Talk:Enterprise (NX-01)

Phase cannons
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)
 * 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)

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)

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

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

"Enterprise" template
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? --Ckatz chat spy  09:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It was actually added this morning and removed this morning. Deus Sum (Matthew Fenton) (talk) 09:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 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. --Ckatz chat spy  09:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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. --Ckatz chat spy  22:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Adding headers doesn't fix it. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 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. --Ckatz chat spy  22:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 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? --Ckatz chat spy  22:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Now it is *not* a succession box. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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! --Ckatz chat spy  00:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Spatial Torpedoes
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 Special:Contributions/ (talk)


 * 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
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)
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Odd Information
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)

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

GA-esque comments
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)
 * Background section - "The new series launched some twelve weeks..."
 * The word 'some' appears twice in the sentence; one usage should be eliminated.
 * Removed the first usage. Miyagawa (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Concept and design
 * Italicize Miranda-class?
 * Done, also italicized Daedalus and Akira too. Miyagawa (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Exterior design
 * Should it be a "sphere-shaped primary hull"? (note the hyphen) This is also in lead.
 * Done. Miyagawa (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "wanted them red also like the later" - I kind of trip on the word 'also' here. Copyedit?
 * Straight up removed the "also". Miyagawa (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "to the NX-01, were" - eliminate the comma?
 * Done. Miyagawa (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "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)

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


 * 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..."?
 * Changed as suggested. Miyagawa (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "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.
 * Done. Miyagawa (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The Delphic Expanse
 * "...resulting in the deaths of seven mission people." - Wasn't it seven million people, mostly in Florida?
 * Erm... yes. Million not mission. Miyagawa (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "During the year-long mission" - hyphenate year long?
 * Done. Miyagawa (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * "Xindi vessels and it's warp coil" - no apostrophe
 * Done. Miyagawa (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Should it be "The whereabouts of the future Enterprise is" or "The whereabouts of the future Enterprise are"?
 * Done. Miyagawa (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 'Zero Houo' should be Zero Hour
 * Done. Miyagawa (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * "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)
 * "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
 * Reworded. Miyagawa (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "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"
 * Corrected as suggested. Miyagawa (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The Coalition of Planets and the Romulan War
 * none
 * Other appearances
 * First Flight (Star Trek: Enterprise) uses "N-X Alpha", while this article uses "NX-Alpha"
 * Corrected it in First Flight to "NX-Alpha". Miyagawa (talk) 21:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 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  parameter
 * Thanks, included. Miyagawa (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "These included both as the main television version and in a" - as it is, I think 'as' and 'in' should be removed.
 * Done. Miyagawa (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "and a signed plaque Doug Drexler" - should this be "plaque by Doug"?
 * Corrected. Miyagawa (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "was limited to 1,000" - this seems odd; was it a limited production run of 1000 units?
 * Corrected as suggested. Miyagawa (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Overall
 * This is an American TV show, so should 'whilst' be in use?
 * Changed them all to "while". Miyagawa (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Chris857 (talk) 03:31, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I appreciate the feedback. I'll work through it now. Miyagawa (talk) 21:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131230232306/http://www.qmxonline.com/news/stid-history-of-starflight-models/ to http://www.qmxonline.com/news/stid-history-of-starflight-models/

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

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

External links modified
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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120606094846/http://trekweb.com/stories.php?aid=xCW9imJ8mIzUQ to http://www.trekweb.com/stories.php?aid=xCW9imJ8mIzUQ

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

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

External links modified (January 2018)
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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130808004801/http://www.diamondselecttoys.com/store.asp?p=subcategory.asp%3FCategoryID%3D335%26SubcategoryID%3D269 to http://www.diamondselecttoys.com/store.asp?p=subcategory.asp%3FCategoryID%3D335%26SubcategoryID%3D269
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130808004801/http://www.diamondselecttoys.com/store.asp?p=subcategory.asp%3FCategoryID%3D335%26SubcategoryID%3D269 to http://www.diamondselecttoys.com/store.asp?p=subcategory.asp%3FCategoryID%3D335%26SubcategoryID%3D269

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

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

Input requested: name-change proposal that would affect this article
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. Thanks! --EEMIV (talk) 01:23, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

P-38 Lightning
Doug Drexler said the design was inspired by the P-38 Lightning. 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)