Talk:USS Enterprise

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

Shouldn't there be a TOC thing[edit]

65.128.226.144 (talk) 02:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quebec?[edit]

Are we sure that the first Enterprise was launched at "St. John's, Quebec"? There's a St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, that's a major port, but I'm not familiar with one in Quebec. - Montréalais

From http://user.fundy.net/fpweb/2-enter.htm :
In May 1775, the Connecticut horse-trader-turned-soldier sailed the armed ketch Liberty jauntily up the Richelieu River, deep into Canada, and captured Fort St. Johns (now St. Jean sur Richelieu), without firing a shot. Captured in addition were two British ships: the armed schooner Royal Savage and the supply sloop George III, both of which were built at the fort.
St Jean-sur-Richelieu is in Quebec (I'm sure you don't need me to tell you that). The article needs the modern name in it, I guess. --Camembert
I added the modern name - hope I got my hyphens in the right place (and that "Saint" is better than "St"). --Camembert
Oh, St-Jean-sur-Richelieu! Duh! *smacks self - Montréalais

The first 'Enterprise' most definitely was not launched anywhere in Canada. see l'Entreprise

Training ship[edit]

Sorry, I'm new and don't know how to edit a page, and I fear I will screw it up, but I have some information that needs to be added. The USTS (United States Training Ship) Enterprise, is Massachusetts Maritime Academy's (MMA)Training Ship.

From Maritime.edu:

Training Ship Enterprise

The T.S. Enterprise has been named in honor of the Academy's first training ship, the U.S.S. Enterprise. Massachusetts Maritime Academy (then called the Boston Nautical School) used her as a floating classroom and dormitory in Boston from 1893 until 1909.

The new Enterprise was built as the Velma Lykes in Avondale Shipyards in New Orleans, Louisiana for Lykes Brothers Steamship Company in 1967. She served Lykes until 1986 when she was placed in the National Defense Reserve Fleet (NDRF) under the ownership of the US Department of Transportation Maritime Administration. She was renamed Cape Bon, and saw service in Operation Dessert Storm in the Arabian Gulf in 1991. She was converted to a "public nautical Schoolship" at Bender Ship Repair in Mobile, Alabama under the direction of Interocean Ugland Management. Enterprise was delivered to the Academy on 16 April 2003, was commissioned to Academy service on 22 May 2003

Under contract to the Maritime Administration, Interocean Ugland Management delivered the Enterprise to the Academy after a two-year conversion at Bender Shipbuilding and Repair in Mobile, Alabama. She was commissioned in Buzzards Bay on National Maritime Day, 22 May 2003. The ship went through extensive outfitting of classrooms and labs by Academy staff and cadets throughout the summer and fall, and sailed on her maiden voyage in January 2004 with 464 cadets aboard.

Each year the Enterprise sails for 2 months on a training cruise and visits forieng ports in Europe, South America and the Caribbean. The roughly 500 cadets, supervised by roughly 100 officers and crew spend up to 16 hours a day taking classes, performing maintenance and standing watches on the bridge and in the engine room. During the rest of the year cadets stand watches, take classes and spend saturdays maintaining the ship, which is piered at Massachusetts Maritime Academy, alongside the Cape Cod Canal.

More content including vessel particulars at http://www.maritime.edu/l2.cfm?page=2 Photo at http://maritime.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=30014648&id=106000605

MMA has a wiki page that this could be linked to. The school and its cadets are very proud of the ship and would greatly appreciate it if someone could make us a page.

US Navy vs Star Trek trademark[edit]

Does anyone here have an answer to this question? ... We all know the USS Enterprise is both a starship on Star Trek as well as a entire linage of US Navy ships. What I want to know is, in a fictional movie (or other creative production) involving a futuristic United States Space Navy force, would it be in violation of Paramount's trademark if a starship in that US Space Navy was named "USS Enterprise"? I mean, the US Navy's USS Enterprise came first, and it would be pretty logical that the lineage of the USS Enterprise continued if the US expanded her Navy into space.

I don't believe there is any issue. Trademark - A name, symbol, or other device identifying a product, officially registered and legally restricted to the use of the owner or manufacturer. The key word there is identifying - as long as the ship is unique it will be fine. If the futuristic ship had two large nacelles and a saucer section - then it would be an issue because it resembles the trademark of Paramount and could confuse the consumer - thats what trademarks are all about. Allowing a consumer to easily identify what product they are buying. Fosnez 11:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In practice, I don't believe it would be allowed. At best, the writers of the other show would be able to refer to it obliquely (q.v. Stargate SG-1 and Prometheus (Stargate)). The use of a starship named Enterprise in another sci-fi TV series would probably be judged to be unacceptably infringing of Paramount's trademark and in order to maintain the strength of their IP, Paramount would be forced to challenge it. Iceberg3k 20:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If there was a show about a future U.S. space force, it would be free to use the name Enterprise as one of a number of ships (based solely on the Navy/NASA lineage). But if the ship looked at all like a Star Trek design, or if the ship named Enterprise was the focal point of the series, then it would become a trademark issue.

Just the name "USS Enterprise" can be trademarked. Trademarks allow for names and graphic symbols to be protected where copyright law lacks enforcement. Since the first ship was named the Enterprise back in 1775, I would think that any trademark would long be expired by now. There were 8 versions of the Big "E" and, I would think that if anyone violated any trademarks, it would be NASA, as the starship USS Enterprise was written long before the space shuttle was named. GeorgeMcGinn (talk) 09:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Trademarks don't expire. Coke has had theirs for a very long time. The navy (or nasa) are not prohibited from naming their actual physical ships this because it would not create brand confusion. Star Trek likely has trademarks that only cover television, and perhaps toys. They would fail in their defense if they tried to also restrict boats named such, as other entities had been in that space earlier. McKay (talk) 23:09, 25 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This page is a type of disambiguation[edit]

This page—like HMS Enterprise—is a disambiguation page. As such it should be as short as possible when listing items that have their own detailed pages.

So I cut each entry down to the ships Name, Dates of use, and one key detail for identification purposes. If anyone wants the extra details that were removed, they can click on the links and read the articles in all of their glory. The only entries I did not cut down were the ones for ships with no other page.

As for the list of sources in the Trek section, I was trying to improve readability and some redundant links.

If you have an issue with any particular change I have made feel free (of course) to change it, but please do not do a blanket revert to fix one thing. —MJBurrageTALK • 05:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wow, you are not kidding! This dab page appears to be way off the guidelines for disambiguation pages. If I can find a good block of time in the next few days, I will try to strip the page down and bring it back into standards. --Kralizec! (talk) 16:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Per the guidelines at Ship Index Pages, I removed information that is not needed to identify which USS Enterprise you are looking for. I did not remove the descriptions of when to use (or not use) the USS prefix, nor what USS means, as that does seem germane to this Index in particular.
I also relinked the FULL dates as they should be per Wikipedia MoS: Dates containing a month and a day (so they work with user preferences).
MJBurrageTALK • 18:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, the dates and numbers style manual specifically states that dab pages are one of the exceptions to this rule: "There are some exceptions to the rule that dates with a month and a day should always be linked" ... "On disambiguation pages, only the disambiguated articles should be linked, not explanatory text." --Kralizec! (talk) 04:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I stand corrected, not sure how I missed that. Thank-you —MJBurrageTALK • 07:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Star Trek Mirror Universe Enterprise(s)[edit]

Aren't there some Enterprise ships in the Star Trek Mirror Universe?Albmont 01:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You mean the ISS Enterprise (Star Trek)? --Kralizec! (talk) 03:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes. The text only mentions the canonical Enterprises, not the Mirror-Enterprises.Albmont 13:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ship Index page guidelines[edit]

Once again, this page is in need of some cleaning to adhere more to the guidelines for ship index pages. The idea is that a ship article should contain as much information as possible and the index page is to serve only to help people find a particular ship. If a ship history is very small, say, less then one paragraph, then it's ok to leave the information on the index page rather than create a separate article. Essentially this is a "heads up" as I will be going through List of United States Navy ships, E in the coming few weeks. --Brad (talk) 18:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New page is in place. --Brad (talk) 22:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oooh, looks nice! I think the bloated entries on the first several E's were a legacy from when we did not have articles on each of the ships. Regardless, thanks for all of your hard work in cleaning up this page! --Kralizec! (talk) 23:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There should still be something on the meaning of USS, covering what it means, and why it is not used on all American ships. Also not all Star Trek ships are Federation ships. —MJBurrage(TC) 06:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kralizec!'s reverts of my Star Trek changes[edit]

Kralizec!, how is adding links a violation of WP:MOSDAB? I do not agree with your assessment. From WP:MOSDAB:

Disambiguation pages ("dab pages") are, like redirects, non-article pages in the article namespace. Disambiguation pages are solely intended to allow users to choose among several Wikipedia articles, usually when a user searches for an ambiguous term...

I am providing additional links to the information already present. I added nothing that adds content or bulk to the article; simply highlighted the content already there to help others find information they might be interested in.

Unless you or others convince me otherwise, I'm going to revert my changes back. --P shadoh (talk) 20:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

edit by P shadoh[edit]

Disregard. I see now that the spirit of disambig pages is to have a primary link, not multiple links like ordinary articles. --P shadoh (talk) 20:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We appear to have been ships passing in the night; while you were leaving the above message, I was writing one on your talk page. Regardless, the relevant passage in WP:MOSDAB states:


This was also previously discussed on this page at This page is a type of disambiguation above. --Kralizec! (talk) 20:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As long as the ships were named Enterprise, at least we're still on topic. :) --P shadoh (talk) 21:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Star Trek canon[edit]

Every once in a while someone adds and or takes away the USS Enterprise–F. While not canon by current CBS standards, it is notable as it was part of the plot of a trilogy of authorized novels. As I understand it, while canon is the standard for Memory Alpha, notability is the only applicable standard here. I.E. as long as it is properly described the F should be listed here, (and probably described as a section in either the Starship Enterprise page and/or a page about the Millennium Trilogy.) —MJBurrage(TC) 17:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm slightly torn on the issue. On the one hand, I do agree with you that it is perhaps worthy of mention, as someone might be doing searches on Star Trek starships named Enterprise. On the other, however, it is somewhat obscure. While a majority of people who consider themselves trekkies would likely easily be able to tell you about NCC-1701 and NCC-1701 A-E, I don't think very many would be able to tell you anything about F (or J for that matter -- I did watch Enterprise and I had forgotten about it and had to read the description for a refresher when I first saw it on this page). Perhaps the most appropriate thing to do here would be to scrap individual lines beyond "E" (since the original and A-E have their own pages) and provide one link that names all the ones beyond "E" with a link to Starship Enterprise, which is where all the others are listed. Thoughts? --P shadoh (talk) 16:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I might on the one link for all ships after Enterprise–E if all the notable examples were A) canon and/or licensed, and B) the "Beyond the next generation" section of the Starship Enterprise article was more detailed.
As it stands now the Enterprise–M (from a notable but unlicensed film) is more notable than any version from the licensed novels or comics, and needs a seperate line to link to the Of Gods an Men article (either directly or via redirect). —MJBurrage(TC) 15:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

About 40 years ago I acquired a Star Trek Writer's Guide which regrettably has since disappeared. I do recall that U.S.S. in that writer's guide stood for "United Space Ship" rather than "United Star Ship", and that starships were considered a class of space ship. Can anybody confirm that my memory is correct? 189.135.124.22 (talk) 04:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Recent anon edits/reverts[edit]

As noted multiple times above, this page is not a regular entry. It is a ship index (a type of Wikipedia:Disambiguation), and as such is meant to be as short as possible, with only one link per entry. Also S.S. has nothing to do with "State Ship" and is not restricted to American use. It originally meant a screw-driven steamship (Screw Steamer) but can be used by anyone and may just imply "Surface Ship", "Seagoing Ship" or whatever the owner wants. —MJBurrage(TC) 20:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

S.S.[edit]

Again, S.S. has nothing specifically to do with the United States. It has stood for "Sailing Ship", "Steam Ship", or "Screw Ship" (as in screw driven). None of the uses are restricted by the ship's registration or nationality. —MJBurrage(TC) 01:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

USS Enterprise (BLDG 7115)[edit]

Should USS Enterprise (BLDG 7115) be described as a stone frigate ? 184.144.161.173 (talk) 13:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, because that is a term only used in Great Britain and Commonwealth nations. SeanNovack (talk) 20:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CVN-79[edit]

The new sentence about CVN-79 adds a "cite error" because the page has no {{reflist}}. Since this is a ship index page I am removing it, rather than adding the reflist. Perhaps the new material belongs at USS John F. Kennedy (CVN-79)#Naming? -- John of Reading (talk) 17:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Set index vs. dab[edit]

To editor Older ≠ wiser: in regard to your revert, the only non-ship I see is the building that is a ship simulator. So all it would take, technically, to make this a set index would be to put that building in the See also section. Also, even that building has been set in italics, so why not italicize the page title?  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 17:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
PS. Might add that the WikiProject considers this a set index. PS added by  Paine Ellsworth  u/c

The list consists of naval vessels as well as fictional spacecraft. These do not constitute a set AFAICT. And besides, links to this name can and should be disambiguated. olderwiser 18:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
PS, only one of the wikiprojects (and likely the least relevant) has this marked as SIA. The more relevant projects have it tagged as dab class. olderwiser 18:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, FWIW, the set index for this title is List of ships of the United States Navy named Enterprise. olderwiser 18:14, 20 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, older ≠ wiser, that all makes very good sense.  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 00:31, 26 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What exactly is this page disambiguating?[edit]

I'm just wondering if this page is disambiguating "USS Enterprise" or "Enterprise". If the former, as the title would imply, then why the many "Enterprises" that aren't "USS Enterprise"? If the latter, then why are the HMS Enterprises relegated to a separate page? JKeck (talk) 15:33, 18 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is disambiguating USS Enterprise. If you search by typing "enterprise" it takes you to a completely different disambiguation page, just as typing HMS Enterprise takes you to that disambiguation page. The reason there are ships listed on this disambiguation page without the "USS" in front is because they are American ships named Enterprise that people may have assumed had the USS designation. Clear as mud? StarHOG (Talk) 02:50, 19 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
From what you say, it's not simply disambiguating "USS Enterprise" but rather "USS Enterprise and American ships named Enterprise". A change of title to reflect that focus might be appropriate. JKeck (talk) 21:30, 24 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It does that inherently by listing ships as USS Enterprise or just Enterprise. StarHOG (Talk) 02:39, 29 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]