everyone who has been in temporary command of a starship for example on the Enterprise D it would mean adding Geordi, Data, Troi and Chrusher as commanding officers due to their temporary positions as Commanding officer. --BorgKnight (talk) 12:25, January 2, 2014 (UTC)

Rename Edit

Since there is, apparently, more than one USS Enterprise in the alternate reality, the single disambiguation no longer works. - Archduk3 03:10, July 22, 2016 (UTC)

Should be renamed to USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) (alternate reality), not USS Enterprise (NCC-1701 alternate reality). The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

MB may be fine with separating disambiguations right next to each other that way, but MA has historically done everything in our power to not do that, which is why for the pages where the disambiguations would be together, they should be together. - Archduk3 05:16, July 22, 2016 (UTC)

Memory Beta has it as USS Enterprise (alternate reality NCC-1701), the page title for the Alt Ent should be that and the page title for the Alt Ent-A should be USS Enterprise (alternate reality NCC-1701-A) so that the lowercase a in "alternate" can be seen more clearly. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

First, this isn't MB. Our templates and naming guidelines don't work the same way. Second, how can the "a" not be seen clearly now? USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-A alternate reality) seems fine to me, and since the "alternate reality" part probably won't need to be visible in AR articles, only the registy number and/or letter, why should the disambiguations be formatted for such a rare occurance? Archduk3 06:50, July 22, 2016 (UTC)

Well the title doesn't look attractive, my title does. I do not wish to be an editor on this Wikipedia because of my conflict last time with the head picture of the Enterprise E. You Trekkies on here rather have a picture of the Enterprise E with no deflector dish showing as the head picture of the Enterprise E article and that's really disrespectful to the ship. There's onaly one picture of the Enterpise E with the deflector dish on the Enterprise E article, that's really terrible. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).
I suggest separating the registry and the “alternate reality” phrase with commas or semicolons like so: USS Enterprise (NCC-1701; alternate reality) and similarly USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-A; alternate reality).
Unknown recipient (please leave a signature after your messages next time), the USS Enterprise-E and its deflector dish don’t have anything related to the topic of this discussion. — 15:52, July 24, 2016 (UTC)

That is worth considering, since there is no good way to string these two together, unlike "24th century" and "captain" for instance. Also, for the record, and because of the suggestion at the alt Enterprise-A page, the registry has to be first to match pages/categories where the disambiguations wouldn't be right next to each other, like "USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) personnel (alternate reality)". - Archduk3 16:18, July 24, 2016 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki