Talk: USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-J)/archive

Revision as of 16:46, 27 February 2014

Federation starship?

What is this ship doing in the list of Federation Starships? In 'Enterprise' it's from the future, and therefore should be in in the 'list of future ships' section. --81.206.223.145

Yes, but that is a list of future starship classes, while federation starships is a list of all starships mentioned, regardless of timeframe. -- Michael Warren 18:25, 7 Jun 2004 (CEST)

i think it can be in both sections, if theres is a list of future ships too. there's no need to restrict data linkage, it effectivly prohibits us from building the web to remove links because they are only partially relevant. --Captainmike 18:23, 7 Jun 2004 (CEST) [edited] Captainmike 18:30, 7 Jun 2004 (CEST)

Baqer says, has ANY reference to NCC-1701 J(ie-Crew,where she was constructed, Other famous battles, etc.) been made?DaREJECTfromSection31 02:34, October 14, 2010 (UTC)

Cobra says, no, and wonders why we are talking in the third person? --OuroborosCobra ^talk 04:39, October 14, 2010 (UTC)

Ithenites and Klingons?

A recent edit added: "The crew of Enterprise-J included several Xindi, Ithenites and Klingons. (ENT: "Azati Prime")" to the article. Are Ithenites and Klingons serving aboard Enterprise-J? I thought they were just mentioned as Federation members; only the Xindi were directly stated to be on the J. --Steve 00:11, 19 Jun 2004 (CEST)

You're right. By the way, did you notice the shadow of the Vor'Cha class Klingon battlecruiser appearing in front of the second large explosion? ;-) --BlueMars 00:22, Jun 19, 2004 (CEST)

Enterprise J

(moved from Reference Desk)

I am trying to find an image of the Enterprise J as shown on Enterprise. The Memory Apha listing has a box showing a place for the computer diagram but that is all. Is there any image references of this ship available? -- Richard Baker

No exterior shots were made for the episode. The only view we have of the ship is the one presented here, seen behind the characters as they looked out the corridor window --Captain Mike K. Bartel 05:30, 11 Aug 2004 (CEST)

There is now a very large color print available of the exterior of the Enterprise J. It is in the 'Ships of the Line' Calender for Feb 2004. The image is 12"x24" and I can scan it in sections and splice it in photoshop to send to Memory Alpha but I have no idea how to send it or what would be a maximum file size. The image is nice and I will be glad to send it if someone could just tell me where to upload in to. -- Richard Baker

I have tried to view the referenced image of the Enterprise J and it will not display anything. The only thing I get is a grey box with a text line mentioning that it is a computer graphic display from the show. I could also not get the images from E2 and Twilight to display. This is my first entry into Memory Alpha and I cannot get anything to show except artfully arranged text with a background. I am using WinXP/IE6 with all current patches. What is the trick to get the embedded images to display anything more thtn a grey box with a description? -Richard Baker

Have you tried to click on it? The image should have a page with its own disclaimer and so forth, which also contains a direct link to the image file itself. otherwise, i'm stumped. The image has spread some, perhaps you can find a copy on a different server using http://www.google.com 's image search. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 21:37, 16 Aug 2004 (CEST)

Pictures of the Enterprise J are easily found on google images now.. I can post one, but is there any reason no one else has done so yet? Skold 06:56, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)

One as described above was just deleted, exactly because it was from the SotL calender, not from the episode itself. If there's an image of the ship, from the episode (which, I'm sure, doesn't exist), that could be uploaded... -- Cid Highwind 10:59, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)

As I recall there was a (partial?) MSD visible in one shot.. Better than nothing? Skold 12:10, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we should have that one on the page. But I think we already had that here in the past. I wonder if someone removed that while adding the now deleted image. Perhaps check the history of this article, it may still be available without re-upload. -- Cid Highwind 12:23, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I found it and put it on the page. Apparently someone uploaded the SotL image over it at one time.--Tim Thomason 12:43, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)

It looks flat

Can anyone explain why it's so flat? I don't think anybody can fit inside. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joe0200000 (talk • contribs).

That's an optical illusion, there actually appear to be several decks if you look at the windows and the size of the Navigational deflector. -AJHalliwell 05:05, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Enterprise followers will recall an episode where they encountered, and brought aboard, a Timeship from far in the future, with a dead Pilot who, although fundamentally human, was of very mixed race, including apparently Xindi.

That ship employed some kind of dimensional/spacial manipulation technology, so that it was immensely larger internally that it appeared from the outside. Perhaps this is the case with the NCC 1701-J? Perhaps both vessels are from a similar time period? Regards, Ian M.

The episode where they found the future timeship was "Future Tense" -- where it was revealed to be from the 31st century.

The Enterprise-J, however, was from the 26th century -- several other Star Treks with technology from the 27th century and 29th century have indicated mankind might not have the fantastic abilities that the 31st century pod had. (good theory though, but the dates don't match up). -- Captain Mike K. Bartel^talk

My view is that the pod's living space was just one mishmash of a holodeck and a replicator, while at the same time, the pod's mechanics (computers and stuff) were placed around its inner wall. Enterprise NX-01 crew at the time were just not familiar with holographic technology, so that is why they described it like that. But dimensional/spacial manipulation technology, which would actually manipulate dimensions and space outside the holographic field would really be something very advanced. --Mardus 05:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Except that the Enterprise crew had encountered technology similar to Holodecks and with the capabilities of "looking bug" when they met the Xyrillians. Therefore had it been something that simple, the crew would have been able to recognize it. No, this was something that was actually larger on the inside, not simply appearing to be. Yes, it is something very advanced, which is completely believeable given that it was in use nearly a millenium from the time of Enterprise. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 05:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The complexity of dimensional manipulation technology is irrelevant. If you recall, the time agent Daniels had such a device in the back of his closet/locker door, making a storage space in the door that was deep enough for captain Archer's whole to fit. So the technology was in some kind of use by the 26 century. The question still remains, but it is possible. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.255.65.8.

I fail to see how Daniels, a 31st century temporal agent, using something proves that it is from the 26th century. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 19:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Enterprise-J type

Do we need this article? It's hard enough to write a coherent article about the Enterprise-J itself - this "class/type" has no name, was never really seen on-screen and only one ship belongs to this class. At most, this should be a redirect to the ship article itself, although I think that even this is unnecessary. -- Cid Highwind 22:05, 12 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Aren't there oter articles about unknown starship types? I could have sworn there were... Anyway, if so, I think this has as much right to be an article as those do; if not, maybe we can have some background info on not knowing what type of ship the ENT-J was on the ship's article itself, and delete this article altogether. --From Andoria with Love 18:33, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)

This is a legitimate article about a starship class, I see no problem with having it anymore than having Aeon-type or Aurora type and several other "types" as a way to differentiate the ship from its' class. --Alan del Beccio 11:19, 19 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I'm not saying that this article is illegitimate or "has no right to exist". All I'm asking everyone to consider is if an article about an unknown starship class with unknown specifications, an unknown design (all we have is the Okudagram, the image probably needs to be deleted) and just one starship known to belong to the class really is useful.

At the moment, this article is only linked to from the list of federation starship classes - that link might as well be a link to the ship article itself (or, this page a redirect to the ship article). This situation is similar to the one about "Stars vs. star systems", where we refrained from creating both pages for every reference, simply because it doesn't really make sense to do so if there's no real information to put on both pages. -- Cid Highwind 14:12, 19 Dec 2005 (UTC)

(This isn't my reply, but there are also some valid (in my opinion) arguments at Talk:Aurora type. --Alan del Beccio 18:43, 19 Dec 2005 (UTC))

I think it would make a lot of sense to just redirect this page over to the Enterprise J page. If we saw more than one of these ships than it would make sense to have a sepearte page for the type... but as it stands now it's just more confusing than anything. --Sloan47 17:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Umm, why is this article an exception. We have a background source stating that the ships class is Universe-class. Why do we not name this ship as such like we have named Niagara-class, New Orleans-class, Freedom-class, Springfield-class, Challenger-class, Cheyenne-class, and so on, all nemed after a bg source statement...?? --Pseudohuman 16:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Those class names were published in the Star Trek Encyclopedia, which is used as a near-canonical resource for other licensed publications. While we've certainly seen designers arrive at class names on their own (as Alex Jaeger did), they still needed to be sent to producers for approval in that and other recorded instances. We don't know if that was the case with Universe-class or whether or not special approval is required, so I would wait for this name to appear on StarTrek.com or similar highest-profile sources. – 1312.4 18:25, August 5, 2010 (UTC)

And StarTrek.com isn't considered as a background resource that we use for a (as you put it) "near-canonical resource", so it's irrelevant what goes up on there. -- sulfur 18:43, August 5, 2010 (UTC)

It depends on how the hypothetical writer of the StarTrek.com article explains the status of the class name and whether other officials confirm its status. The Encyclopedia isn't important because Memory Alpha agrees that it is, but because even its non-canonical, conjectural information can influence the canon to this day and needs to be adhered to by lower-level licensed sources. – 1312.4 19:28, August 5, 2010 (UTC)

No, it depends on whether it shows up on screen again. We don't use StarTrek.com for anything. At all. Nothing. -- sulfur 20:13, August 5, 2010 (UTC)

But MA is already using large quantities of offscreen information in non-background sections, merely because such information is highly official. If it were otherwise, almost every date from Mike Okuda's works would have to be prefixed with "circa," because it never appeared in the canon as opposed to raw timespans such as "twenty-two years ago." A global ban on a particular site just isn't possible, since MA must be required to follow the official hierarchy of information, whatever subtle form it takes, and never contradict it. Interesting information should always be investigated for its official status, regardless of whether it was first published in the Encyclopedia, in Doug Drexler's blog or on StarTrek.com. – 1312.4 20:53, August 5, 2010 (UTC)

Rather than stating that we must use that information properly, please spend some time with the various policies that we put together on resources that we use and how we use them. No matter what happens with StarTrek.com, the "Universe type" mentioned in the background information will be nothing more than background information unless it appears on screen. Do not confuse "StarTrek.com" with canon material. -- sulfur 21:13, August 5, 2010 (UTC)

Even if, for example, Mike Okuda were to say that <whatever>-class was actually approved by Rick Berman but never had a chance to be published in the Encyclopedia, since there were no later editions? What if that were the reason the information appeared on StarTrek.com in our hypothetical example? If MA were to ignore such evidence, it would be inconsistent with itself, accepting highly official information in one case but not in another. This is why a blanket exclusion of StarTrek.com cannot work, meaning we must investigate interesting information for its source. – 1312.4 21:31, August 5, 2010 (UTC)

BG. Whether Doug Drexler says it, Mike Okuda, Rick Berman, whomever. It's still BG information. -- sulfur 00:41, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

Ships of the line Image

Why can't we use the Ships of the line image of the Enterprise J? Thats exactly what it looks like and all. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.33.23.5.

Because using an image from a product that people are supposed to pay money for wouldn't exactly be "fair use" and could lead to problems for Memory Alpha. That's why we're trying to remove such images as soon as we become aware of them. -- Cid Highwind 10:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but as I recall images that are scaled down, in limited use, and if there are no available substitutes can be used under fair use. If what you have said is the "fair use" criteria Memory Alpha shouldn't have screen shots, or pictures of ships from games like "Starfleet Command III;" since you have to purchase the games to view the material. 70.110.40.109 05:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Screenshots are acceptable because they represent an incredibly small portion of the product, while the Ships of the Line is 1/12 of the product, a huge portion. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 06:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

So "portions" are now involved? Then what is the official, written down, maximum level of "portioning" allowed by Memory Alpha's standards. If there is no written standard; then anything else is opinion only. Also the one-twelfth figure is inaccurate since the image hosted on Memory Alpha would not contain the entire image, and the image would certainly not be at 1:1 scale or even 1:10 scale. 70.110.40.109 00:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

In the Book version of "Ships of the line" (which i have) there is a rendered version of 1701-J, and it is one of about 75 pages. 1/75th seems a much more workable number.

Please respond, i need to know wheather to upload the image or not– 7th Tactical 18:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

No. Please do not. It's been uploaded several times before. And deleted several times before. It may be acceptable to upload it to MB (you'd have to check there first), but not here. -- Sulfur 18:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

So do we have a rule saying how much "portion" can be used? Individual or even group decisions don't really matter much in wikidom, and I don't see one reached here. Only actual policies and rules do.

Fair use#Fair use on the Internet

I don't see the problem with using a smaller reduce-sized picture of Enterprise-J

The picture would not:

Be big with high resolution
Since it has already been published it would not diminish the significance of the creative work
It would not substantially diminish the market for the calendars, if anything it will have someone try to get a hold of the real thing for a big picture, and would give more exposure new calendars using old material.

How about book summaries? Aren't we publishing words, or the creative works, of the author by describing the whole book in one page sometimes with book cover and more? Does that limit the market of said book? If using the logic that then no one would buy the calendar, why would anyone buy the book after reading the whole story? All the book apocrypha should be removed before we get legal problems from the publishers!

A small 3x3 picture never did any harm, and would be better than a blurry screenie (although the screenie should still stay on the bottom). The whole concept of Wiki is a collection of summaries and samples from multiple sources on all topics we can find. We have more than 1/12th of every Star Trek companion book quoted on this site. So then maybe we shouldn't have anything in Background Information that comes from a book people can buy?

We have quotes from books, lines from movies and the Memory Alpha in itself is one huge picture of the Star Trek franchise... Every word, every picture of an actor or director without their written permission, and everything outside of the discussion and talk pages is something grabbed from a series under fair use.

If we weren't set out to show small samples and summaries of all things trek under fair use, we could just delete all episode articles and replace them with a streaming video of the episode up top, and a scan of the companion book's page on the bottom and we really wouldn't need us =) – Saphsaph 08:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Quoting the descriptions of a book on the back cover is acceptable because money is not paid to read them- they are published to get people to buy the book. That's why they're on the back cover, so you can read them without buying the book.

With a calendar, money is paid to view the images, which you can't see until you pay and take the calendar home.

A line from an episode or a screenshot is like a book cover description- you can't understand the entire episode from one line or one picture, but it might get you to buy a DVD set or legally download the episode. Obviously, if that were not the case, we wouldn't be here.--31dot 11:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, we do have other instances where we use images from magazines for illustrative purposes. If the image is of a CGI render or artwork in general, then the copyright belongs to Paramount, who owns all rights to graphics created on their behalf, and as long as the image wasn't used in the "in-universe" portion of the article, it would be as acceptable as several other images that we currently use, that I previously mentioned as having originated from a published text, including several images used here for the Star Trek: Phase II article. --Alan 15:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

We do have things from inside a book. In fact the more I read articles, the less I feel the need to buy a companion book. Most things we have in background information is sourced from and comes from that series's companion book. If we are to say that we can't have something on here that people would need to buy, we should then only have things we can source online, such as quotes from interviews and such in background information. And I'm sorry but we really don't have a line from an episode. We have the entire episode written in detail separated into acts. We have the "memorable" quotes there too.

"Encounter at Farpoint"

Homecoming

We have the entire episode written down to the last letter, apocrypha in the bottom stating things you wouldn't get from the back of the book. And in the homecoming novel we have a list of everything that happens in the book. Now people, specially people like us who like Star Trek, would want to see the episode for themselves, and read the book ourselves. That's why we don't mind writing such detailed "summaries". We want to see the things ourselves because we really like Star Trek. The same thinking should be applied to a small picture to highlight an article. A trekkie, or trekker, would still want to buy the calendar to have a picture of what the future of star trek could look like. – Saphsaph 17:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that Memory Beta would allow this image (in lower-res fair use) because it is from a licensed product and Memory Beta exists to document the continuity of licensed Star Trek.

Beyond your fair use argument, I think the whole reason that Memory Alpha won't allow this image is because Memory Alpha exists to document the continuity of canon (episodic/theatrical filmed/animated) Star Trek -- which means a licensed calendar or comic book are not part of Memory Alpha's scope and therefore the images from them detailing the many facets of their publication are not necessary -- just like you probably wouldn't argue to upload this image to the DC Animated Universe wiki -- because it has little to do with the whole point of this wiki, which is how it plays into the continuity of a Star Trek episode.

Just like Memory Beta doesn't want images from Star Trek fan films -- because they aren't licensed and aren't part of that wiki's scope. Does this make sense? -- Captain MKB 18:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the big problem seeing as we use pictures from other sources all over the place. Example: USS Defiant Scroll down and you'll see sketches and pictures that weren't from the show but from another source. However that makes a lot more sense than it wouldn't be allowed here under fair use. I still don't really understand the logic behind being able to include screenshots from movies and not images from books though. But if the reason is canon-icity then it makes sense. It could, like the defiant's sketches, be added as a reference as to other looks of it. Btw, does anyone know the source of this sketch that has been going around? http://www.utopiaplanitia.info/blueprints/1701j/original/pencil.jpg – Saphsaph 04:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The Defiant images are a separate issue. They are extra features from the DVDs (canon products), and are pictures that were used in the development of the canon product. The "Ships of th Line" image was not part of the development related to canon, is not an extra feature on a canon product, and is in and of itself the product for non-canon. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 05:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

We do have things to illustrate canon points that aren't canon in themselves. For example comics books. We have comics books stories, covers and such on here to illustrate the points but they aren't considered Canon. We have magazine and other pictures to illustrate Star Trek: Phase II even if it was never aired and therefore is not canon. Phase II is even used in canon articles as reference or information, meaning we don't keep such articles to the side. In Memory Alpha:Content policy FAQ#What about The Animated Series? it says "While TAS had originally been officially declared "apocryphal" by the studio, the studio and Memory Alpha consider it to be too important to simply ignore." Meaning we're willing we bend a little. Memory Alpha:Content policy FAQ says, "We would never want to miss the fan-made stuff all around the planet because they really enrich the universe, no matter if we "believe" in them." Though not considered canon, the calendar is still published and authorized by paramount, and Memory Alpha:Resource policy#Production and reference materials says material provided by production staff, or even non-fiction but authorized can be added in background information. Morder, a user here, once had to remind me that in the end this site is supposed to inform and entertain. If so many people keep trying to add the picture maybe there's something there to be noticed. Memory Alpha:Inform and entertain – Saphsaph 08:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I know this is old, and to honest I really only skimmed it, but if the image in question isn't from the current calendar, there may not be an issue, though if anyone would know who/how to contact someone on this that would be even better. - Archduk3 04:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

A product doesn't stop being copyrighted just because it is a couple of years old, sadly. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 04:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

No, but does have to do with the availability of the image and if no one can purchase it from the maker and if there is no suitable replacement it could be used. Lord Hyren 06:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

removed speculation

Speculation holds that this is the eleventh Federation Starfleet vessel to carry the name. This does not include the NX-01 Enterprise, which was not a Federation vessel.

Why does this even matter? Either explicitly state it, or don't. Seeing that the A, B, D, and E all explicitly state their place in the line, 2, 3, 5, 6-- therefore J would logically fall as the 11th. --Alan 02:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Doors to DS9

I was thinking maybe this should be added in the same spot where it says the corridoors look like the ones on DS9. Looking at the schematic, it looks like a DS9 console as well.--Cpt Kaziarl Nanaki 14:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

How many Enterprises?

I don't recall this scene, but a scene in Trials_and_Tribble-ations_(episode)#Act_One had Lucsly stating that there had been "six" Enterprises. If so, then Enterprise J would have been from a different future than the one shown there. I think this should appear in this article. But it should be written by someone more familiar with these episodes than me. Thanks --Keeves 11:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

No, this does not need to be added. The phrase in question is only applicable up to that point in the early 2370's; obviously after that conversation had taken place there would be more Enterprises made up to the J-type we see in the mid-26th Century. -Lord Hyren 16:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed note

It is seen in the computer displays on board the Enterprise-J do not use the LCARS system. This is unclear though, as later in the series, the Sphere Builders are stopped, and the Battle of Procyon V is never actually fought. The timeline may have then changed to include LCARS in the 26th century.

The fact that this all takes place in a possible timeline and that the ship is seen in a graphic is already noted in the article. The LCARS thing is speculation based on personal observation. --From Andoria with Love 21:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Possible name for the vessel class?

Roddenberry-Makes since that since none of the Star Trek canon has gone up to the 26th century I think this ship should be given this vessel class name.--Rift Fleet. Added 9:20 a.m. 05.15.08

Um no. MA doesn't make up details. Please see our Canon policy.– Cleanse 13:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge

Given that this Enterprise was the only ship of this type shown(and that this type might not even exist in the restored timeline), this information could be merged with the article about the ship. This was first mentioned by Cid Highwind here.--31dot 21:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Merge. For all the reasons above and on the Delta Flyer type page. - Archduk3 02:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Registry

This may be a nitpick, but where precisely is it stated that the registry of this Enterprise is NCC-1701-J? I know that Daniels mentions that it is "Enterprise-J"... but is it safe to assume that the registry scheme from the "prime" timeline carried over despite the Temporal Cold War? --76.216.84.2 17:58, November 19, 2009 (UTC)

It's not a nitpick, but I don't know of any other reason to differentiate it with a letter unless it had the same registry number. The Enterprise-C and Enterprise-E (both referred to as such in dialog) both had 1701. Scotty in "Relics" stated "No bloody A, B, C, or D" when told there had been several starships Enterprise. --31dot 18:08, November 19, 2009 (UTC)

Protection

I have upgraded the protection of this article to all non-admin users due to the continued addition of the Ships of the Line image(which is noncanon, and discussed above) and limiting the protection to anons doesn't seem to be enough. I welcome another admin changing it back if they have a less drastic solution, but I'm not sure what that is right now.--31dot 18:57, July 6, 2011 (UTC)

Wow, twice in one month, whatever will we do with the inundation of these edits. Sysop protection is overkill. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 23:14, July 6, 2011 (UTC)

As I said, I would be more than happy to roll it back if you have a better suggestion. A good chunk of this article's history is edits to either add the Ship of the Line picture or remove it, or to add other noncanon info to the canon section and remove it.--31dot 23:52, July 6, 2011 (UTC)

My suggestion is to leave the settings at autoconfirmed. With only two vandalistic in the three weeks since this was set to autoconfirmed, there is not a massive problem that needs the vast majority of the proper editors of this website blocked from access to changing this article. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 12:22, July 7, 2011 (UTC)

Having had a look at the last 50 changes to the article, it seems as if full protection wouldn't be a "massive problem", either - ~60% of those edits are changes as described above and their reverts, and the remaining ones (unless I missed one) all seem to be minor copyediting. If that observation is correct, it would mean that there hasn't been a major edit to this article in more than a year, making your point somewhat moot.

It is correct that this article has been half-protected for "only" two weeks now - but it is also correct that all edits after that point had to be reverted. All in all, it just doesn't look as if we would be preventing a huge number of valid edits by fully protecting this article. If anything, perhaps the protection reason needs to be changed to better inform possible editors about past problems (addition of SotL-image) and about how to change the article (ask for unprotection on the talk page). -- Cid Highwind 15:27, July 7, 2011 (UTC)

Registry Number

This page is titled "USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-J)", but Daniels only calls it "Enterprise-J". We don't actually know the number, do we? --64.69.158.250 05:33, May 10, 2012 (UTC)

Its guaranteed to be the NCC-1701-J, since all of other Federation ships with the name Enterprise have the NCC-1701 registry, with a suffix letter denoting the subsequent ships of the lineage. The 2005 Ships of the Line calendar featured the USS Enterprise-J at warp for the month of March, where NCC-1701-J is in the title and visible on the ship. The Memory Beta article for the USS Enterprise-J has the calendar image, there is link at the bottom of the article. Zeta1127 of the 89th Legion (talk) 06:31, May 10, 2012 (UTC)

Zeta is correct- if it hadn't been called the "J", then we couldn't guess as to the number; but using "J" is in keeping with the established pattern. 31dot 10:09, May 10, 2012 (UTC)

Enterprise-J is definitely NCC-1701-J or it wouldn't be called Enterprise-J. DS9's Defiant isn't the first Defiant. There was another one in TOS (same one as in the mirror universe episode of Enterprise). DS9's Defiant isn't Defiant-B (or C or D etc) as that Defiant has a different registry number than the old one from TOS. If the Enterprise-J had a different number (just to make up a number for example NCC-920123), then there would be no reason for the J (unless it's the 11th ship to use NCC-920123). Why would Starfleet change the number in that case? Hell, why would Starfleet keep using the same number to such a ridiculous extreme except for the fact that it's tradition to keep 1701 for the Enterprise? 14.202.32.28 08:05, May 28, 2012 (UTC)

Unprotection request

I would like to request that this page be unprotected, so I can add some more bg info to it. --Defiant 00:25, May 28, 2012 (UTC)

As it currently stands, the page is guilty of using the ill-advised "s's" (as in "Daniels's"), despite our guidelines about formatting. So, it would be cool if we could also change that slight error, which I'll be happy to do if the page is unblocked. --Defiant 00:31, May 28, 2012 (UTC)

Consider it done- but when you are finished it should be re-protected. 31dot 00:37, May 28, 2012 (UTC)

No problemo. :) --Defiant 00:41, May 28, 2012 (UTC)

I'm finished now. Thanks, 31dot. --Defiant 01:06, May 28, 2012 (UTC)

I'm impressed, I thought it would take you longer. :) 31dot 01:07, May 28, 2012 (UTC)

Well, I did hurry. Actually, now that I've moved the apocrypha info to a dedicated subsection, it may be better if the NO-TOC thing's added; sorry I forgot about it. --Defiant 01:10, May 28, 2012 (UTC)

I put it in there (I think :) ) 31dot 01:34, May 28, 2012 (UTC)

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-USS Enterprise (CVN-65)
-For other ships of the same name, see USS Enterprise.
-USS Enterprise underway in the Atlantic Ocean
-Class overview
-Name: Enterprise-class aircraft carrier
-Builders: Newport News Shipbuilding
-Operators:  United States Navy
-Preceded by: Kitty Hawk-class
-Succeeded by: Nimitz-class
-In commission: 25 November 1961
-Planned: 6
-Completed: 1
-Active: 1
-Career (United States)
-Name: USS Enterprise
-Ordered: 15 November 1957
-Builder: Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock Company
-Cost: $451.3 million[1]
-Laid down: 4 February 1958
-Launched: 24 September 1960
-Christened: 24 September 1960
-Acquired: 29 October 1961
-Commissioned: 25 November 1961
-Decommissioned: Scheduled for 2013
-In service: 12 January 1962 (maiden voyage)
-Reclassified: CVN-65
-Homeport: NAVSTA Norfolk
-Status: in active service, as of 2010[update]
-General characteristics
-Class and type: Enterprise-class aircraft carrier
-Displacement: 93,284 long tons (94,781 t) Full Load[2]
-Length: 1,123 ft (342 m)[3]
-Beam: 132.8 ft (40.5 m) (waterline)
-.2 ft (78.4 m) (extreme)
-Draft: 39 ft (12 m)
-Propulsion: 8 × Westinghouse A2W nuclear reactors
-four sets Westinghouse geared steam turbines, 4 × shafts
-,000 shp (210 MW)
-Speed: 33.6 kn (38.7 mph; 62.2 km/h)
-Range: Essentially unlimited distance; 20 years
-Complement: 5,828 (maximum)
-Ship's company: 3,000 (2,700 Sailors, 150 Chiefs, 150 Officers)
-Air wing: 1,800 (250 Pilots, and 1,550 Support personnel)
-Sensors and
-processing systems: AN/SPS-48 3D air search radar
-AN/SPS-49 2D air search radar
-Electronic warfare
-and decoys: AN/SLQ-32
-Mark 36 SRBOC
-Armament: 2 × NATO Sea Sparrow launchers
-× 20 mm Phalanx CIWS mounts
-RAM launchers
-Armor: 8 in (20 cm) aluminum belt (equivalent to 4 in (10 cm) rolled homogeneous steel armor)
-Aircraft carried: Hold up to 90
-(normally)[4]
-Aviation facilities: Flight deck: 1,123 ft (342 m)
-Motto: Ready on Arrival;
-The First, the Finest;
-Eight Reactors, None Faster
-Nickname: "Big E",[5]
-Notes: 915 engineers designed the ship. They made 16,100 drawings and 2,400 blueprints. The ship has about 625 mi (1,000 km) of electrical cables and 37 mi (60 km) of ventilation ducts.[citation needed] The ship has 4 steam powered catapults.[6]
-Badge:
-USS Enterprise (CVN-65), formerly CVA(N)-65, is the world's first nuclear-powered aircraft carrier and the eighth US naval vessel to bear the name. Like her predecessor of World War II fame, she is nicknamed the "Big E". At 1,123 ft (342 m)[3], she is the longest naval vessel in the world, though her 93,284 long tons (94,781 t)[2] displacement places her as the 11th heaviest supercarrier, surpassed by the 10 carriers of the Nimitz-class.
-Enterprise is a single-ship class, and is the second oldest vessel still in commission in the United States Navy after the wooden-hulled, three-masted frigate USS Constitution. As the oldest carrier in the fleet, she was originally scheduled for decommissioning some time in 2014–2015 depending on the life of her current reactors and completion of her replacement, USS Gerald R. Ford.[7] However, with the passage of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, Enterprise is now set to retire in 2013 with 51 years of continuous service, the longest for any aircraft carrier in the history of the U.S. Navy.[8]
-Enterprise is currently homeported at Naval Station Norfolk, Virginia and scheduled to complete two more deployments before her decommissioning.[9] Her current commanding officer is Captain O.P. Honors, who assumed command on 6 May 2010.[10]
-Design
-Size comparison of some notably large ships and buildings:
-USS Enterprise, 342 m
-The Pentagon, 431 m
-RMS Queen Mary 2, 345 m
-Hindenburg, 245 m
-Yamato, 263 m
-Empire State Building, 443 m
-Knock Nevis tanker, 458 mEnterprise was meant to be the first of a class of six, but construction costs ballooned and the remaining vessels were never laid down, resulting in her being the only ship of her class.
-Because of the huge cost of her construction, Enterprise was launched and commissioned without the planned Terrier missile launchers. These were never installed and the ship's self-defense suite instead consisted of three shorter ranged RIM-7 Sea Sparrow, Basic Point Defense Missile System (BPDMS) launchers.[11] Later upgrades added two NATO Sea Sparrow (NSSM) and three Mk 15 Phalanx CIWS gun mounts.[12] One CIWS mount was later removed and two 21 cell RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile launchers were added.[13]
-Enterprise is also the only aircraft carrier to house more than two nuclear reactors. Her eight-reactor propulsion design was rather conservative, with each A2W reactor taking the place of one of the conventional boilers in earlier designs. She is the only carrier to be fitted with four rudders compared to two for the other classes, and features a more cruiser-like hull.[14]
-In addition to having the innovation of nuclear power, Enterprise also featured a phased array radar system designed to provide improved tracking of multiple airborne targets relative to conventional rotating antenna radars. Her early phased arrays are responsible for the distinctive square-looking island, up until their replacement circa 1980.[6]
-History
-Commissioning and trials
-In 1958, Enterprise's keel was laid at Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock Company. On 24 September 1960, the ship was launched, sponsored by Mrs. W. B. Franke, wife of the former Secretary of the Navy. On 25 November 1961, Enterprise was commissioned, with Captain Vincent P. de Poix, formerly of Fighting Squadron 6 on USS Enterprise (CV-6),[15] in command. On 12 January 1962, the ship made her maiden voyage conducting a three-month shakedown cruise and a lengthy series of tests and training exercises designed to determine the full capabilities of the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier.
-s
-On 20 February 1962, Enterprise played a role as the tracking and measuring station for the flight of Friendship 7, the Project Mercury space capsule in which Lieutenant Colonel John H. Glenn, Jr. made the first American orbital spaceflight. In August of that year, the carrier joined the 6th Fleet in the Mediterranean sea, returning to Norfolk, Virginia in October.
-Cuban Missile Crisis
-Main article: Cuban Missile Crisis
-In October, 1962, Enterprise was dispatched to her first international crisis. Following revelations that the Soviet Union was constructing nuclear missile launch sites on Cuba, President John F. Kennedy began to prepare for action, moving several military units to Florida and adjacent waters. On 24 October, President Kennedy ordered a naval and air "quarantine" (blockade) on shipment of offensive military equipment to Cuba, and demanded the Soviets dismantle the missile sites there. Enterprise, supported by the carriers Independence, Essex, and Randolph and backed by shore-based aircraft, participated in the blockade as part of the 2nd Fleet. By 28 October, the crisis was averted.
-Second/third deployments
-Task Force One, the world's first nuclear-powered task force. Enterprise, Long Beach and Bainbridge in formation in the Mediterranean, 18 June 1964. Enterprise crew members are spelling out Einstein's mass-energy equivalence formula E=mc² on the flight deck. Note the distinctive phased array radars in the superstructures of Enterprise and Long Beach.On 19 December 1962, a E-2 Hawkeye was aircraft catapulted off Enterprise in the first shipboard test of a nose-wheel launch bar designed to replace the catapult bridle. Minutes later, a second launch bar launch was made by an A-6A, demonstrating one of the primary design goals of reducing launch intervals.
-In 1963-1964, Enterprise made her second and third deployment to the Mediterranean, respectively. Also during the third Mediterranean deployment, the carrier was part of Operation Sea Orbit, the world's first nuclear-powered task force with the cruisers Long Beach and Bainbridge, which joined to sail around the world. In October 1964, Enterprise returned to Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company for her first refueling and overhaul.
-Southeast Asia deployments
-In November 1965, the Big E was transferred to the Pacific Seventh Fleet, home-porting at NAS Alameda California. The following month, on 2 December, she became the first nuclear-powered ship to engage in combat when she launched aircraft against the Viet Cong near Bien Hoa. Enterprise launched 125 sorties on the first day, unleashing 167 short tons (151 t) of bombs and rockets on the enemy's supply lines. On 3 December, she set a record of 165 strike sorties in a single day.
-View of Enterprise's stern during the fire of 1969In January 1968, the capture of Pueblo by a North Korean patrol boat led to a diplomatic crisis. Enterprise was ordered to operate near South Korean waters for almost a month.
-In the morning of 14 January 1969, a MK-32 Zuni rocket loaded on a parked F-4 Phantom exploded due to ordnance 'cook off' after being overheated by an aircraft start unit mounted to a tow tractor.[16] The explosion set off fires and additional explosions across the flight deck. The fires were brought under control relatively quickly (when compared with previous carrier flight deck fires), but 27 lives were lost and an additional 314 personnel were injured. The fire destroyed 15 aircraft, and the resulting damage forced Enterprise to put in for repairs, primarily to repair the flight deck's armored plating.[17] In early March 1969, repairs to the ship were completed at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii and the ship proceeded on her deployment to Vietnam and the Tonkin Gulf.
-Sailors aboard Enterprise battle a massive ordnance fire triggered by a Zuni rocket. January 14, 1969On 14 April 1969, tensions with North Korea flared up again as a North Korean aircraft shot down an unarmed EC-121 Constellation which was on a routine reconnaissance patrol over the East Japan Sea from its base at Atsugi, Japan. The entire 31-man crew was killed. The U.S. responded by activating Task Force 71 (TF 71) to protect such flights over those international waters in the future. Initially, the Task Force consisted of Enterprise, Ticonderoga, Ranger and Hornet, with a screen of cruisers and destroyers. The ships for TF 71 were drawn mostly from Southeast Asia duty. This deployment became one of the largest shows of force in the area since the Korean War.
-In all, Enterprise made six combat deployments to Southeast Asia from 1965-1972.
-s
-In 1969-1970, Enterprise returned to Newport News Shipbuilding and went through an overhaul and her second refitting. In January 1971, she completed sea trials with her newly-designed nuclear reactor cores which contained enough energy to power her for the next 10 years. Enterprise then set sail for Vietnam, again to provide air support for American and South Vietnamese units.
-Southeast Asia
-In Vietnam, Enterprise, Oriskany and Midway accumulated a strike sortie count of 2,001 by 30 July 1971. Strike operations in July were disrupted when the carriers on station evaded three typhoons — Harriet, Kim and Jean. A slight increase in South Vietnam strike sorties occurred during the month. These were mainly visual strikes against enemy troop positions and in support of US helicopter operations. From August-November 1971, Enterprise was in operations on Yankee Station.
-In December 1971 during the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971, Enterprise was deployed to the Bay of Bengal as a show of strength against India's naval blockade by INS Vikrant. A Soviet Navy submarine was also trailing the US task force. A confrontation was averted when the Americans moved towards South East Asia, away from the Indian Ocean.[18]
-In October 1972, the U.S. ended all tactical air sorties into North Vietnam above the 20th parallel and brought Linebacker I operations to a close. This goodwill gesture of terminating the bombing in North Vietnam above the 20th parallel was designed to help promote the peace negotiations being held in Paris. Enterprise and the other carriers had flown a total of 23,652 tactical air attack sorties into North Vietnam from May-October and US tactical air sorties during Linebacker I operations helped to stem the flow of supplies into North Vietnam, thereby limiting the operating capabilities of the North Vietnamese Army.
-From October to December, Enterprise alternated with other carriers on Yankee Station during the bombing halt and remained on station. As a result of the bombing halt above the 20th parallel in North Vietnam, no MiG kills or U.S. aircraft losses were recorded during this time.
-On 18 December 1972, the U.S. resumed bombing campaigns above the 20th parallel under the name Linebacker II. During Linebacker II operations, Enterprise and other carriers on station reseeded the mine fields in Haiphong harbor and conducted concentrated strikes against surface-to-air missile and anti-aircraft artillery sites, enemy army barracks, petroleum storage areas, Haiphong naval and shipyard areas, and railroad and truck stations. Navy tactical air attack sorties under Linebacker II were centered in the coastal areas around Hanoi and Haiphong. There were 705 Navy sorties in this area during Linebacker II. Between 18 December and 22 December the Navy conducted 119 Linebacker II strikes in North Vietnam, with the main limiting factor on airstrikes being bad weather.
-In December 1972, the North Vietnamese returned to the peace table and Linebacker II ended. In January 1973, the Vietnam cease fire was announced and American carriers ceased all combat sorties into North and South Vietnam.
-From 28 January 1973, aircraft from Enterprise and Ranger flew 81 combat sorties against lines-of-communication targets in Laos. The corridor for overflights was between Hu? and Da Nang in South Vietnam. These combat support sorties were flown in support of the Laotian government which had requested this assistance. Laos had no relationship with the cease-fire in Vietnam.
-Post Vietnam
-After the cease-fire in Vietnam in 1973, Enterprise proceeded to the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, Bremerton, Washington, where the carrier was altered and refitted to support the Navy's newest fighter aircraft — the F-14 Tomcat. Two of four jet blast deflectors were enlarged to accommodate the Tomcat. The number four propulsion shaft was replaced due to being bent after its screw became fouled in a discarded arresting gear cable.
-Although unable to support them at first, Enterprise was eventually refitted to handle the newer F-14 Tomcats, and operated with these fighters until their retirement from Enterprise in 2001.On 18 March 1974, the first operational Tomcats of VF-1 Wolfpack and VF-2 Bounty Hunters made their maiden takeoffs and landings from the carrier. In September 1974, Enterprise became the first carrier to deploy with the new fighter plane when she made her seventh western Pacific (WESTPAC) deployment.
-In February 1975, Typhoon Gervaise struck the island nation of Mauritius, and Enterprise was ordered to provide disaster relief. Arriving at Port Louis, carrier personnel spent more than 10,000 man-hours rendering such assistance as restoring water, power and telephone systems, clearing roads and debris, and providing helicopter, medical, food and drinkable water support to the stricken area.
-Operation Frequent Wind
-In April 1975, Enterprise, Midway, Coral Sea, Hancock, and Okinawa were deployed to waters off Vietnam for possible evacuation contingencies as North Vietnam, in violation of the Paris Peace Accords, launched a conventional invasion of South Vietnam. On 29 April, Operation Frequent Wind was carried out by US Navy and Marine Corps helicopters from the 7th Fleet. The Operation involved the evacuation of American citizens and "at-risk' Vietnamese from Saigon, the capital of South Vietnam under heavy attack from the invading forces of North Vietnam.
-President Gerald Ford ordered helicopter evacuation when PAVN shelling forced the cessation of fixed-wing evacuation from Tan Son Nhut airport. With fighter cover provided by carrier aircraft, the helicopters landed at the US Embassy, Saigon and the DAO Compound to pick up evacuees. The last helicopter lifted off the roof of the US Embassy, Saigon at 07:53 on 30 April 1975 carrying the last 11 Marine Security Guards. During Operation Frequent Wind, aircraft from Enterprise flew 95 sorties.
-Eighth and ninth deployments
-In July 1976 Enterprise began her eighth WESTPAC deployment.
-In February 1977, Idi Amin, the President of Uganda, made derogatory remarks against the United States in public and Americans in Uganda were taken hostage. This was several months after the Israeli raid at Entebbe airport. Enterprise and her escort ships, having just left Mombasa after a port call, were directed to remain in the area and operated off the east African coast for approximately one week. At that point the ships were scheduled to transit home after a seven-month deployment. The ship's Marine detachment and air wing prepared for a possible mission to rescue and evacuate the Americans, but Amin eventually released all the hostages. The ships then steamed across the Indian Ocean at high speed to make a previously-scheduled final port call at NAS Cubi Point in the Philippines prior to returning to NAS Alameda.
-In 1978, Enterprise underwent her ninth WESTPAC deployment, including port calls in Hong Kong, Perth, Australia, and Singapore. In January 1979, the carrier sailed into Puget Sound Naval Shipyard for a 30-month comprehensive overhaul. During this overhaul, the ship's superstructure was modified, removing the SCANFAR radars and the unique inverted cone-shaped top section which was three stories high. During the lengthy overhaul, Enterprise was referred to as "Building 65" by Navy and shipyard personnel.
-s
-In 1982, the carrier underwent her 10th WESTPAC deployment. In April 1983, Enterprise ran aground on a sandbar in San Francisco Bay while returning from deployment and remained stuck there for several hours.[19] Coincidentally, George Takei, who played Mr. Sulu, helmsman of the fictional starship Enterprise was aboard at the time as a Distinguished Visitor of the Navy.[20] Even though groundings and collisions are usually career-enders for U.S. warship captains, the captain at the time, Robert J. Kelly, who had already been selected for promotion to commodore, eventually became a four-star admiral and commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet.[21]
-In 1984, the carrier underwent her 11th WESTPAC deployment. On 2 November 1985, she struck Bishops Rock on the Cortes Bank during exercises, damaging the outer hull and propeller. She continued operations and later went to drydock for repairs.
-In 1986, the carrier underwent her 12th WESTPAC deployment. On 28 April 1986, Enterprise became the first nuclear-powered aircraft carrier to transit the Suez Canal. She went from the Red Sea to the Mediterranean to relieve Coral Sea, on station with America off the coast of Libya. Enterprise entered the Mediterranean to support "Operation Eldorado Canyon", the U.S. bombing of Libya. It was the first time in over 22 years that Enterprise had entered the Mediterranean.
-In April 1988, Enterprise underwent her 13th deployment and was assigned to Operation Earnest Will, escorting reflagged Kuwaiti oil tankers in the Persian Gulf. One of her escorts, Samuel B. Roberts, struck an Iranian mine in international waters. In response, Operation Praying Mantis was launched against Iranian targets, with CVW-11 aircraft from Enterprise participating. The initial American strikes were against two Iranian oil platforms that were being used as support bases for Iranian attacks on merchant shipping. Aircraft from CVW-11 provided air support for those strikes.
-In September 1989, Enterprise left Alameda and began her 14th overseas deployment, an around-the-world cruise that would end at the ship's new homeport of Naval Station Norfolk, Virginia In early December 1989, Enterprise and Midway participated in Operation Classic Resolve, President George H.W. Bush's response to Philippine President Corazon Aquino's request for air support during the rebel coup attempt. Enterprise remained on station conducting flight operations in the waters outside Manila Bay until the situation subsided.
-s
-In March 1990, Enterprise completed her around-the-world deployment, arriving in Norfolk, Virginia, after having steamed more than 43,000 mi (69,000 km) . In October, the carrier moved to Newport News Shipbuilding for refueling and the Navy's largest complex overhaul refit ever attempted. During this overhaul, the Navy extended the carrier's length from 1,101 ft (336 m) to 1,123 ft (342 m), as well as other modifications to extend her service life.
-On 27 September 1994, Enterprise returned to sea for sea trials, during which she performed an extended full power run as fast as when she was new.
-On 28 June 1996, Enterprise began her 15th overseas deployment. The carrier enforced no-fly zones in Bosnia as part of Operation Joint Endeavor and over Iraq as part of Operation Southern Watch. The deployment ended in December 1996, which also marked the end of active service for the A-6 Intruder from the Navy. In February 1997, Enterprise entered Newport News Shipbuilding for an extended selective restrictive availability lasting four-and-a-half months.
-In November 1998, following workups, Enterprise departed on her 16th overseas deployment, with CVW-3 embarked. On the night of 8 November, shortly after the start of the deployment, a EA-6B Prowler crashed into an S-3 Viking on the carrier's flight deck. The mishap occurred as the EA-6B was landing during night carrier qualifications, striking the folded wings of the S-3, which had not yet cleared the landing area of the flight deck. The four crew of the EA-6B perished as the aircraft then impacted the water, but the two crew of the S-3 were able to eject. A fire broke out on the flight deck, but was quickly extinguished by the flight deck crew. Three of the four members of the Prowler crew were lost at sea, and the remains of the fourth were recovered shortly after the crash. The crew of the Viking were rushed to the Naval Medical Center Portsmouth (Portsmouth, Virginia). There were no other significant injuries. An exhaustive search for three missing EA-6B Prowler crew members was suspended after nearly 24 hours.
-On 23 November 1998, Enterprise relieved Dwight D. Eisenhower in the Persian Gulf. During a port call in Jebel Ali, United Arab Emirates, the carrier hosted former President George H.W. Bush and a live concert by Grammy Award winning rock group Hootie and the Blowfish. In December 1998, Enterprise battlegroup spearheaded Operation Desert Fox, destroying Iraqi military targets with more than 300 Tomahawk land attack missiles and 691,000 lb (346 ST; 313 t) of ordnance. The 70-hour assault was carried out by Enterprise, Gettysburg, Stout, Nicholson and Miami.
-Enterprise patrols the Persian Gulf in support of Operation Desert FoxShortly after the Racak massacre and failure of Yugoslavian peace talks in Rambouillet, France, Enterprise quickly left a port visit in Cannes, France to return to the Adriatic.
-In early March 1999, Enterprise returned to the Persian Gulf to relieve Carl Vinson in support of Operation Southern Watch, returning to Norfolk in May 1999.
-During the 1998-1999 deployment, Enterprise steamed more than 50,000 nmi (93,000 km; 58,000 mi) and spent 151 days underway. Enterprise Battle Group was the first to deploy with IT-21, which allowed unprecedented internal and external communication capabilities, including commercial internet, email, and television.
-s
-Enterprise, the world's first nuclear-powered carrier (background) with what was then the newest: French carrier Charles De Gaulle, 16 May 2001On 25 April 2001, Enterprise began her 17th overseas deployment with CVW-8. From 18–28 June, the carrier and four escorts participated in an exercise with the British Royal Navy in a joint and combined warfare training exercise in the North Sea, near the Hebrides Islands and in Scotland.
-Enterprise was beginning her voyage home from the Persian Gulf when the September 11 attacks were carried out. Without orders, the carrier returned at flank speed to the waters off Southwest Asia near the Persian Gulf, outrunning her escorts. In October 2001, the United States launched air attacks against Al Qaeda training camps and Taliban military installations in Afghanistan. The actions were designed to disrupt the use of Afghanistan as a base for terrorist operations and to attack the military capability of the Taliban regime. Over three weeks, aircraft from Enterprise flew nearly 700 missions and dropped large amounts of ordnance over Afghanistan. On 10 November, the carrier arrived at her home port of Norfolk, Virginia, 16 days later than originally planned. During her last day at sea, the ship hosted a live two-hour broadcast of ABC's Good Morning America. Garth Brooks performed a concert with Jewel from Enterprise on 21 November while she was docked in Norfolk, Virginia. The concert was carried live on CBS.
-In January 2002, Enterprise entered the Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth, Virginia for a scheduled one-year Extended Dry Docking Selected Restricted Availability.
-Operation Iraqi Freedom
-In 2003-2004, the carrier provided air support for Operation Iraqi Freedom. In 2004, the ship participated in Summer Surge 2004 and several multinational exercises.
-In May 2006, Enterprise departed for a six-month deployment, operating in the 6th, 5th and 7th Fleet areas, and supported both Operations Iraqi and Enduring Freedom. She returned to Norfolk 18 November 2006.
-On 19 December 2007, the carrier returned home after a six-month deployment in the Persian Gulf.[22]
-In April 2008, Enterprise entered the Northrop-Grumman Newport News shipyard for a scheduled 18 month Extended Docking Selected Restricted Availability, with a projected completion date of September 2009. As maintenance was performed, costs continued to rise above projections and the completion date repeatedly slid. Enterprise, the oldest active combat vessel in the Navy, was scheduled to be decommissioned as late as 2014. On April 6, 2009, Admiral Gary Roughead, Chief of Naval Operations, stated that he was seeking a congressional dispensation to speed up the process to decommission Enterprise. Under this new timetable, the ship would complete one final deployment before being decommissioned in late 2012 or early 2013. This would temporarily reduce the U.S. Navy to having only ten active aircraft carriers through the launch of the Gerald R. Ford in 2015. In October 2009, the House and Senate Armed Services Committees agreed with the recommendation, approving the decommissioning of Enterprise in 2013 after 51 years of service.[8]
-s
-In April 2010, the Navy announced that the cost of refurbishing the carrier had risen to $655 million and was scheduled to be completed the same month.[23] On April 19, 2010, Enterprise left the Northrop Grumman shipyard to conduct sea trials in preparation for return to the fleet.[24] The total cost of refurbishing the carrier was $662 million, which was 46% over budget and took eight months longer than originally scheduled. The Navy stated that it planned to use the carrier for two six-month deployments before her scheduled decommissioning date in 2013.[25]
-Future prospects
-Enterprise will be the first nuclear powered aircraft carrier ever to be decommissioned by the United States Navy[26]. In August 2009, an Internet based petition began circulating for the proposal of converting Enterprise into a museum ship after she is decommissioned.[27] The costs of doing so regarding her nuclear reactors has yet to be calculated by the United States Department of Defense. A petition has also been set up for the CVN-79 to be named as the ninth USS Enterprise.[28]
-Commanding officers
-Main article: List of USS Enterprise (CVN-65) commanding officers
-Notable popular culture
-Enterprise was supposed to appear in the film Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, but was unavailable at the time of filming. Instead, the Ranger played the part of Enterprise.[29]
 ==Federation starship?==
 What is this ship doing in the list of Federation Starships? In 'Enterprise' it's from the future, and therefore should be in in the 'list of future ships' section. --[[Special:Contributions/81.206.223.145|81.206.223.145]]
@@ Line 247: / Line 5: @@
 ::i think it can be in both sections, if theres is a list of future ships too. there's no need to restrict data linkage, it effectivly prohibits us from [[Memory Alpha:Build the web|building the web]] to remove links because they are only partially relevant. --[[User:Captainmike|Captainmike]] 18:23, 7 Jun 2004 (CEST) [edited] [[User:Captainmike|Captainmike]] 18:30, 7 Jun 2004 (CEST)
+Baqer says, has ANY reference to NCC-1701 J(ie-Crew,where she was constructed, Other famous battles, etc.) been made?[[User:DaREJECTfromSection31|DaREJECTfromSection31]] 02:34, October 14, 2010 (UTC)
+:Cobra says, no, and wonders why we are talking in the third person? --[[User:OuroborosCobra|OuroborosCobra]] <sup>[[User Talk:OuroborosCobra|<span style="color:#00FF00;">talk</span>]]</sup> 04:39, October 14, 2010 (UTC)
 == Ithenites and Klingons? ==
@@ Line 303: / Line 63: @@
 :Aren't there oter articles about unknown starship types? I could have sworn there were... Anyway, if so, I think this has as much right to be an article as those do; if not, maybe we can have some background info on not knowing what type of ship the ENT-J was on the ship's article itself, and delete this article altogether. --[[User:Shran|From Andoria with Love]] 18:33, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)
-:: This is a legitimate article about a starship class, I see no problem with having it anymore than having {{ShipType|Aeon}} or [[Aurora type]] and several other "types" as a way to differentiate the ship from its' class. --[[User:Gvsualan|Alan del Beccio]] 11:19, 19 Dec 2005 (UTC)
+:: This is a legitimate article about a starship class, I see no problem with having it anymore than having {{type|Aeon}} or [[Aurora type]] and several other "types" as a way to differentiate the ship from its' class. --[[User:Gvsualan|Alan del Beccio]] 11:19, 19 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 I'm not saying that this article is illegitimate or "has no right to exist". All I'm asking everyone to consider is if an article about an unknown starship class with unknown specifications, an unknown design (all we have is the Okudagram, the image probably needs to be deleted) and just ''one'' starship known to belong to the class really is useful.
@@ Line 312: / Line 72: @@
 ::::Umm, why is this article an exception. We have a background source stating that the ships class is ''Universe''-class. Why do we not name this ship as such like we have named ''Niagara''-class, ''New Orleans''-class, ''Freedom''-class, ''Springfield''-class, ''Challenger''-class, ''Cheyenne''-class, and so on, all nemed after a bg source statement...?? --[[User:Pseudohuman|Pseudohuman]] 16:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
+:::::Those class names were published in the ''[[Star Trek Encyclopedia]],'' which is used as a near-canonical resource for other licensed publications. While we've certainly seen designers arrive at class names on their own (as Alex Jaeger did), they still needed to be sent to producers for approval in that and other recorded instances. We don't know if that was the case with ''Universe''-class or whether or not special approval is required, so I would wait for this name to appear on [[StarTrek.com]] or similar highest-profile sources. &ndash; [[User:1312.4|1312.4]] 18:25, August 5, 2010 (UTC)
+::::::And StarTrek.com isn't considered as a background resource that we use for a (as you put it) "near-canonical resource", so it's irrelevant what goes up on there. -- [[User:Sulfur|sulfur]] 18:43, August 5, 2010 (UTC)
+:::::It depends on how the hypothetical writer of the StarTrek.com article explains the status of the class name and whether other officials confirm its status. The ''Encyclopedia'' isn't important because Memory Alpha agrees that it is, but because even its non-canonical, conjectural information can influence the canon to this day and needs to be adhered to by lower-level licensed sources. &ndash; [[User:1312.4|1312.4]] 19:28, August 5, 2010 (UTC)
+::::::No, it depends on whether it shows up on screen again.  We don't use StarTrek.com for anything.  At all.  Nothing. -- [[User:Sulfur|sulfur]] 20:13, August 5, 2010 (UTC)
+:::::But MA is already using large quantities of offscreen information in non-background sections, merely because such information is highly official. If it were otherwise, almost every date from Mike Okuda's works would have to be prefixed with "circa," because it never appeared in the canon as opposed to raw timespans such as "twenty-two years ago." A global ban on a particular site just isn't possible, since MA must be required to follow the official hierarchy of information, whatever subtle form it takes, and never contradict it. Interesting information should always be investigated for its official status, regardless of whether it was first published in the ''Encyclopedia,'' in Doug Drexler's blog or on StarTrek.com. &ndash; [[User:1312.4|1312.4]] 20:53, August 5, 2010 (UTC)
+::::::Rather than stating that we must use that information properly, please spend some time with the various policies that we put together on resources that we use and how we use them.  No matter what happens with StarTrek.com, the "Universe type" mentioned in the background information will be nothing more than background information unless it appears on screen.  Do not confuse "StarTrek.com" with canon material. -- [[User:Sulfur|sulfur]] 21:13, August 5, 2010 (UTC)
+:::::Even if, for example, Mike Okuda were to say that <whatever>-class was actually approved by Rick Berman but never had a chance to be published in the ''Encyclopedia,'' since there were no later editions? What if that were the reason the information appeared on StarTrek.com in our hypothetical example? If MA were to ignore such evidence, it would be inconsistent with itself, accepting highly official information in one case but not in another. This is why a blanket exclusion of StarTrek.com cannot work, meaning we must investigate interesting information for its source. &ndash; [[User:1312.4|1312.4]] 21:31, August 5, 2010 (UTC)
+::::::BG.  Whether Doug Drexler says it, Mike Okuda, Rick Berman, whomever.  It's still BG information. -- [[User:Sulfur|sulfur]] 00:41, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
 ==Ships of the line Image==
@@ Line 353: / Line 129: @@
 :::::::::We do have things from inside a book.  In fact the more I read articles, the less I feel the need to buy a companion book.  Most things we have in background information is sourced from and comes from that series's companion book.  If we are to say that we can't have something on here that people would need to buy, we should then only have things we can source online, such as quotes from interviews and such in background information.  And I'm sorry but we really don't have a line from an episode.  We have the entire episode written in detail separated into acts.  We have the "memorable" quotes there too.
 :::::::::{{e|Encounter at Farpoint}}
-:::::::::''[[Homecoming]]''
+:::::::::''{{dis|Homecoming|novel}}''
 :::::::::We have the entire episode written down to the last letter, apocrypha in the bottom stating things you wouldn't get from the back of the book.  And in the homecoming novel we have a list of everything that happens in the book.  Now people, specially people like us who like Star Trek, would want to see the episode for themselves, and read the book ourselves.  That's why we don't mind writing such detailed "summaries".  We want to see the things ourselves because we really like Star Trek.  The same thinking should be applied to a small picture to highlight an article.  A trekkie, or trekker, would still want to buy the calendar to have a picture of what the future of star trek could look like. &ndash; [[User:Saphsaph|Saphsaph]] 17:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
@@ Line 361: / Line 137: @@
 ::::::::::Just like Memory Beta doesn't want images from Star Trek fan films -- because they aren't licensed and aren't part of that wiki's scope. Does this make sense? -- [[User:Captainmike|Captain MKB]] 18:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
-:::::::::::I don't see the big problem seeing as we use pictures from other sources all over the place.  Example: [[USS Defiant (NX-74205)]]  Scroll down and you'll see sketches and pictures that weren't from the show but from another source.  However that makes a lot more sense than it wouldn't be allowed here under fair use.   I still don't really understand the logic behind being able to include screenshots from movies and not images from books though.  But if the reason is canon-icity then it makes sense.  It could, like the defiant's sketches, be added as a reference as to other looks of it.  Btw, does anyone know the source of this sketch that has been going around? http://www.utopiaplanitia.info/blueprints/1701j/original/pencil.jpg &ndash; [[User:Saphsaph|Saphsaph]] 04:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
+:::::::::::I don't see the big problem seeing as we use pictures from other sources all over the place.  Example: {{USS|Defiant|2370}}  Scroll down and you'll see sketches and pictures that weren't from the show but from another source.  However that makes a lot more sense than it wouldn't be allowed here under fair use.   I still don't really understand the logic behind being able to include screenshots from movies and not images from books though.  But if the reason is canon-icity then it makes sense.  It could, like the defiant's sketches, be added as a reference as to other looks of it.  Btw, does anyone know the source of this sketch that has been going around? http://www.utopiaplanitia.info/blueprints/1701j/original/pencil.jpg &ndash; [[User:Saphsaph|Saphsaph]] 04:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 ::::::::::The ''Defiant'' images are a separate issue. They are extra features from the DVDs (canon products), and are pictures that were used in the development of the canon product. The "Ships of th Line" image was not part of the development related to canon, is not an extra feature on a canon product, and is in and of itself the product for non-canon. --[[User:OuroborosCobra|OuroborosCobra]] <sup>[[User Talk:OuroborosCobra|<span style="color:#00FF00;">talk</span>]]</sup> 05:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
-:::::::::We do have things to illustrate canon points that aren't canon in themselves.  For example comics books.  We have comics books stories, covers and such on here to illustrate the points but they aren't considered Canon.  We have magazine and other pictures to illustrate [[Star Trek: Phase II]] even if it was never aired and therefore is not canon.  Phase II is even used in canon articles as reference or information, meaning we don't keep such articles to the side.  In [[Memory Alpha:Canon policy FAQ#And what about The Animated Series?]] it says "While TAS had originally been officially declared "apocryphal" by the studio, the studio and Memory Alpha consider it to be too important to simply ignore." Meaning we're willing we bend a little.  [[Memory Alpha:Canon policy FAQ#Why are you so strict about "canonicity" anyway?]] says, "We would never want to miss the fan-made stuff all around the planet because they really enrich the universe, no matter if we "believe" in them." Though not considered canon, the calendar is still published and authorized by paramount, and [[Memory Alpha:Canon policy#Production and reference materials]] says material provided by production staff, or even non-fiction but authorized can be added in background information.  Morder, a user here, once had to remind me that in the end this site is supposed to inform and '''entertain'''. If so many people keep trying to add the picture maybe there's something there to be noticed. [[Memory Alpha:Inform and entertain]] &ndash; [[User:Saphsaph|Saphsaph]] 08:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
+:::::::::We do have things to illustrate canon points that aren't canon in themselves.  For example comics books.  We have comics books stories, covers and such on here to illustrate the points but they aren't considered Canon.  We have magazine and other pictures to illustrate [[Star Trek: Phase II]] even if it was never aired and therefore is not canon.  Phase II is even used in canon articles as reference or information, meaning we don't keep such articles to the side.  In [[Memory Alpha:Content policy FAQ#What about The Animated Series?]] it says "While TAS had originally been officially declared "apocryphal" by the studio, the studio and Memory Alpha consider it to be too important to simply ignore." Meaning we're willing we bend a little.  [[Memory Alpha:Content policy FAQ]] says, "We would never want to miss the fan-made stuff all around the planet because they really enrich the universe, no matter if we "believe" in them." Though not considered canon, the calendar is still published and authorized by paramount, and [[Memory Alpha:Resource policy#Production and reference materials]] says material provided by production staff, or even non-fiction but authorized can be added in background information.  Morder, a user here, once had to remind me that in the end this site is supposed to inform and '''entertain'''. If so many people keep trying to add the picture maybe there's something there to be noticed. [[Memory Alpha:Inform and entertain]] &ndash; [[User:Saphsaph|Saphsaph]] 08:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 I know this is old, and to honest I really only skimmed it, but if the image in question isn't from the current calendar, there may not be an issue, though if anyone would know who/how to contact someone on this that would be even better. - [[User:Archduk3|Archduk3]] 04:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
@@ Line 391: / Line 167: @@
 Roddenberry-Makes since that since none of the Star Trek canon has gone up to the 26th century I think this ship should be given this vessel class name.--Rift Fleet.   Added 9:20 a.m. 05.15.08
-:Um no. MA doesn't make up details. Please see our [[Memory Alpha:Canon policy|Canon policy]].&ndash; [[User:Cleanse|Cleanse]] 13:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
+:Um no. MA doesn't make up details. Please see our [[Memory Alpha:Resource policy|Canon policy]].&ndash; [[User:Cleanse|Cleanse]] 13:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 == Merge ==
@@ Line 403: / Line 179: @@
 :It's not a nitpick, but I don't know of any other reason to differentiate it with a letter unless it had the same registry number.  The Enterprise-C and Enterprise-E (both referred to as such in dialog) both had 1701.  Scotty in {{e|Relics}} stated "No bloody A, B, C, or D" when told there had been several starships Enterprise. --[[User:31dot|31dot]] 18:08, November 19, 2009 (UTC)
+== Protection ==
+I have upgraded the protection of this article to all non-admin users due to the continued addition of the Ships of the Line image(which is noncanon, and discussed above) and limiting the protection to anons doesn't seem to be enough.  I welcome another admin changing it back if they have a less drastic solution, but I'm not sure what that is right now.--[[User:31dot|31dot]] 18:57, July 6, 2011 (UTC)
+:Wow, twice in one month, whatever will we do with the inundation of these edits. Sysop protection is overkill. --[[User:OuroborosCobra|OuroborosCobra]] <sup>[[User Talk:OuroborosCobra|<span style="color:#00FF00;">talk</span>]]</sup> 23:14, July 6, 2011 (UTC)
+As I said, I would be more than happy to roll it back if you have a better suggestion.  A good chunk of this article's history is edits to either add the Ship of the Line picture or remove it, or to add other noncanon info to the canon section and remove it.--[[User:31dot|31dot]] 23:52, July 6, 2011 (UTC)
+:My suggestion is to leave the settings at autoconfirmed. With only two vandalistic in the three weeks since this was set to autoconfirmed, there is not a massive problem that needs the vast majority of the proper editors of this website blocked from access to changing this article. --[[User:OuroborosCobra|OuroborosCobra]] <sup>[[User Talk:OuroborosCobra|<span style="color:#00FF00;">talk</span>]]</sup> 12:22, July 7, 2011 (UTC)
+::Having had a look at the last 50 changes to the article, it seems as if full protection wouldn't be a "massive problem", either - ~60% of those edits are changes as described above and their reverts, and the remaining ones (unless I missed one) all seem to be minor copyediting. If that observation is correct, it would mean that there hasn't been a major edit to this article in more than a year, making your point somewhat moot.
+::It is correct that this article has been half-protected for "only" two weeks now - but it is also correct that ''all'' edits after that point had to be reverted. All in all, it just doesn't look as if we would be preventing a huge number of valid edits by fully protecting this article. If anything, perhaps the protection ''reason'' needs to be changed to better inform possible editors about past problems (addition of SotL-image) and about how to change the article (ask for unprotection on the talk page). -- [[User:Cid Highwind|Cid Highwind]] 15:27, July 7, 2011 (UTC)
+== Registry Number ==
+This page is titled "USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-J)", but Daniels only calls it "Enterprise-J". We don't actually know the number, do we? --[[Special:Contributions/64.69.158.250|64.69.158.250]] 05:33, May 10, 2012 (UTC)
+:Its guaranteed to be the NCC-1701-J, since all of other Federation ships with the name Enterprise have the NCC-1701 registry, with a suffix letter denoting the subsequent ships of the lineage. The 2005 ''Ships of the Line'' calendar featured the USS ''Enterprise''-J at warp for the month of March, where NCC-1701-J is in the title and visible on the ship. The Memory Beta article for the USS ''Enterprise''-J has the calendar image, there is link at the bottom of the article. [[User:Zeta1127,89thLegion|Zeta1127 of the 89th Legion]] ([[User talk:Zeta1127,89thLegion|talk]]) 06:31, May 10, 2012 (UTC)
+::Zeta is correct- if it hadn't been called the "J", then we couldn't guess as to the number; but using "J" is in keeping with the established pattern. [[User:31dot|31dot]] 10:09, May 10, 2012 (UTC)
+:Enterprise-J is definitely NCC-1701-J or it wouldn't be called Enterprise-J.  DS9's Defiant isn't the first Defiant.  There was another one in TOS (same one as in the mirror universe episode of Enterprise).  DS9's Defiant isn't Defiant-B (or C or D etc) as that Defiant has a different registry number than the old one from TOS.  If the Enterprise-J had a different number (just to make up a number for example NCC-920123), then there would be no reason for the J (unless it's the 11th ship to use NCC-920123).  Why would Starfleet change the number in that case?  Hell, why would Starfleet keep using the same number to such a ridiculous extreme except for the fact that it's tradition to keep 1701 for the Enterprise?  [[Special:Contributions/14.202.32.28|14.202.32.28]] 08:05, May 28, 2012 (UTC)
+== Unprotection request ==
+I would like to request that this page be unprotected, so I can add some more bg info to it. --[[User:Defiant|Defiant]] 00:25, May 28, 2012 (UTC)
+As it currently stands, the page is guilty of using the ill-advised "s's" (as in "Daniels's"), despite our guidelines about formatting. So, it would be cool if we could also change that slight error, which I'll be happy to do if the page is unblocked. --[[User:Defiant|Defiant]] 00:31, May 28, 2012 (UTC)
+:Consider it done- but when you are finished it should be re-protected. [[User:31dot|31dot]] 00:37, May 28, 2012 (UTC)
+No problemo. :) --[[User:Defiant|Defiant]] 00:41, May 28, 2012 (UTC)
+I'm finished now. Thanks, 31dot. --[[User:Defiant|Defiant]] 01:06, May 28, 2012 (UTC)
+:I'm impressed, I thought it would take you longer. :) [[User:31dot|31dot]] 01:07, May 28, 2012 (UTC)
+Well, I did hurry. Actually, now that I've moved the apocrypha info to a dedicated subsection, it may be better if the NO-TOC thing's added; sorry I forgot about it. --[[User:Defiant|Defiant]] 01:10, May 28, 2012 (UTC)
+:I put it in there (I think :) ) [[User:31dot|31dot]] 01:34, May 28, 2012 (UTC)