Talk:Excelsior class

Past and special-purpose discussions related to this article can be found on the following subpages:

• Excelsior class/archive

---

Memory Alpha talk pages are for improving the article only.
For general discussion, please visit Memory Alpha's Discussions feature, or join the chat on Discord.

---

Please click here to start a new discussion

---

FA status

FA nomination (18 June - 02 July 2004, Failed)

Very detailed article. Congratulations Ottens. --BlueMars 00:33, Jun 28, 2004 (CEST)

• Oppose for now. Still a great deal of work being done and needing to be done to clear out non-canon and outright speculation. See Talk:Excelsior class. Would support once consensus is reached. -- Michael Warren 00:42, 28 Jun 2004 (CEST)
• Oppose, for the same reasons as Michael said. -- Dan Carlson 02:12, 28 Jun 2004 (CEST)
• I think you nominated this one a bit to soon Bluemars. Maybe in a coule of days, when the issues are resolved. -- Redge 11:22, 28 Jun 2004 (CEST)
• It seems my writing was simply removed, while we were still debating it... At least the article does not contain any non-canon information anymore. Ottens 11:27, 28 Jun 2004 (CEST)
• I've read the new version, but I still feel there are a lot of issues to be resolved before we feature this article. See the talk page for more details. -- Redge 11:55, 28 Jun 2004 (CEST)
• Oppose. Much of the data is baseless, there seems to be a lot of resistance to including accurate data here. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 15:05, 28 Jun 2004 (CEST)
• All non-canon data was removed. If there is any non-canon information, it should be removed, but I believe there is non, and no one responded to my question on the Talk page. So I think it could be re-nominated, unless there are objection of course... Ottens 12:08, 29 Jun 2004 (CEST)
• I think this page could be re-nominated. Ottens 16:31, 2 Jul 2004 (CEST)

Removal of featured status

This page was seemingly given the {{featured}} stamp of approval without a consensus. It took a lot of archive digging, but I finally confirmed my suspicions (which were rooted in the simple fact that no log exists confirming its nomination) -- it was on Nov. 20, 2004 that Steve Mollmann seemed to have randomly given this page the M/A tag of approval. I had to dig even deeper in the archives of the nomination archives to reveal that all evidence of the votes for this were removed and I had to readd them into the 2004 Archive for the Excelsior class. The voting ended with roughly 4:2 against it, with the last comment being made on Jul. 2, 2004, stating that 'it should be renomiated', but I cannot find any evidence in the logs that it was. In fact, no significant changes were made between the time the last comment was made on the nomiation page and the time at which it was given its featured status.

Now, despite the fact that the page has been 'illegally' featured for the past 14 months, I do not feel that it should simply be 'grandfathered in' due to an oversight. Because of this, and the moderately drastic changes made to the article from what it was when it was featured, and the fact that it still could be expanded on more, I personally do not think it should be left kept as featured when it never should have been featured in the first place. It should be removed and re-nominated properly. --Alan del Beccio 05:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

If no valid vote to make this article featured can be found, then I don't think it even needs to be an issue delisting it as it was never intended to be featured in the first place. I would support striking its featured status immediately and placing this discussion on the talk page for reference. -- SmokeDetector47^{( TALK )} 05:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

FA nomination (22 Dec 2008 - 07 Jan 2009, Success)

Complete, thoroughly researched, fully illustrated. --Alan 17:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support - This is a nicely researched and written article, with a lot of great background information.– Cleanse 06:46, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Well written and complete, IMO. Looks good. – Tom 00:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
• Second. - Nice one! --36ophiuchi 00:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support. --From Andoria with Love 03:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support --Pseudohuman 02:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Archived. --Alan 13:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Cargo bays or torpedo launchers

The article reads: "Located in the forward section, above the deflector dish, were the port and starboard cargo bays, capable of taking in craft up to the size of a workbee." The MSD in the movie however states that those things are the two other torpedo launchers that we've never seen in action. [1] I dont remember how it was depicted in the film but seems to me like this cargo bay stuff is just conjecture, maybe the workbee was loading probes or something... --Pseudohuman 11:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that those cargo-bay doors within the dorsal 'neck' of the Excelsior-class are simply just that as we've almost never seen them used for anything else, other than the MSD for Star Trek III: The Search for Spock and easily could be the result of a mislabel. Based on that, the pictures under "tactical systems" contradict eachother. One clearly shows USS Excelsior firing photon torpedoes from Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country and others are shots of a cargo bay being loaded by a work bee and are marked "Upper forward torpedo launcher". If they are indeed torpedo launchers why didn't Hikaru Sulu use them in STVI or any other time we've seen an Excelsior-class in action? Satyrquaze 18:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Let me just note that what pseudohuman is referencing was changed here. But I do also want to note the contradiction in the statement "seems to me like this cargo bay stuff is just conjecture, maybe the workbee was loading probes or something...". --Alan 20:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I suppose the fact that they weren't used in STVI might be, that they may be designed to be used only after a saucer separation to augment the star drive section's firepower. Similarly as the Galaxy-class cobra-head phaser only becomes available after a separation. If you look at the front-view (copy paste link [2]) of the Excelsior-class, the lower part of the saucer section blocks direct forward firing from the upper torpedo launchers. Also starships in trek rarely fire all their forward weapons at the same time even in extremely desperate situations. And I don't think there is a single ship design we have seen actually using on-screen every weapon system they have available. --Pseudohuman 16:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

You're probably right about it in the end, but I don't think the Galaxy's cobra-head phaser array is the best example since it is generally covered by the hull of the Saucer Section and about 7 decks. Whereas it would be merely unwise to fire torpedoes with such a limited firing arc because of the saucer section. Anyway, the Enterprise-D during the first encounter with the Borg during "Best of Both Worlds" probably comes pretty close to firing all of her forward weapons without Saucer Seperation. Satyrquaze 16:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Launcher positions

Actually, if you look at the MSD, you can see that the upper launchers are actually below the lower saucer dome, so it's not as if they were fired they would self-destructive to the ship. --Alan 16:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, in retrospect, I found a scan that confirms what you guys are saying. Satyrquaze 17:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it was linked above in the first comment of this discussion. Any plans with that deck count image you uploaded? --Alan 17:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I just tried to upload it (didn't see it elsewhere) to this discussion and couldn't set it up with damaging the flow of the talk page. Satyrquaze 17:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The Torp launchers are just in front of the starfleet signage on the secondary hull, they are the two dark looking ports. (Enterprise NCC-1701 12:04, December 10, 2010 (UTC))

MSD

Is there a canon MSD for the the NX/NCC-2000? I found this one at Utopia Planitia Yards and was wondering if this came from anywhere on screen/background information or if it was fan made, since there are some major differences between this and the Enterprise-B MSD. Also this as well. - Archduk3:talk 11:48, November 20, 2009 (UTC)

The turbolift image appears to be the one from Generations (but with a 01 instead of 07 as in the film...). [3] and that fanmade USS Excelsion MSD is just the Ent-B MSD with only the name changed among some details. Canonically USS Excelsior has only a top-view MSD as seen in "The Undiscovered Country" [4] and in "Flashback" [5]...i think. --Pseudohuman 21:15, November 20, 2009 (UTC)

The turbolift image would have had to be change as well then, if it comes from Generations, since the ship outline clearly shows the Excelsior and not the Enterprise-B; so it is either from "Flashback" or is fan made. Also, I can't view those links, as I am Forbidden to do so. - Archduk3:talk 01:32, November 21, 2009 (UTC)

Sorry... Turbolift image fourth on this page [6] and the canonical USS Excelsior MSD ninth on this page [7] from STVI and "Flashback" used the same MSD. --Pseudohuman 17:22, November 21, 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the links Pseudohuman. If you compare our image of the Excelsior bridge, from "Flashback", and the one you linked to from STVI, you'll notice that the MSD is different. I would love to see either one, or the turbolift, up close, since if they are anything like the fan images I found we would have a lot of new information for this class. Someone must have an authentic image of one of these gathering dust in a box somewhere. - Archduk3:talk 19:30, November 21, 2009 (UTC)

Refit or Variant

Seems to me that the Ent-B version of Excelsior-class is more likely a "variant" than a "refit". Considering the original hull-design is used for almost a hundred years alongside the Ent-B version.

I sometimes myself, wonder if it was a variant for a refit, did anything onscreen mention the Enterprise-B was a refit? Considering how new the class still was at the time, a refit seems odd, but then again, I guess refit can also mean alterations, right? --Terran Officer 16:59, March 18, 2011 (UTC)

Since "variant" is a non-canon term, I would go with refit. - Archduk3 17:03, March 18, 2011 (UTC)

How is "refit" a more canon term than "variant"? --OuroborosCobra ^talk 19:33, March 18, 2011 (UTC)

We dealt with this on the Miranda class article with a section on design variants... --Pseudohuman 19:37, March 18, 2011 (UTC)

Re:Cobra - In that one term was actually used in a Star Trek production, while the other is something we just started using, most likely because that's how some non-canon reference book referred to them. The USS Lakota was said to have just undergone a refit, not that it was a design variant. It's just as easy to refer to the Mirandas as being fitted differently, which also has the added benefit of being closer to how a real Navy would put it. - Archduk3 20:36, March 18, 2011 (UTC)

I've always associated the term refit as "older ship class is modernized with new tech" and variant as "different hull configuration is used to make a ship more suitable for specific mission types" but maybe i'm wrong... --Pseudohuman 18:14, March 19, 2011 (UTC)

No, you're right. The information regarding the Lakota being refitted also don't seem to refer to anything similar to the Enterprise-B. The Lakota was being upgraded with quantum torpedoes, more powerful phasers, etc. Quantum torpedoes didn't even exist during the time of the Enteprise-B. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 18:30, March 19, 2011 (UTC)

As I've said before, I'm sure the term variant was used in some non-canon source somewhere to describe different hull configurations, but variant has never been used in that regard in any canon source as far as I know. What we do have a is change in the overall hull configuration in the refit of the original Enterprise, and we have a ship undergo a refit and then look like the Enterprise-B, it's not hard to make the connection with a bit of common sense. Also, the term retrofit, not refit, was used to describe the upgrade of older parts for modern ones, as well as the addition of new systems for specific missions, so the terms we have in canon are refit and retrofit, not variant and refit, respectively. - Archduk3 00:20, March 20, 2011 (UTC)

refit vs original

The picture we have for the original config is the USS Hood, but the one for the refit config is the USS Entertprise-B. but the hood was active in the 24th centery, but the Enterprise-b was active in the 23rd century. I don't think that a newer ship would be original config, while an older one is refit config. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.10.160.114.

This does not matter. It does only matter, what was shown. The only refit Excelsior shown in the series was the Lakota, as the modifications for the Enterprise-B could not be removed from the model without damaging it. BTW, "refit" is not really the correct word, as the Enterprise-B was not refitted, but built from the beginning in this variant. --GDK (talk) 23:02, January 9, 2013 (UTC)

The Enterprise B should be a variant. In the real world the boeing 747-3 and 747-4 are in service alongside each other but one is an improved more modern design than the other. It would make sense that Starfleet did the same. The basic design was proven and good but they updated it producing a variant that was the Enterprise B et-al. Lt.Lovett (talk) 11:01, October 22, 2013 (UTC)

I agree, but the term "variant" hasn't been used onscreen, usually they call these alternate designs different "configurations" or "hull configurations" in the series. --Pseudohuman (talk) 13:19, October 22, 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps "Updated Configuration" would be the best term to use? Lt.Lovett (talk) 09:36, October 23, 2013 (UTC)

I'd go with "USS Excelsior configuration"/"USS Enterprise-B configuration" or "Excelsior configuration"/"Enterprise-B configuration" or a descriptive "original configuration"/"alternate configuration" since it wasn't clearly an update or a refit of anything. While we know for certain that the prototype of the class was not designed with these hull features, there is really no way to determine in-universewise which design was conceptualized first by starfleet. both may have been conceptualized at the same time to serve in different roles. -Pseudohuman (talk) 17:14, October 23, 2013 (UTC)

In which case, I'd like to bring up a question of the earlier subsection again: has the term "refit" really been used to refer to this design difference (or to any design difference, for example the NCC-1701)? A claim has been made that it was stated that the USS Lakota was "refitted" - but that refers to something else entirely, not to the secondary hull difference. If the term "refit" was never used, and if we want to keep using it for the Constitution class (where, apparently, we don't quite know if NCC-1701-A ever had a "pre-refit" design), then we might as well keep using it here as well. If it wasn't used and we don't want to use it here, we shouldn't use it on the Constitution class articles, either. Only if we know that these two cases are different, we should start thinking about different names. -- Cid Highwind (talk) 18:31, October 23, 2013 (UTC)

In "Paradise Lost" Benteen does say "The Lakota won't be done with its refit until the fourteenth." but there is no evidence that the Ent-B or the Lakota ever had a different hull configuration. Later on in the episode O'Brien says "Someone's been upgrading the Lakota's weapons." Suggesting it was only a weapon systems refit. NCC-1701 was pretty much the only canonical case when any refit involved major modifications to the hull configuration. I'm okay with calling post-TMP connies something like "post 2270s configuration". Since the refit word in that context only refers to the 2270s redesign of the entire class so its short for "post-2270s refit hull configuration". Excelsior case is more similar to the Miranda case where alternate configurations were built of the class. --Pseudohuman (talk) 20:00, October 23, 2013 (UTC)

There is this line from Star Trek: The Motion Picture. Scott says, Admiral, we have just spent eighteen months redesigning and refitting the Enterprise. We have two actions here: redesign and refit. The term redesign was mentioned in these films and episodes:

• Reactor Assembly System: "Cold Front"
• Transporters: "Crossover"
• Refineries: "Thirty Days"
• Dilithium matrix: "Equinox"
• Sensors: "The Fight"

The term refit was mentioned in these films and episodes:

• Entire ship: Star Trek III: The Search for Spock; "The Measure Of A Man"; "The Best of Both Worlds, Part II"; "Family"; "Image in the Sand"; "The Expanse"
• Warp nacelles: "Eye of the Beholder"; "Blood Fever"; "Home"
• Emitter relays: "Parallax"
• Weapons: "Legacy"; "Paradise Lost"
• Computer: "Datalore"
• Fusion initiators: "The Next Phase"

I think the difference between redesign and refit was in the amount that the thing was altered. When a thing was refitted, a layperson may not see the difference between the before and the after of a refitted ship or component; however, a layperson might see a difference between the before and the after of a redesigned ship or component. So, for the Enterprise, she was given a new hull configuration, then brought up to current specs. Does that make sense? Thus, a better designation for the 2272/2273 Enterprise would be Constitution-class (redesigned).Throwback (talk) 04:28, October 24, 2013 (UTC)

Split

Based on the amount of information already covered in the model sections, and considering the amount that doesn't seem to be there yet, by looking at the this, I think we might as well start talking about splitting off the section like we did with the Constitution-class. - Archduk3 22:49, April 15, 2011 (UTC)

Not yet, gimme a chance to finish up upon the section--Sennim 22:57, April 15, 2011 (UTC)

Splitting this sooner rather than later let's us keep the history of these edits with the content instead of leaving them with this article, assuming we do split this of course. - Archduk3 04:28, April 16, 2011 (UTC)

Support, I see your point...I'm all for it, especially since there is some tinkering to do---Sennim 04:36, April 16, 2011 (UTC)

I support a split as well, particularly if more information is going to be added.–Cleanse ^{( talk | contribs )} 05:44, April 16, 2011 (UTC)

Benteen's ready room

An anon user changed the caption of the picture of Benteen in the Ready Room section to say it was her bridge instead. If it was her bridge, then the picture and caption should be removed. The background note which follows states that the script had a note that she was "presumably" making the transmission from her ready room. Is there any other evidence that is was indeed her ready room? --31dot 20:31, December 20, 2011 (UTC)

There is evidence against it being her Ready Room, as two crewman can be seen inside it. --2.122.15.172 18:58, April 23, 2013 (UTC)

Like the article says, the script says: "a close shot of Captain Benteen, presumably communicating from her ready room on the Lakota." [8] I would assume based on the pic that on some starships the ready room has a similar solution to the chief engineer's office on the Enterprise-D. That it is open and connected to the bridge in a similar way. --Pseudohuman (talk) 19:22, April 23, 2013 (UTC)

Star Trek CCG

Moved to a Reference Desk page.

Excelsior information lack of accuracy

Has anyone else noticed the MSD's often contradict each other, Excelsior's shows corrected marked shuttle and torpedo launchers but Enterprise-B's have everything labelled differently. Unfortunately overbearing wiki moderators would rather the flawed information stay instead of letting people who know something contribute. (U.S.S. Enterprise NCC-1701 (talk) 02:50, June 16, 2013 (UTC))

The Enterprise-B was a later model as well as a refitted one, and as such it could have a different layout of equipment. The MSD is what it is. I would also direct you to the no personal attacks policy. 31dot (talk) 02:57, June 16, 2013 (UTC)

The ship layout is the same as the original Excelsior class, just some extra parts were added AND I made no personal attack. I'm going to talk to the head moderator and prevent you from trying to harass me further. (U.S.S. Enterprise NCC-1701 (talk) 03:00, June 16, 2013 (UTC))

There is no "head moderator", and it is not harassment to disagree about a piece of information. 31dot (talk) 03:01, June 16, 2013 (UTC)

I meant the guy who runs wiki but anyway yes you are harassing me. (U.S.S. Enterprise NCC-1701 (talk) 03:03, June 16, 2013 (UTC))

Anyway, back to the subject; if "extra parts were added" it could also mean things were rearranged, which means that the Enterprise-B's MSD is valid. The Excelsior's could be valid as well- but information from both is valid and should be present. 31dot (talk) 03:06, June 16, 2013 (UTC)

Removed Images from Tactical section gallery

I removed the following images from the gallery in the Tactical Section.

Upper forward torpedo launcher

Ship access via upper forward torpedo bay

The images are incorrectly labled as torpedo bays when they are Cargo Bays. The forward torpedo launchers are further down on the secondary hull, not the interconnecting dorsal. This is plainly seen on the model and are shown firing in ST VI.50.81.216.77 20:47, June 30, 2015 (UTC)