Talk:USS Enterprise (NCC-1701)/Archive 2

"The" (when used with a ship's name)
Not needed. As per Naming_conventions_(ships) it states "Do not use the definite article ("the") before a prefix or when introducing a ship for the first time; e.g., at the beginning of the lead section:"

It also states "Generally, a definite article is not needed before a ship's name", although I'll grant that it then follows with "although its use is not technically wrong" - which is why I said it's not necessary, not that it's wrong. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Please follow up here as to why you think that it is necessary, thanks. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


 * For reference, an identical edit/revert/re-revert happened on the Star Trek page. I have added a link in that talk page to this one. Thanks.  Jabberjawjapan (talk) 02:56, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * FYI - Similar edit/reverts have now occurred at both USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-A) and USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-D). Jabberjawjapan (talk) 08:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * And now here as well: Starship Enterprise. Note that yesterday I stopped editing pages using the "definite article" rational pending this discussion. I think someone should notify User:MightyDinoPower15 asking them to do the same.Jabberjawjapan (talk) 07:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC)


 * In Star Trek itself, the ship is usually referred to using the definite article. RJ4 (talk) 04:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


 * But this is Wikipedia, not Star Trek. See WP:UNIVERSE.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:30, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


 * That is true, but I think we can consider a few things here. First off, the policy says it isn't mandatory to not have the definite article. Second, you will rarely find a reference, either within Trek or in real world articles about it, that refers to "Enterprise" rather than "the Enterprise". I don't know the exact policy, but if references consistently use a certain style to refer to something, it follows that that is how we should also refer to it. Finally, the Enterprise is a fictional ship in a fictional navy in a fictional universe - it would be wrong to assume that what we apply to 21st century ocean-going vessels is what we must also apply to 24th century spaceships.
 * And you know what, fourthly, it just sounds wrong! Maybe not in all cases, but in most of them. WP:IAR. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, to me, to include the definitive sounds wrong. That's a subjective claim, so doesn't count.
 * Your other reasoning is incorrect as well - we do not adhere to how the rest of the world refers to things, we have a manual of style that we refer to instead. That is the consistency we strive for - that all articles hold a consistency within the encyclopedia, not within the real world.  You're also falling into the WP:UNIVERSE fallacy again.  The 24th century has nothing to do with it, MOS does.
 * You are correct though that the policy doesn't state that the definitive must not be included, (apart from the lede) but nor does it say that it should. The tone of the text implies that the lack of definitive is preferred "Generally, a definite article is not needed before a ship's name" and even "although its use is not technically wrong" otherwise it would say "although its lack of use is not technically wrong:"
 * Chaheel Riens (talk) 22:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The Characters don't obey this rule and I will continue to call these ships with tne words "the etc."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by MightyDinoPower15 (talk • contribs) 07:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You really need to read WP:UNIVERSE. You're just coming across as obstinate now.  MOS exists - Star Trek doesn't.  When we're talking about contributions to the encyclopedia, MOS trumps a fictional entity.  (Also real ones, but that's not the point here.)  Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:04, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

PS: In your edit summary, don't you mean "These are voyages of the starship Enterprise"? Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:06, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Or, perhaps, "These are the voyages of the starship the Enterprise." - Sum mer PhD v2.0 22:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Sum mer PhD, that's what I did write, but MightyDinoPower15 refactored my comment here to remove it, and I've only just noticed. That was a bit naughty.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 05:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Jut to put this out there: but people refer to real world ships as "The " yet that is not carried over to the way these ships are named in their articles on Wikipedia. The real world battleship USS Enterprise for instance is not referred to as "The USS Enterprise" on its own article but people refer to it as "the USS Enterprise". If that's the case, and the rules state not to use a definite in front of a ship name, then logically that would apply for fictional ships as it applies to real ships too. Gistech (talk) 09:01, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with you re. the consistency of usage across fiction/non-fiction topics - I guess we need to remember that fiction is created by real-world people in the real world. Also, regarding the ship (I assume you mean USS Enterprise (CVN-65)), yes, it is also consistently not referred to as "the Enterprise" within it's own article either. Further, while I have been reflecting on this matter, I also recall that several Star Trek series do not use "the" in their series' name when referring to the primary ship - for example, Star Trek: Voyager, not "Star Trek: The Voyager", Star Trek: Enterprise, and not "Star Trek: The Enterprise" (or other possible variants - "Star Trek: USS Enterprise", or "Star Trek: The USS Enterprise"), and most recently, Star Trek: Discovery. A similar naming convention is seen, for example, in the franchise Battlestar Galactica. Jabberjawjapan (talk) 02:11, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * As a point in case, I would like to invite interested readers to identify how many times "the Voyager" appears in this article (USS Voyager (Star Trek), or this one (Star Trek: Voyager), since, given the 7 seasons and 172 episodes of the show, this ship is perhaps, arguably, the most famous and written about "non-Enterprise" vessel in the franchise. Jabberjawjapan (talk) 05:31, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I will grant you that the characters refer to it as Voyager, not the Voyager. On the show Enterprise I think there was a mix, DS9 usually went with "the Defiant", TOS/TNG "the Enterprise". However your argument based on "the starship the Enterprise" is clearly just tendentious, as no one is arguing that "the Enterprise" is the ship's name. You would never hear someone say "the ocean liner the Titanic", even though many people would refer to "the Titanic" - the the is contained in "the starship" so there's no need for an additional use.
 * Wikipedia is not the Academie Francaise, it's more like the OED. - it doesn't dictate how people use language, it looks at the world, sees how people are using it, and describes that. That is what we ought to be doing here - there is no official Starfleet MOS on how to refer to their ships. Instead we have sources which use it, and in most of those you will see "the Enterprise". -mattbuck (Talk) 17:38, 25 February 2017 (UTC)


 * THe WP MOS seems out of step with the real world. I've added my research to the MoS talk page here. Rhialto (talk) 13:38, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Whatever you can't make me think I will continue to call these ships as I want.


 * I can't make you think, that's true - but if you wish to edit here you need to do so in collaborative, not combative fashion. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:30, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Stop being dictators and vote — Preceding unsigned comment added by MightyDinoPower15 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC)


 * WP:VOTE - we don't do that either. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Then you are not as smart as you sound — Preceding unsigned comment added by MightyDinoPower15 (talk • contribs) 23:01, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

As per my detailed comments on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ships), I would argue that the best articles in Wikipedia already show evidence of being consensually and highly compliant with as much of the existing MOS as possible (guidelines as cited by User:Chaheel Riens above). In Wikipedia, there are many reasons why articles fail to reach "Good" or better status, and one of them is arguably "knee-jerk territoriality" where subjective or unexplained edits can potentially undermine an article's improvement. Just to provide some context as background, I also recently edited using these MOS guidelines in, for example, Star Trek, the main page of this entire franchise, and a Good article. Those edits were accepted, reverted without explanation (by MightyDinoPower15), but quickly re-accepted (via reversion to my (and the page's current) version). Similarly, my edits to Enterprise (NX-01), - a Good article, Star Trek (film) - another Good article, Star Trek Into Darkness - where I was thanked for my edits, and Star Trek Beyond have been (to date at least) accepted. These pages represent lengthy and detailed constructive and collaborative efforts on the part of many editors in compliance with what Wikipedia states it is, and also with what it states it is not (What Wikipedia is not). Jabberjawjapan (talk) 03:01, 25 February 2017 (UTC)


 * As per my comments on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ships), showing that there is any existing consensus to a manual of style that doesn't reflect real-world usage doesn't prove anything other than standards can be enforced. Wikipedia should primarily be about following real-world practice, not dictating a house style. The correct conclusion to draw from the fact that WP's house style differs from general usage is that the WP house style needs to be adjusted to better reflect the real world. The current MoS imitates the USN, but at least two other US house styles contradict it, and non-US styles tend to allow a free choice where they specify anything. See Specialized-style fallacy and Use modern language.
 * Head over to MOS then, and suggest the change there. Once you've pushed it through, we'll make the updates.  And "real world usage" is a subjective term - I've lost count of the number of times I've seen (and corrected) poor examples of the English language such as "an historic", or that usage of the masculine when gender is unknown is incorrect only to be told "but that's what it's like in real life!"  Yes, maybe it is.  But that doesn't make it right.  MOS currently states that the definitive is not a required addition, and that preference is without - ergo that's what we follow.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:54, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I did, and I would like to invite further commentary from other interested parties, but I am not sufficiently familiar with the WP protocols in changing the MoS. Could you advise me where to find this, since you seem so much more familiar with the WP MoS? As for "an hotel" et alii., it's not strictly true to say that form is utterly wrong, unless you are a prescriptivist grammarian (I'd favour "a hotel", but only because I prefer to write in modern 21st century English). Rhialto (talk) 09:20, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi! I went through and added a bunch of "the"s in front of Enterprise, in some cases two (+1 afterward) to be thorough. The article for Star Trek II has Featured Article status and has plenty of the Enterprises, so I figure it's fine here. It looks like this article wasn't super consistent being sans the, anyway. All this said, I don't feel super strongly about this -- I skimmed the wall of text above, and admittedly lost interest when I saw some editor get snarky. If I'm missing something huge, holler and happily (if surgically, please) change it back. --EEMIV (talk) 01:43, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

NCC nominclature
The article states that Jeffries designated the Enterprise NCC-1701, NCC being a combination of US commercial designation NC and the Russian CCCC. The source for this is a convention "report" by an unknown author who said that Jeffries said this. Although it may be true, I cannot find any reference to Russian aircraft using the designation CCCC. Obviously, CCCP was very common in those days, but this list shows that Chile would be the only country to have used that designation. Not sure if Jeffries was mistaken, the author, or me, but somethings not right. StarHOG (Talk) 19:25, 24 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Probably Jeffries misspeaking on stage, and worth cleaning up in the article. The account in this article matches closely with what I dug up years ago for Spacecraft_in_Star_Trek, though I see now that BBC ref has vanished. I'll go dig in the Internet Archive. --EEMIV (talk) 20:24, 24 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Fixed-ish. I didn't change CC CC to CC CP since the other ref is in the first person, so it's his own words. Maybe CCCC was used by the Russians and just can't find that. Maybe drop [sic] in front of it and rephrase the assertion as a quote directly from him? I dunno. What do you think? --EEMIV (talk) 20:29, 24 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I saw something in another article, or something online, that had the exact same info but he said CCCP. I'm trying to find that again but I don't know where in blazes I spied it. I'll keep looking. StarHOG (Talk) 20:49, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Take a look - I think what's there flies (pun unintended but not apologized for). --EEMIV (talk) 03:42, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Expansion needs
Occurs to me the article lacks information about the Animated Series and digitally updated Original Series versions (development, critical reaction, etc.) of the ship. --EEMIV (talk) 01:53, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Never even considered that angle, it's still the USS Enterprise. I'm on vacation all this week and won't be doing any editing, but would be happy to work on that when I return. StarHOG (Talk) 12:28, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Access to article?
Can anyone get at https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01956051.2015.1075955? --EEMIV (talk) 02:51, 26 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Never mind: got it. Reading. Carry on. --EEMIV (talk) 01:29, 1 September 2018 (UTC)