FANDOM


Category Edit

I was unsure as to what categories to put here, so I put Federation starship(since it was purported to be one) and Fictional Characters(as there is no Fictional starships category). Any better ideas?--31dot 15:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Really? Edit

Does this really deserve an article all of its own? Surely a mention in The Arsenal of Freedom is sufficient, given that it was only used once, and by one character. From the in-universe perspective, only a couple of people could have known of this reference, and they'd probably have forgotten about it not long after the incident.– Pesky 09:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I would say yes, because a user could potentially look it up, but it's not a big deal to me.--31dot 21:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

USS? Edit

Was it ever said onscreen (or for that mater anywhere) that the ship was named USS Lollipop?--UESPA 13:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe so. I think Riker said "The name of my ship is the Lollipop." Maybe a name change is in order?--31dot 14:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Here's the conversation according to the ep page:
"Tell me about your ship, Riker. It's the Enterprise, isn't it?"
"No, the name of my ship is the Lollipop."
"I have no knowledge of that ship."
"It's just been commissioned. It's a good ship."
Seeing the USS was left off the Enterprise, couldn't we argue it's implied? It was intended to be a Starfleet ship. Besides, USS Lollipop sounds cooler than Lollipop (Starship). :-)– Cleanse 01:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
There's argument to support both names: given that Riker is a Starfleet officer, it stands to reason that the (supposed) Starfleet officer to whom he's talking would assume Riker's ship has a USS designation; but since Riker never specifically calls it the USS Lollipop, we shouldn't assume that is what he meant.
Personally, I'd prefer this page didn't exist at all, but of the two names, I think just "Lollipop" is more appropriate.– Pesky 00:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
While normally we should severely limit implications here, I think this is a unique circumstance, given that the ship is fictional. I agree with Cleanse that the USS should be implied, given that it was supposedly a Starfleet ship.
On a seperate subject, this article could be put in the proposed Fictional technology/objects category.--31dot 00:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I only brought it up because I wasn't sure if it went along with Canon policy, but I do see your points. Also, Cleanse is right it does sound cooler this way. Long Live the UE

ReduxEdit

Since when is 'sounding cooler' in any way a rightful reason to add unsourced supposition to the wiki? The prefix of USS is pure conjecture, plain and simple. Even if it was implied to be a Starfleet vessel, that doesnt necessarily follow that it has the prefix USS. Some ships use "SS", and some have their registries omitted such as Raging Queen, any captain yacht or shuttle. -- Captain MKB 17:11, January 26, 2017 (UTC)

I'm guessing it's because he claimed that the Enterprise was actually the Lollipop. Since the Enterprise is a USS ship, and Riker only disputed the name, not the prefix...--LauraCC (talk) 17:15, January 26, 2017 (UTC)
And this is from 2008. Why is this relevant now? -- sulfur (talk) 17:19, January 26, 2017 (UTC)
Since the new questioner was going to ask this question and realized someone else had already asked the question, but not resolved it to their satisfaction. --LauraCC (talk) 17:21, January 26, 2017 (UTC)

Yes Sulfur, I didn't read the error in the article in 2008, I read it now. Furthermore, I noticed the user discussion had apparently hinged on the fact that the article name 'sounded cooler', which doesnt seem to fit wiki policy. Additionally, I felt the need to note that Starfleet ships do not necessarily use the prefix, which was another talking point that I find incorrect.

Is there a statute of limitations on suggesting changes to articles that are incorrect and are formed without fitting policy, Sulfur? Or is there another issue you have with me personally adding to discussions? -- Captain MKB 17:44, January 26, 2017 (UTC)

This may fix the problem. --LauraCC (talk) 17:47, January 26, 2017 (UTC)
Please note: Arbitrary moves like this when a single person agrees with you? Not cool. Give it more than 30 minutes to get feedback. Seriously. -- sulfur (talk) 19:08, January 26, 2017 (UTC)
I learned that the hard way. :) --LauraCC (talk) 19:09, January 26, 2017 (UTC)
Putting up a "rename" tag would have been better than moving it. It may be straightforward in your way of thinking, but not in others'. I moved the term "forced spectrum communction" to "forced spectrum communction" without discussion, but that was because it was obviously a spelling error. --LauraCC (talk) 21:49, January 26, 2017 (UTC)
First off, consensus is for keeping the USS, as well as the majority. Second, straw man augments are garbage, and USS wasn't kept because it was "cool", it was kept because the USS was strongly implied by the context. You might have noticed three of the four people involved in that discussion agreed with that, including the originator. Finally, I strongly oppose this move, since it apparently couldn't wait for scrutiny, and keeping around administrators who have long since stopped keeping up with policy and procedure, as long as we're on the subject. - Archduk3 22:01, January 26, 2017 (UTC)
That original decision makes no sense at all to me. Even if there's some implication in the dialog, it's not our job to extrapolate, just to report the facts. And heck, you're talking about a ship that only exists in Riker's mind. Can we logically assume that the Lollypop has a deflector? We can't, because he didn't think about it that much, instead of conceiving a hypothetical ship on some detail he just offered a word - and it's the same with the prefix that his mind didn't come up with. -- Capricorn (talk) 21:49, January 29, 2017 (UTC)
Starfleet ships are USS, unless proven otherwise, just like Klingon ships are IKS and Romulan ships are IRW. The ship is a lie, but it is a Starfleet lie. - Archduk3 22:42, January 29, 2017 (UTC)
But why bother which such assumptions when you don't strictly have to? -- Capricorn (talk) 00:23, January 30, 2017 (UTC)
Almost all ships referenced in dialog only have no mentioned prefix. Almost all Starfleet ships have a USS prefix. It's a safe assumption to make. We assume that all ENT-era unseen Starfleet personnel are Human, even though exactly 1 that we know of isn't. Just calculate the odds on a Federation Starfleet ship not have a USS prefix, right after you figure out which ships are actually known to have a difinitive USS. - Archduk3 00:58, January 30, 2017 (UTC)
Hmm ok. I still don't know if I completely agree, but that does make sense. -- Capricorn (talk) 10:32, January 30, 2017 (UTC)
Well, I still disagree - I know i'm not part of the current 'clique' at Memory-Beta that are allowed to make article moves and edits, so i do try to stay out of the way - but for the reasons I stated, the article move has been reverted to the 'wrong' location. There are a great deal of Starfleet spacecraft that do not use the prefix 'USS', for the reasons stated above. -- Captain MKB 01:09, February 4, 2017 (UTC)

External link Edit

I removed a link to On the Good Ship Lollipop, as I don't see any evidence of a deliberate connection to that song. --31dot 15:26, October 29, 2011 (UTC)

I turned it into a note, since this can be cited.–Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 23:07, October 29, 2011 (UTC)

That works. :) --31dot 01:22, October 30, 2011 (UTC)

RemovedEdit

Coincidentally, after the eventual destruction of the Enterprise-D, Benjamin Sisko expressed regret by saying it "was a good ship." (DS9: "The Way of the Warrior"

That doesn't seem all that remarkable. It's a pretty logical thing to say, and I highly doubt it was an intentional reference to either the episode or the song. -- Capricorn (talk) 10:08, February 10, 2016 (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.