Talk:Enterprise (NX-01)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Phase cannons[edit]

I know the Enterprise has a number of Phase cannons, but 12 seems over excessive for a ship it's size and for the time period of Star Trek. Enzo Aquarius 22:17, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the number reflects the augmentations made to the vessel for the Xindi mission. Presumably subsequent ships scaled this back as the weapons became more sophisticated and powerful and the UFP's establishment allowed for more peaceful exploration. 23skidoo 02:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

12 cannon ports can be visually verified and the ship fired from a minimum of 10 of those 12 ports throught the series, meaing it used most or possibly even all of them at some point or another. --Atrahasis 23:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

Which episodes are the data in the template taken from? If actual episodes cannot be cited, the information should not be here. Please see WP:VERIFY. AlistairMcMillan 10:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A few.. ENT: Silent Enemy, ENT: The Expanse, ENT: Azati Prime and ENT: Fallen Hero--Matthew Fenton (TALK - CONTRIBS) 10:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ship table[edit]

Removed the ship table as we dont know much about the XCV and also the Starfleets are diffrent, so.. dont add it back thank you. Matthew Fenton (TALK - CONTRIBS) 09:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the XCV anyway? Is that the test craft from "First Flight"? 23skidoo 15:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

USS Enterprise (XCV 330) - Matthew Fenton (TALK - CONTRIBS) 15:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Enterprise" template[edit]

The "Starships named Enterprise" template was removed earlier tonight, purportedly because it was "speculative". This is not a valid rationale - the template is intended to facilitate movement between articles about Star Trek ships named "Enterprise", and as such is perfectly appropriate for an article such as this one. Thoughts? --Ckatzchatspy 09:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was actually added this morning and removed this morning. Deus Sum (Matthew Fenton) (talk) 09:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, Matthew... the links between previous and subsequent articles, present since May 1, 2006 and [most recently presented] in the form of the template "Starships named Enterprise", were removed [just after midnight (Pacific Standard Time)], or [just after 8 AM (UTC)]. It doesn't alter the fact that you removed a useful set of links. --Ckatzchatspy 09:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How is it useful? There's a big honking category Category:Enterprise Ships (Star Trek). Deus Sum (Matthew Fenton) (talk) 09:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For what's it worth, other implementations of the template include the years, and where there is a gap, it reads "unknown" (and the span) before listing the next known vessel. To answer MatthewFenton's question, the point of a succession box seems to be to make it easy to move linearly between related entries. Same idea behind successor/predecessor entries for TV episodes, elected officials, etc. --EEMeltonIV 12:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Removed again per "Another common type of template, succession boxes, should not be used to describe in-universe relationships in articles about fictional entities. Succession boxes assume continuity, which may not exist. Even if it does exist, the fiction's creators may choose to rewrite it later, invalidating any previous canon" at WP:WAF. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To address your concerns, I've relabelled the headers "Previous article" and "Next article" - otherwise you're going to have to remove them from ALL of the "Enterprise" articles. --Ckatzchatspy 22:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Adding headers doesn't fix it. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It does address the problem - the template is now a navigation guide, and NOT an indication of succession. If you like, we can arrange the articles in any order that is satisfactory. --Ckatzchatspy 22:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another option would be to drop the display of the article name, so that one clicks on "next article". That might also address your concerns over indicating succession. Thoughts? --Ckatzchatspy 22:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a navigation guide as it only covers prev. and next; so it is still a succession box. To answer your second reply it would still be a succession box. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now it is *not* a succession box. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One possibility might be to do what I did with the Trek ranks "succession" box, which is to splat them onto one table so they're all visible at once. The idea of succession isn't an issue since "next" and "previous" aren't there. *shrug*. It agree with Ckatz that is dumb to remove the box alltogether, though. --EEMeltonIV 22:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nicely done, folks. That should address everyone's concerns - it maintains the ability to move between related articles, while avoiding the question of "succession" in fictional works. Thanks! --Ckatzchatspy 00:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spatial Torpedoes[edit]

Someone keeps removing spatial torpedoes from the Armaments section of the General Characteristics. Considering that they only had photonic torpedos for half the time plus the fact that spatial torpedoes are seen in the ship's storage bays all the way to the fourth season, spatial torpedoes should remain on the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.122.223.89 (talk) 19:05, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, and spatial torpedo warheads seem to appear in the third season episode Anomaly, where they are are stolen by alien pirates. Tritons were part of the ship's original equipment and were carried for at least two years, and they also blew the Borg up with them, so it's not like spatial torpedoes didn't make enough of a contribution :) -- PsychoPoet406

Article edit was again removed[edit]

From: Help Desk
This thread was originally on the Help Desk and copied here, as this is a more appropriate place to discuss it

This time I included citations to prove that the content I added was true and correct yet someone still saw fit to arbitrarily remove what I'd posted, what can I do about this while stil ensuring that I'm not blocked from future editing? Allan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radio-commander (talk • contribs) 02:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reference you provided is inappropriate (see WP:RS). I think your best option is to discuss this on the article's talk page and see what others think about it. Since your edits have been opposed, a discussion should take place on why it should or should not be included. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 03:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please don't ask question here if you plan on completely ignoring the advice you get. That's four people who have recommended you use the talk page, but instead you've reverted to your version for the fifth or sixth time, and made exactly zero edits to the talk page. One more and you're very likely to get blocked. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "true and correct content" that you attempted to add to the article came from an unreliable source and cannot be used. As I suspected, the reference you used was not canonical, so it is invalid to use here. ArcAngel (talk) 09:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Odd Information[edit]

IN the episode "The Council" Archer is seen receiving the information that Degra is dead, on the monitor panel are 8 status indicators. The one to the top right is called "Ziggy". This would seem to refer to the handheld information device in the Quantum Leap series staring Scott Bakula. Claytog (talk) 02:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Input requested[edit]

I've posed a few questions at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Star_Trek#Starship_article_ruminations, and I'd appreciate feedback from anyone who has this article watchlisted. Thanks! --EEMIV (talk) 16:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA-esque comments[edit]

Looking through the article, but not wanting to do the GA review, I see:

  • Lead
    • "...the in-universe registration prefix..." - Is it a prefix, or a suffix? "Enterprise NX-01" is used later on in the article.
      • I've removed "prefix"... it isn't really a suffix either, as certainly in-universe they never used it as such. I just tended to use it in the article to easily differentiate between the ship and the series name. Miyagawa (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background section - "The new series launched some twelve weeks..."
    • The word 'some' appears twice in the sentence; one usage should be eliminated.
    • About the number twelve: Star Trek: Voyager says it ended May 23, 2001, and Star Trek: Enterprise says it began September 26, 2001. WolframAlpha tells me this is 18 weeks. Where did the source get the number twelve from?
      • I've removed the number of weeks - the source said "12 weeks or so" which I thought was it being cute, but instead it was giving a general estimate. Miyagawa (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concept and design
    • Italicize Miranda-class?
      • Done, also italicized Daedalus and Akira too. Miyagawa (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exterior design
    • Should it be a "sphere-shaped primary hull"? (note the hyphen) This is also in lead.
    • "wanted them red also like the later" - I kind of trip on the word 'also' here. Copyedit?
    • "to the NX-01, were" - eliminate the comma?
    • "was created in CGI rather than as a physical model" - does this sound better?
      • It does, I've changed it to your suggestion. Miyagawa (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add what I see from the remaining sections later. Chris857 (talk) 01:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


  • Deep space exploration
    • "Following that success, the ship and crew's orders to begin a deep space exploration mission." - this is a fragment, and I don't see a verb for a sentence. Should it be something like ""Following that success, the ship and crew are ordered to..."?
    • "It was not until the following month, whilst in combat with an unknown foe that its spatial torpedoes were calibrated, and the phase cannons were installed in the following September" - 'its' shouldn't have an apostrophe, and I think a comma should be added.
  • The Delphic Expanse
    • "...resulting in the deaths of seven mission people." - Wasn't it seven million people, mostly in Florida?
    • "During the year-long mission" - hyphenate year long?
    • Azati Prime is italicized here, but other episodes have quotes?
      • It should have quotes - I've corrected it. Miyagawa (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Xindi vessels and it's warp coil" - no apostrophe
    • Should it be "The whereabouts of the future Enterprise is" or "The whereabouts of the future Enterprise are"?
    • 'Zero Houo' should be Zero Hour
    • The spheres are introduced without warning or explanation in para 3. I think some explanation should come somewhere.
      • I've worked it in earlier into the Xindi paragraphs. Miyagawa (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the modifications destroys the sphere and sets off" should be "the modifications destroy the sphere and set off" or "the modification destroys the sphere and sets off"
      • Corrected to the first suggestion. Miyagawa (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "away team and find out that Archer didn't" - right now, 'find' should be 'finds', but even moreso, it should be slightly rewritten to indicate that the crew finds out, not the ship itself
    • "finds that the events of the Temporal Cold War has overtaken them" should be "finds that the events of the Temporal Cold War have overtaken them"
  • The Coalition of Planets and the Romulan War
    • none
  • Other appearances
  • Models and toy lines
    • "The initial 7 inches (18 cm) figure range" - I think it should probably be "The initial 7 inch (18 cm) figure range". This can be gotten with the |adj=mid parameter
    • "These included both as the main television version and in a" - as it is, I think 'as' and 'in' should be removed.
    • "and a signed plaque Doug Drexler" - should this be "plaque by Doug"?
    • "was limited to 1,000" - this seems odd; was it a limited production run of 1000 units?
  • Overall
    • This is an American TV show, so should 'whilst' be in use?
    • There seems to be some inconsistency between "Enterprise" and "the Enterprise"
      • I've given the instances of "the Enterprise" a double check and removed most of them. Miyagawa (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Chris857 (talk) 03:31, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I appreciate the feedback. I'll work through it now. Miyagawa (talk) 21:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's cool to see someone working at improving articles like this. Another thing I thought of is: the infobox indicates some in-universe ship stats, but some (like top speed, shuttlepod complement, defense) aren't described in the article, nor do they have a ref attached. They all seem correct to me, but would it be appropriate for some more involved discussion of some of those points? Do refs exist discussing them? Chris857 (talk) 23:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see if I can dig some out - you're right though, there should be an "in-universe description" subsection or something. I'll give it some thought. I'm just trying to expand a little what we have at the ST project for Good Articles as right now we have a lot of episode articles but only a handful of other things. There wasn't really a fictional vehicle article to base it on, so I just kinda went with my gut on what should be in it within the context of Wikipedia. I decided to start with the NX-01 rather than one of the other Enterprises as there is virtually no printed material for ST:ENT and it's all on the web - although I did find out while doing this that there is a production chapter at the back of the Broken Bow novelization. Miyagawa (talk) 23:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Enterprise (NX-01)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Rosiestep (talk · contribs) 03:08, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to review this one over the weekend. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:08, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Miyagawa (talk) 11:15, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • Star Trek: The Original Series - parens the TOS as later in the article, you refer to it as "TOS", or just don't use TOS later in the article
  • wls - hull; refit; attack submarines
  • "The interior of the ship was designed by a number of staff members, primarily by Zimmerman." - missing conjunction ('but'?) after the comma
  • "undergoing a variety of upgrades" - how about "undergoing various upgrades"
  • "It's missions included an initial period of deep space exploration, following by a mission into the Delphic Expanse following the Xindi attack on Earth and then was instrumental in the formation of the Coalition of Planets with the Vulcans, Andorians and Tellarites." multiple problems here; how about "Its missions included an initial period of deep space exploration and a mission into the Delphic Expanse following the Xindi attack on Earth; it was also instrumental in the formation of the Coalition of Planets with the Vulcans, Andorians and Tellarites."
  • "The final appearance was in" - how about "occurred in"
  • "There have been several toys and models released of Enterprise" - clunky
Background
  • First sentence contains original and originally - can you reword
  • I removed the originally - it didn't need it. Miyagawa (talk) 20:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2nd, 4th, 3rd version - maybe re-order them?
  • I've reordered it a little but left the B until the end - also realised they should have been the 3rd, 4th and 5th versions. Miyagawa (talk) 20:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the network"/"they"
  • The Original Series vs TOS - standardize
Concept and design
  • "The original intention for the series was for the entire first season to be based around the construction of the ship before it can be launched. " - clunky
  • "The second concept of the vessel was to appear similar in design to" - how about "The second design concept had similarity to"
  • I didn't go exactly as suggested, but I've trimmed it. Miyagawa (talk) 20:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Exterior design
  • quote box - Ref24 doesn't contain the quote; can you find the right ref. I googled the quote and found it elsewhere; it doesn't have the "it's"/its error. Also, "Except"/excerpt
  • Fixed the typo and "excerpt" - it is on the page of the offline source, I just double checked it. Miyagawa (talk) 21:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but Drexler referred to is as" - it
  • "saucer shaped" - hyphenate
  • wls - struts; nacelles; CGI; high definition; low resolution/low-res
  • Done - high and low res would have both gone to the same article, so I just linked the first. Miyagawa (talk) 21:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • what's a buzzard collector?
  • I always thought they were "buzzard" but apparently it is "bussard". Anyway, it is now linked (now that the typo has been fixed). Miyagawa (talk) 21:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "like the later series. Drexler later thought " - overuse of later
  • "For the NX-01, it was squashed on the vertical axis" - squashed?
  • Changed squashed to "compressed". Miyagawa (talk) 21:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This version looked smaller as the windows on the ship were larger than used on the television version, and also had a bronze tint. " - what had a bronze tint, the ship or the windows?
  • "Regarding this change in coloration, Drexler later said that he didn't know when the change was made as both he and Zimmerman approved it" - approved what... the prior version or the changed version?
  • "Following this initial usage" paragraph - overuse of "seen"
  • I ended up removing all of them - none of them were needed. Miyagawa (talk) 21:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Season 5
  • "had gone ahead" - had been produced or occurred
  • Changed to your first suggestion. Miyagawa (talk) 21:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This would have seen the addition of a secondary hull, and resulted in the ship taking on an appearance closer to the vessels seen" - seen/seen
Interior design
  • wls - Space Shuttle (wl here and unlink lower down); Matt Jefferies; transporter
Deep space exploration
  • parenthetical commas - after "while in combat with an unknown foe"; "The ship however was launched" (around however)
  • weapons systems - weapon systems?
  • wls - spatial torpedoe; phase cannons (alas, there are lots of non-Trekkies out there who wouldn't know what these are)
The Delphic Expanse
  • overlink - Xindi
  • wls - Delphic Expanse; T'Pol
  • "During the year-long mission in the expanse" - Expanse
  • it's crew - its
  • moon sized - hyphenate
  • Done. Unfortunately they didn't say the immortal words "that's no moon!". Miyagawa (talk) 21:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Upon arrival it finds that the events" - (a) comma after arrival; (b) whom does it refer to?
  • 20th Century - 20th century
The Coalition of Planets and the Romulan War
  • "The episode "Daedalus" saw the " - tense (sees or use some other verb)
  • "it's appearance"; "it's decommissioning" - its
  • Humans - humans
  • wl - holodeck
  • " into orbit of Pluto " - into the orbit of Pluto
Other appearances
  • "was as a model in amongst a collection" - was as a model in a collection
Reception and commentary
  • slower than a Hyundai - should this be in quotes? I couldn't find the quote in the ref - it requires subscription
  • The quote is "The ship maxes out at Warp 4. Warp 4! knowing Trekkies everywhere will giggle. There are Hyundais that go faster than that." Miyagawa (talk) 21:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Models and toy lines
  • "The initial 7-inch (18 cm) figure range by Art Asylum each shipped with a Enterprise bridge console which fitted together to form a bridge diorama in the same scale." - clumsy
  • I swapped out a work, dropped a couple and made it two sentences. Miyagawa (talk) 21:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • wl - New York Toy Fair
Infobox
  • Warp 5.06; Warp 5.2; 2x Shuttlepods; Polarized hull plating - these features probably need to be referenced here or better yet, mentioned/referenced within the article
  • I've worked the 5.06, 5.2, shuttlepods and plating into the prose of the article - although I had to use cites from the episodes themselves. I couldn't find one which referred to the cruising speed specifically, so I've removed it from the infobox. Miyagawa (talk) 22:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notes
  • Not sure about the forums, such as TrekWeb.com, StarTrek.com, TheDrexFiles, TrekMovie.com, Eavesdropping (a wordpress site), QMxOnline?
  • StarTrek.com is the official CBS website. TheDrexFiles and Eavesdropping are wordpress websites, but they are both the websites of the actual designers who worked on Star Trek (Doug Drexler and John Eaves). QMxOnline is a model/toy company that produces official merchandise (and also made a prop for Star Trek Into Darkness. TrekWeb and TrekMovie are the two contentious ones, but they are two of only four fan created websites which are endorsed by the official Star Trek website. Miyagawa (talk) 17:29, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cool article. No major issues. I'll put it on hold for the usual 7 days. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:32, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks, I've been away for the past day and a half so I'll work through those points in the next couple of days. Miyagawa (talk) 17:29, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry about the delay in getting to those points, but I think that is everything. Miyagawa (talk) 22:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]



GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Nicely done! --Rosiestep (talk) 05:29, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Enterprise (NX-01). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:09, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Enterprise (NX-01). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:43, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Enterprise (NX-01). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Input requested: name-change proposal that would affect this article[edit]

Fellow Treksters: I have an idea that would affect this and other articles about various starships Enterprise. I'd appreciate your input at the WikiProject talk page at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Star_Trek#Dammit._Very_complicated,_head-scratching_idea_to_consider. Thanks! --EEMIV (talk) 01:23, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P-38 Lightning[edit]

Doug Drexler said the design was inspired by the P-38 Lightning.[1] Interview with Drexler explains a bit more about how the design came about, that might also be of interest. I found the interview while looking for other information to edit other articles, but I do not have time work on this article too. -- 109.78.197.28 (talk) 00:52, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Enterprise_(NX-01)&oldid=1201771037"