Memory Alpha

Talk:Sovereign class

36,783pages on
this wiki

Back to page

Help icon
Sovereign class/archive

Memory Alpha talk pages are for improving the article only.

FA status Edit

FA nomination (28 June - 26 July 2004, Success) Edit

Self-nomination. I think it's quite good. ;) Ottens 12:36, 28 Jun 2004 (CEST)

  • Seconded. Very good work, but it still needs lots of additional pictures, IMO. -- Redge 12:51, 28 Jun 2004 (CEST)
  • Support. But there are already plenty of images... don't go overboard, please!-- Dan Carlson 16:18, 28 Jun 2004 (CEST)
    • I checked back and almost all pictures I was looking for are now there. Thanks! -- Redge 16:36, 28 Jun 2004 (CEST)

Archived --Alan del Beccio 10:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Update I readded the tag, as it was apparently removed inadvertently on 07:22, June 3, 2006. --Alan del Beccio 06:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

FA removal (30 Jan - 07 Feb 2008, Success) Edit

Sovereign-class: This article is hardly complete - even though I noticed reference to Stellar cartography and Transporter room 3 in Star Trek: First Contact, there was no mention of any of that in the article! It instead states that the Sovereign-class has 29 decks when Picard states, again in Star Trek: First Contact, that the Enterprise has 24 decks! What's more, the vast majority of the images used come from Star Trek Nemesis to the extent that I believe there inadequate visual attention paid to Star Trek: First Contact and Star Trek: Insurrection - for example, I'm pretty sure a better image of sickbay could be taken from Star Trek: First Contact, and that's just for starters! --Defiant 02:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Deck 29 was referenced twice in Star Trek Nemesis. --Alan del Beccio 02:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep Featured With only minor touching up, this could easily meet the standards you would like to see. I could probably do it on the weekend. And as for sickbay, it comes from Star Trek Nemesis because that was the only film which got a special sickbay built for 1701-E. FC used Voyager's sickbay. --Nmajmani 02:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Remove, while I'm sure this article is "almost there", what needs to be factored into this is the fact that it became featured in 2004, with only 3 "yes" votes. While acceptable then, today's FA standards require 5 votes of support. I would much rather see all featured articles run completely through the ringer before becoming featured, leaving no stone, or reference unturned. Compare original featured to now. Big difference, in fact, not even the same article. In contrast, I can point out more than one FA that is nearly as old that has barely changed since the FA tag was added. --Alan del Beccio 02:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment As both 24 and 29 decks were mentioned, why not say something like "between 24 and 29 decks" - it doesn't need to be too specific as it's a ship class, not just a single ship and both amounts are canon & true! Also, why not have images of sickbay from both Star Trek: First Contact and Star Trek Nemesis? I really don't see why it has to be one or the other! The fact that the sickbay set used for Star Trek: First Contact was borrowed from Star Trek: Voyager makes very little difference as it is still a Sovereign-class sickbay in canon! --Defiant 09:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Just looking at the diff Alan provided convinces me of this suggestion - the revision that was featured back then is a completely different article than what we have now. Re-nomination seems like the way to go. (As an aside, stating that the ship has "between 24 and 29 decks" seems a little - strange.) -- Cid Highwind 10:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I take my comment back. After seeing the info provided by Alan, I support the removal of this article as FA. --Nmajmani 02:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Support removal of featured status. As Alan has pointed out, it has changed a great deal and isn't close to the same article, even ignoring the fast-track approval it seemed to have. If someone wants to improve it, fine, but the featured status should be removed and the article should be renominated.--31dot 11:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Archived --Alan del Beccio 05:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

No. of DecksEdit

So what IS the correct number of decks? -- Redge 16:59, 28 Jun 2004 (CEST)

If we would only know... Ottens 17:47, 28 Jun 2004 (CEST)
It could be argued that it's no more than 29. In Nemesis, when Remans finally meet with Starfleet, they do it on deck 09 (according to door signage). Therefore, Riker was fighting with Viceroy not on deck 29, but 9. --Clumsy Anonymous User ;) February 12, 2006
I know this is an old hat, but here are the relevant pieces of dialogue mentioning the number of decks:
Star Trek: First Contact:
  • Daniels: "It's pretty bad sir. It looks like they control decks 26 up to 11."
  • Lily: "How big is this ship?"
  • Picard: "There are 24 decks, almost 700 meters long."
--Jörg 12:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, but I think at this point we have a consensus (24 original config and 29 refit), and frankly I think a lot of people are just sick of this whole back and forth... :) Capt Christopher Donovan 20:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I think the 24 (original) 29 (refit) is a perfect explanation. One would wonder why the original design had all that empty space, but oh well, not our problem ;) --OuroborosCobra talk 01:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
It's ENTIRELY speculation, so I won't be adding it to the article, but I suspect that the VOLUME of the ship changed little. The Galaxy class had a percentage of internal volume left "unfinished" as room for future expansion/upgrades, so did the Defiant class (that's where they wound up putting the shuttlebay). Personally, I subscribe to the theory that originally they had 24 FINISHED decks, and were upgraded to 29 finished decks after the war.Capt Christopher Donovan 01:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Sudden curious idea. This would not change the contents of the article, but do we have an MSD of the Enterprise-E from "First Contact", and another one from "Nemesis"? I would be interested in comparing the two, to see if there are any differences, or changes in deck count. If there aren't, maybe we should make a note in the background about the MSD's being wrong (I for one would rather go with character dialogue than MSDs). --OuroborosCobra talk 01:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
i counted 24 decks on the nemesis MSD, but i'm fairly certain it's a reuse of the one seen in first contact. let's not forget that the problem is compounded by the fact that when riker and worf go to deck 29, there are very clearly MANY more levels below as when the viceroy falls down the turboshaft. Deevolution 01:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Deevolution's right on two counts – there are still only 24 decks visible on the MSD image, and it is a re-use of the image from First Contact. However, although Riker and Worf were initially going to meet the Remans on Deck 29, the Remans apparently moved up through the decks pretty fast, forcing the battle to take place on Deck 9, because that's what the signs in the corridor says. --From Andoria with Love 02:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
If the fight occurred on Deck 9, that answers some questions in regards to the Jeffries Tube and the mysterious shaft (Computer core?). However, what probable reason could there be for the extra 5 decks? Although the unfinished deck idea is a good one, 5 decks is quite substantial. - Enzo Aquarius 02:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Shran is right! the signage in that scene clearly indicates deck 9. considering that and the MSD supporting 24 decks (as well as showing a vertical turboshaft and computer core alongside one another on deck 9), isn't it safe to conclude that worf simply mispoke? that he simply said deck 29 when he meant deck 9? all the visual evidence supports the simple fact that 29 was a mistake. Deevolution 02:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I have no problem with accepting Worf's comment as a mistake (and for all we know it is). This could solve many problems, especially any further deck discussions for the Sovereign. - Enzo Aquarius 02:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it was Data who first said the ship had "lost ventral shielding on Deck 29", after which Worf reported that the Remans had boarded on Deck 29. While it is possible for Worf to make such a mistake, it's not so for Data. --From Andoria with Love 02:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I think we should gowith my idea of adding a background note about the innacurate MSD. --OuroborosCobra talk 02:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Someone with better eyes than mine will have to double check, but could it be deck 19 that they meet on? Either way, it would take a few minutes to organize and move out a security team, so it's no big deal to say the Reman strike team was no longer on Deck 29, IMO...Capt Christopher Donovan 03:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I've already checked, the labels (including one on the turbolift) begin with "09", indicating the 9th deck. There is one moment you can see it clear as day – on a door which the Viceroy stands next to before walking to the Jefferies tube and jumping in. --From Andoria with Love 03:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Counting the the levels of windows on the Nemesis version of the ship reveals the same number that the ship had in FC, and that there are only 24 decks. If the Nemesis refit included 5 more decks, then these decks must be in the form of half decks being inserted inbetween existing decks in certain parts of the ship, and not run clear across the beam and to the outer hull where they would effect the level of windows on the ship. Perhaps these half decks were inserted as part of the 5 new torpedo launchers and act as torpedo storage magazine areas???????Modelshipbuilder
I have added to the background area the details of what was changed on the Sovereign Class as far as her physical shape is concerned between the 3 movies that she has appeared in.Modelshipbuilder4:10am EST January 29th, 2007
Yes, there is one, the one that we see on the MSD on FC, INS and Nemesis. In there you can count 24 decks (like Picard said on FC). The only explanation that i can see for the 29 decks its because the warp nacelles were rise up a bit on Nemesis due the E-E post dominion war rift, and they are on a high position than the bridge, so, maybe the bridge its not longer the deck 1.
About the deck 26, was said by lieutenant Hawk, he maybe was new on the ship and with the hot of the battle, his mistake the decks.
On this link we can see the MSD of the E-E, count the decks.
And on this link we can see how the warp nacelles are more high than the bridge on the nemesis E-E
The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cerritouru (talk • contribs).
Whilst all of the above is an intriguing read, may I suggest the following simple explanation - the writers made an error that no-one else corrected? The MSD shows 24 decks and Picard states the Enterprise-E as having 24 decks in First Contact. Visual matching of decks suggests 24 as described above. The argument about unfinished/mission adaptable decks seems flawed: we know the Galaxy-class had unfinished decks but across the 7 seasons and one film there was only ever as many as 42 decks... so why wouldn't unfinished decks have been assigned numbers on a Sovereign-class? Furthermore, whilst there are clearly structural changes to the Sovereign-class between Insurrection and Nemesis, the changes seem insufficient to support a whole extra 5 decks. Given that there is conflict even in the same film (Daniels saying "decks 26 up to 11" and Picard stating "24 decks" to Lily Sloane), this seems to fit in along with instances such as in Star Trek V with the absurd turbolift sequence showing 78 decks. Whilst an argument about canon facts could surely insue here, I feel consideration should be given to just acknowledging this as an error. Thoughts? --Svetz Falhain 12:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
It's possible that they are just free and loose with their own definition of "decks." The MSD has always shown about 24 "levels." However, at no point have I ever heard corroboration between levels and decks. The term "decks" may just be used to apply to a sectionalization scheme (which might change at any time). With that said, I don't believe that the MSD has labeling that numbers the levels. Therefore it may be incorrect to assume that level 24 equates to deck 24.--Hribar 21:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
We have seen full sized "decks" as the Jefferies tubes, or maintenance corridors, and if these are offset between decks, as a mezzanine deck, they may not count in the official count of decks until after the refit. As if this wasn't speculation anyways... - Archduk3:talk 08:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
More dialog:
Star Trek Nemesis
  • Data: "Captain, we have lost ventral shielding on deck 29."
The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).


Actually the sovereign class has only 23 decks. The reason the films say more is because they didn't have contact with the designers of the class. So you could say the film writers estimated.--Kevmlb93 15:57, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to be completely honest with you, I have no idea what you just said. -Angry Future Romulan 16:07, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

John Eaves the creator of the sovereign class did detailed blueprints and all the math establishing that the Enterprise-E had 23 decks. The film writers of the movies(first contact, Insurrection, and nemesis) couldn't get in contact with John Eaves and therefore estimated the sovereign classes deck count explaning the several different deck counts (24 and 26 in First Contact and then 29 in nemesis)--Kevmlb93 16:14, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

Can you cite any of that? -Angry Future Romulan 18:08, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

it's in the article if you'd bother to look at it --Kevmlb93 15:47, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

Kay...I guess I'm a little confused. If it was in the article already, then what was the point of saying it here in response to a conversation that's over a year old? -Angry Future Romulan 16:03, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

its not all in one piece it's in small bits and pieces--Kevmlb93 16:34, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

And we go by canon, which notes that there were 24 (or 26) decks in one movie, and 29 in the other. Everything else is background information. -- sulfur 17:25, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
Also, the article never states that they didn't have contact with the designers of the class. Not once. Never. Anywhere. -- sulfur 17:29, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

I'm still in the process of recovering the web page that stated they didn't have contact with the designers of the class, I never meant that was in the article. Also I never denied that the class had 24, 26, or 29 decks i just stated that John Eaves blueprints came out with 23 decks thats all--Kevmlb93 17:41, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

Actually, "it's in the article if you'd bother to look at it" suggests that it's in this article, since no other article was mentioned. Also, you stated "only 23 decks" and followed it up with "the film writers estimated." Both of which you are now stepping backward on. -- sulfur 17:47, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

it's just how I wrote it since I was in a hury next time i'll take my time--Kevmlb93 17:59, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

I suppose there are a few ways of reconciling the differences. One would be that there are inter-decks consisting of jeffries tubes and console machinery that aren't "crew" decks (i.e. ones you can walk around in or normally allowed access to). Crawl/walk spaces in the nacelles, turbolift tunnels, jeffries tubes, arounds completely filled with console machinery, ventilation systems, and the captain's yacht perhaps. There could also be additional interior decks that aren't visible externally. I would imagine turbolifts would have a numbered deck but maybe not be referred to as a deck in conversation ala Picard. Another is that ship builders of the ST universe have number superstitions like we do - like floors skipping #13. There could be superstitious numbers that are never used when numbering decks so that a 24 deck ship could have been numbered in some way through to 29. Anyway, I was interested in the discussion so I wanted chime in. -- Anon 20:01, March 25, 2011 (UTC)

Has anyone considered that it could have been an in-joke by the writers? I like the 'mezzanine decks' idea. Some navies today (I won't say many) have what they call 'flexy decks' on board, so they can adapt to different missons(in the Star Trek world, these decks could be used for beaming people off damaged ships etc.).--Starfleet Academy 05:50, July 8, 2011 (UTC)

Warp speed capabilitiesEdit

I doubt we'll have to include the cruising and maximum speeds, since those are pretty much the same for all vessels of the class. Ottens 12:17, 28 Aug 2004 (CEST)

I don't believe that. Some crews might make slight modifications of their ship during the ship's service. The Enterprise-D and Voyager made countless modifications to enhance/improve ships systems. -- Ctwon
I believe the warp speed is like a 'stock' number. It's the warp factor it can reach when fresh from drydock, much like the max speed of a car coming out of a dealership and you can change it after you buy it. Enzo Aquarius 02:35, 12 Mar 2005 (GMT)
The article states that the maximum speed of the Sovereign-class is Warp Factor 9.7 but it is supposed to be the fastest class of Starfleet vessel save the Prometheus-class and the Intrepid-class has a maximum speed of Warp 9.975. Was the scale changed again between 2371 and 2372 or is the figure of 9.7 another Star Trek inconsistency?--Scimitar 23:38, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
What is the maximum speed of the E? People are saying Warp 8 because thats the fastest that was officially said in the movies. (Maximum warp was said but it was never said what that maximum was) I would think it would be at least the 3rd fastest ship in the fleet behind the Prometheus and Intrepid class ships, Can anyone help?-- 18:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
I think its maximum cruising speed until fuel exhaustion is warp 9.7, just like warp 9.2 was for the Galaxy Class. I think its a safe bet to say that the Sovereign's actual maximum speed would be classified. --Modelshipbuilder
I think it's top speed is greater than that of the Intrepid class. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Judgeking (talk • contribs).
If I remember correctly, Star Trek: Captain's Chair says the maximum speed of the EE is Warp 9.995, but this is non-canon of course. If I get time I'll reinstall it and verify. MikeWard1701 05:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
There is absolutely no canon information on how fast the Sovereign class is, other than it can definitely top warp 8, which we'd be surprised if it couldn't anyway. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).
There's no canon information other than that the ship can get to Warp 8. Nowhere in canon is it stated that the Sovereign class is the fastest in the fleet. Comparisons with the Intrepid class are unhelpful, because the conditions under which Voyager is supposedly able to reach warp 9.975 are never stated, and the ship struggles to maintain warp 9.75 for 12 hours in "The Swarm". People do get very protective of the Sovereign class, but claiming that it has to be the best at everything gets rather counter-productive and a little fan-boyish The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).
Memory Beta states that its top speed is Warp 9.99. -- TheThirdWitness 22:46, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Memory Beta also specializes in non-canon sources, while we specialize in canon ones. --OuroborosCobra talk 22:50, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh, yeah. I forgot about that. --TheThirdWitness 17:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Side Bar Complication Edit

moved to "Speed redux" section below

Sickbay location Edit

A point about the Sovereign class sickbay: In First Contact Beverly and the others escape from Sickbay on a Borg seiged Deck 16. However in the Sovereign class reverence in Memory Alpha it states that Sickbay is on Deck 7... Is it a seperate secondary sickbay? Was there a refit between First Contact and Nemesis? Or was this just a mistake? The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

This article mentions Sickbay's location as Deck 7. There is another article which seems to contradict this. I have seen other sources listing Main Sickbay on Deck 8 as well. Anyone have any ideas? The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).
It was mentioned in "First Contact" that there was a sickbay on Deck 16. Perhaps in "Nemesis", the one on Deck 7 or 8 was mentioned? Ottens 10:14, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The Galaxy class had several sickbay facilities throughout the ship. The Sovereign, being a battleship, would also have many sickbays throughout the ship. Tiberius 02:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
The problem with that is it is speculation. While TNG did establish multiple sickbays on Galaxy class starships, this was never established in canon for the Sovereign class. We have only seen one sickbay, IIRC, on the Sovereign class. There may be more, but we have never heard of them. --OuroborosCobra talk 02:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
But reasonable speculation. In Star Trek Generations We saw bev evacuating a sickbay. The only need for her to evacuate a sickbay is if it was in the engineering hull. Also, the Enterprise D Blueprints (probably not canonical, but done by staff members on the show) shows medical facilities scattered throughout the ship. There's also the common sense of having sickbay facilities near areas such as main engineering where people are likely to get hurt by conduits exploding etc. This, combined with the sources that say there are sickbays on several different decks in a Soverign vessel, seem to indicate to me beyond doubt that there are several sickbays on board, just as there were in the galaxy. Tiberius 02:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
It does not matter if the speculation is reasonable, it is still speculation. If you want to make a background note with your speculation, that might be acceptable, but otherwise it cannot go in the article. --OuroborosCobra talk 06:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I'll do that, add it as a background note.  :) Tiberius 08:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
We have seen two different Sickbay facilities, the one in Nemesis, and the one in First Contact and Insurection. The one in Nemesis might not have been in the movie itself, but rather in the extras. Can't remember. The extras were edited for time, not content so I assume they can be considered canon, or very close to canon. --Atlantians, not a member, just an observer.
The Sovereign class is able to seperate the saucer from the drive section, so there would be at least two of everything on the ship. Plus, if you are building a ship to "boldly go where no man has gone before," wouldn't you put extras and redundancies in your ship?The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Incorrect, actually. The GALAXY class was the one with the separating saucer-section. If the Sovereign class had that ability, then in First Contact, they probably would have just separated from the stardrive section of the ship, torpedoing it once they were a safe enough distance away. (Though this would have meant the loss of a proper deflector system and a warp drive, making getting back to the future nearly impossible. Though, if they were willing to self-destruct, then why not chose to save at least the saucer section of the ship? It would keep the crew from having to land discoverable escape pods on Earth, and it would definitely keep them from contaminating history. Or, if they needed to resupply, they could beam down to relatively uninhabited places on Earth and gather supplies there. Ah, well, we'll never know...) -Spurlicos (not a member, just an observer.)

Re-used Voyager sets? Edit

I spotted the officer's quarters as a redressed Voyager briefing room (you can see the wall panels in the bathtub scene), and Sickbay is just Voyager's sickbay with rearranged furniture and different-coloured lighting, but are there others? The preceding unsigned comment was added by CNash (talk • contribs).

Weapon Systems & Refit Edit

When I said I reverted the article due to speculation, I meant stating it had undergone a refit was speculatory. However, the apparent change in number of armaments can be presented as background info. --From Andoria with Love 05:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

It should be fairly obvious that the Sovereign has undergone a refit. The number of changes to the ship would have required substansial time in drydock. We know that 4 more phaser arrays as well as 4 more torpedo launchers got added to the ship by the time of Nemesis. The warp engine placement has changed. The hump on the spine of the ship also got enlarged. This can easily be deduced purely from visual references. Alyeska 05:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm waiting for you to show up Shran. The physical model of the Sovereign class only has 12 phaser arrays as of Insurrection. By the time of Nemesis it has 16. As of Insurrection it has 4 photon torpedo launchers and 1 quantum. As of Nemesis its 8 and 1. What proof are you requiring of me to let me post the material? Alyeska 06:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

My apologies on the delay. As I said, it may have undergone a refit, it may not have. The fact of the matter is, it wasn't specified on-screen and is therefore only speculation. However, you may add the details you observed as background information, stating that it could have possibly been the result of a refit. --From Andoria with Love 06:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

That it wasn't stated onscreen is irrelevent. There are very clear observed changes between Nemesis and Insurrection. The ship underwent some sort of refit in this period. You don't assume that the producers retconned the Sovereign without just cause or explination with an easier and far more logical explination is available.
This is a simple side viewing of the Enterprise-E. You can see the significant structural changes that have occured from Insurrection to Nemesis. Alyeska 06:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
The weapon counts from all the other ships have been derived specificaly from onscreen counting of the weapons. It is very clear that the Enterprise has had a change in weapons from Insurrection to Nemesis. It astounds me that some people are fighting the issue and intentionaly posting numbers that aren't correct for either Insurrection or Nemesis. The Sovereign never had 14 phaser arrays. It had 12, now has 16. Alyeska 06:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that it wasn't specified on-screen is relevant -- it's what qualifies or disqualifies info a place in the main part of the article. Since it wasn't specified -- and since it's only an observation based apparently on a model -- it only qualifies as background info. (Similar conversations have been held at Talk:Oberth class and Talk:Phase cannon). Hope this helps clear any confusion on this matter. --From Andoria with Love 06:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Then how come visualy determined weapon counts are in just about every other ship page eh? BTW, the information was observed from the model which is a source that comes from onscreen. Its a canon source. If you consider that background info, then dialogue is just the same. Calling the examination of the physical model background info is absurd. The ship appeared onscreen, therefore what we can glean from it is perfectly valid. Alyeska 06:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... that's actually a good question. Actually, I think most of the armament listings on the other pages were specified on-screen. However, you may be right with some of those cases. Nonetheless, I do not pretend to be an expert in starship specifications, so I guess you can go ahead and add it. Sorry for any confusion and what-not. --From Andoria with Love 06:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) -- i believe that we can say for sure that something happened in those five years, the ship does have different/additional visible ports and changes to its structure. it would be speculation to state why they had changed or what the unaddressed items and details meant, because it wasn't explicitly stated in some cases, although if the amount of phaser arays increased, we can reliably say some were added, or possibly uncovered -- they are easy to visually account.
I think that if more any more variables in the sidebar are being changed or discussed, we'd like to see a paragraph in the article explaining the phaser and torpedo setup of the Sovereign. For example, a pragraph listing the visually accounted for weapons ports and ports that were changed/added in the refit. That would be a good way to explain the variations in the number. Since the class has now included two modifications, maybe this, as the article focused on the Sovereign-class itself, and not the Enterprise specifically, should just state "12-16 phaser arrays" and have an extended description in a later paragraph where you can cite your sources and explain where all the new phaser arrays are, and how they changed between films.
I'd just like to see the most complete and descriptive form of this information added, maybe not as "proof" but instead just to completely explain the topic. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 06:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Now, see, why couldn't I say that? (Probably the late hour... sorry. :/) --From Andoria with Love 06:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

12-16 would indicate 12 through 16. Better to indicate 12 or 16. Alyeska 06:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
FYI. The weapon counts on the Akira, Nebula, Galaxy, Prometheus, and Defiant have all been derived from visual inspection of the models or observations form directly onscreen. In dialogue the Galaxy class was stated by Worf (Cononundrum episode) to have 10 phaser arrays. Akira was listed at 15 torpedo launchers from the creator, but that can be visualy confirmed. All other weapons numbers are purely counted. The Nebula, Prometheus, and Defiant figures are pure observation and no dialogue or backstage info at all.Alyeska 06:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
The weapon figures given for the Sovereign are not correct. The ship has 16 phaser arrays and 10 torpedo tubes as of Nemesis. I have seen the accual CG model used in the movie that Digital Domain built, and the weapons can be physicly counted, and further more the AA/DST replica of the ship, which was made directly from the same CG model from the movie also features 16 phaser arrays and 10 launchers. Richard Long has also used the same CG model which was provided to him by Digital Domain to master a new 40 inch long fiberglass model of the ship, which featues 16 phaser arrays and 10 torpedo tubes. John Eaves also has varified that the Nemesis CG model features 16 phaser arrays and 10 torpedo launchers. There for the armament of the ship is known and is beyond debate. I have updated these figures so they are now cannon.Modelshipbuilder
And I'm calling you on your count...I have a scan of the Eaves layouts with the notes on added weapons and the TOTAL count is as follows:
Phaser arrays- Dorsal Saucer/1 large and 4 small (total 5), Ventral Saucer/ 2 medium and 2 small (total 4), Ventral Stardrive/1 (total 1) and Nacelle Pylons/ 1 dorsal and 1 ventral each (total 4) TOTAL PHASER ARRAYS: 14
Torpedo Tubes- Dorsal Saucer/2 single mount forward (1 at Deck 3, 1 near the bow) and 1 double mount aft (at the aft end of the largest "terrace" (total 4), Ventral Saucer/1 "turret" tube forward (total 1), Dorsal Stardrive, 1 aft facing single tube above 2ndary shuttlebay (total 1), Ventral Stardrive/ 1 twin mount forward at "bottom" of hull, 1 twin mount aft at bottom of hull, 1 single mount under 2ndary suttlebay (total 5)
Yes you do because I have the same drawings and my count shows the one large array on the saucer dorsal plus SIX smaller ones. Watch the opening shot of the Enterprise in Nemesis as the camera pans over the saucer and pay attention. The torpedo launcher that was shown in some drawings at the bow is in fact NOT THERE, an-- 20:54, December 10, 2009 (UTC)d the number of phaser arrays can clearly be counted as well.
Look inboard on your illistration from phasers #2 and #3. There are 2 more arrays there (one on each side of the main shuttle bay control structure), and they are present on every model of of the ship. Again, watch the opening shot of the ship in Nemesis. The torpedo launcher on the bow in those drawings IS NOT on the ship in the movie.
Look at this shot of the bow. No launcher is seen there, just windows.
Look at the area I indicated above. There are 2 more phaser arrays that you have failed to note on your drawing. This is cannon fact that there are 16 phaser arrays and 10 torpedo tubes on the ship. Modelshipbuilder
OK, I went back, looked at the plans, and looked at a couple of screencaps. I'm big enough to admit when I f*ck up...and it looks like I did. The plans don't "call out" those two small strips with the parenthesis marks like the others are done. On that basis, I am also willing to accept your count on the torpedo tubes, and withdraw my objections and will do some count fixing to match. (Oh, and I took out the link to the drawings as it is no longer needed).Capt Christopher Donovan 11:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, all weapons counts fixed to conform to the count of 16 and 10...Capt Christopher Donovan 11:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Another peice of information I'll throw out here: I won't count this as canon, but I'm told by Mr. Long, who has worked very closly with the Digital Domain Artist that made the CG ship, and also with John Eaves, in order to make his 40 inch model kit (I count myself lucky to have been able to get one!!), He tells me that Mr. Eaves says that the twin tube torpedo launcher above the docking port on the top of the saucer is accualy a turreted launcher that can elevate up, and rotate 360 degrees around, and can fire in any direction around and above the ships dorsal plane. --Modelshipbuilder
As the class summary previously suggested all torpedo launchers can fire both photon and quantum torpedoes, I have altered the torpedo launcher references to reflect two facts: the ventral saucer launcher has only ever been seen to fire quantum torpedoes, and all other launchers have only ever been seen to launch photon torpedoes. --Svetz Falhain 15:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Before I edited the phaser arrays, it said that the Sovereign class had 16 phaser arrays. However, that is only for the Enterprise-E during its refit between Insurrection and Nemesis. The actual numbers for a Sovereign class are 12 type XII phaser arrays, not 16.-- 20:54, December 10, 2009 (UTC)

Ready Room LocationEdit

The ready room is on the -port- side, isn't it? That's how it was on TNG and in the Ahab scene of FC they shot the bridge discussion from the front of the bridge looking back at the turbolifts - then when Picard went to his room to sulk and get chewed out by what's-her-name, he went to the right side of the frame - that would be the port side of the ship. Did the article get it wrong or am I mistaken?

Seconded - I think Picard went port in INS, too Torlek 21:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
In First Contact, Picard went into the observation lounge, not his ready room. And the ready room and observation lounge are on the -starboard- side of the bridge. --TheThirdWitness 23:04, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Excelsior-class replacement Edit

Just what did Sternbach mean when he said that the Sovereign was meant to replace the Excelsior? Granted that John Eaves said, "I wanted a sleek, very fast ship with favourite elements from all the starships that had gone before, especially Bill George's Excelsior" (Forgotten Trek), but the Excelsiors' mission profiles by the late 24th century were more or less undignifying (with the Akiras taking over as the main cruisers).

Did he mean the role the Excelsiors played when the Ambassadors were the lead ship, or did he mean the scrap role the former currently play? Torlek 21:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I think he means the role they played flying alongside the refit constutions. 00:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Um, what? --OuroborosCobra talk 03:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Where is this Sternbach information coming from, not to mention the whole "Akira taking over as the main cruisers"? The only similarities I believe were ever mentioned with regards to the Exc and Sov was from the "real world" design standpoint of being long and sleek vs. previous designs. --Alan 03:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that the deflector dish looks similar to the deflector dish on the Excelsior-class ships. The design is obviously influenced by it. But I doubt it's a REPLACEMENT for it. I mean, the Galaxy-class looks similar to the Constitution-class, but that doesn't mean it directly replaced it. Kitface 22:04, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

Ship type Edit

I have seen this ship class listed as a Heavy Cruser type, now I see it listed as Exploror, why the change? Janewayfan4497 02:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Phasers Edit

USS Enterprise-E fires full phaser spread

From this particular scene from Nemesis, I think we can see that the Sovereign has fallen back on the older independant fire control system for it's phasers, rather than the centralized tactical station on the Galaxy and other starships. This is actually more natural for a warship.--The All-knowing Sith'ari 16:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

How does that picture demonstrate that? --GO RED SOX 19:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, there are at least two examples of the Galaxy class Enterprise doing the same thing: "Best of Both Worlds" and "Yesterday's Enterprise" and we know THAT ship had a unified tactical command and control.Capt Christopher Donovan 22:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, should we put it in the article?--The All-knowing Sith'ari 16:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Put what in the article? We don't know anything. --GO RED SOX 22:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Isn't that a part from when Worf was ordered to fire the phasers randomly? Who's to say that the phasers are not capable of firing bursts into different directions, as it is an array going nearly the entire saucer. Not to mention, it's possible Worf entered into the computer to fire randomply, thus the computer did it all automatically. In short, this picture alone, does not tell me that there is a "independent fire control" system. It is the 24th century after all...--Terran Officer 05:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about random, but Picard ordered a full phaser spread, and all Worf did was press a button, so you may have a point about the computer.--The All-knowing Sith'ari 17:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Floor layout Edit

My name is Fox Anderson. I am searching for the floor plans for all the decks of the sovereign class. A friend of mine is running a role playing game and the ship we are stationed on is the hypothetical USS Yamato which in his game was re-built as a sovereign class star ship with the registration number of NCC-71807-A. Having the floor plans would be of great help to the feel of the game and if someone happens to know where I can find and download them it would be much appreciated. Thank you. -- 23:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

You may wish to post this question at the Reference Desk, as posts on article talk pages need to be relevant to the article itself.--31dot 19:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Sovereign ProjectEdit

Has this name been used officially? I've never heard of it. Dave 13:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't. --31dot 12:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Sovereign Class is written on the Bridge MSD. Tenouharuka
...and the dedication plaque, but what he's asking is if the name "Sovereign Project" has ever been used? --Alan 15:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


Saying the class was influenced by the Borg is speculative. Also, stating that there was a combination of elements of classes is an opinion or speculative. Removing and posting below:

  • "The Sovereign Project was one of the new defensive technologies initially intended for use against the Borg threat.
  • "Heavily armed, the design philosophy for the Sovereign-class was shaped by the discovery of the Borg. The Sovereign Project attempted to push the envelope as far as possible when it came to computer power, shields, armament, and systems capabilities. The Sovereign-class starship combined the creature comforts associated with the larger Galaxy-class vessels with the tactical power of the new Prometheus-class.



  • Comments made by Rick Sternbach on the TrekBBS give the Sovereign-class a designation of Heavy Cruiser, a mass of 3,205,000 metric tons, an apparent crew complement of 855, and a maximum cruising speed of warp 9.9. He also stated that it was the intent that the Sovereign-class be the replacement for the aging Excelsior-class starship. {{incite}}
  • According to some production memos, the Enterprise-E was originally named the USS Honorius, but after the Enterprise-D was destroyed, the Honorius was renamed Enterprise in a similar fashion to the Enterprise-A, which was, according to Gene Roddenberry, supposed to have been renamed from the USS Yorktown. {{incite}}

Certainly the first can be cited if it came from a web why hasnt no one cited it? second one is vague, and needs some cites too. --Alan 01:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Deck layout Edit

I just removed the following wild speculation and the associated comment below it:

Moving down to the lowest levels of the ship, Decks 24 and 25 contained the launch and loader mechanisms for the secondary hull's complement of quantum torpedoes and unmanned probes (fore and aft), while Deck 27 housed the fore and aft tractor beam emitters. The antimatter reactant generator and storage pods were housed on Decks 28 and 29, along with the Ventral phaser array.

It is unclear whether decks 25-29 exist at all. Refer to the above section on physical arrangement for further details.

Decks 25, 27 or 28 have never been mentioned, while there is no canon evidence for a torpedo launcher on Deck 24, except if one is analyzing the model and assuming that the torpedo launcher is on Deck 24. The canon section should stick to verbal and visual references, including the MSD layout since it could be seen clearly on multiple occasions. As for the referenced decks 26 and 29, they are inconsistent with the MSD and Picard's dialogue reference to 24 decks, so we simply don't have a canonical answer for them. They shouldn't be assigned any interior or exterior features based solely on extrapolation. – NotOfTheBody 17:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

USS Sovereign talk page mergeEdit

USS Sovereign image?Edit

As far as I know, that image shows the Enterprise-E. Identical to the USS Sovereign, probably, yes. So why would we need a new image?

for starters, i wanted a better image than the E-E image. it kind of sucks. --Captain Mike K. Bartel 15:13, 28 Jul 2004 (CEST)
i've taken some action on the matter, the red background sovereign image ("File:Fed_sovereign.jpg") is not a screencap, it seems like promotional photoshoppery, so i don't think its relevant to MA. i've replaced it with my image.
the other image (File:Enterprise-E2373.jpg) is actually a similar shot, but i feel the one i uploaded is a clearer image for seeing the ship and structure. the older one is up for Memory Alpha:Files for deletion. --Captain Mike K. Bartel 15:31, 28 Jul 2004 (CEST)

I changed the picture discription. When you state in the article itself the ship was never seen on screen, it is strange if you have a screencap of it. Sufficife to say it is another Sovereign class, and that the USS Sovereign will look just like it. -- Redge 01:13, 29 Jul 2004 (CEST)

quite logical. (',:| --Captain Mike K. Bartel 12:06, 29 Jul 2004 (CEST)

The USS Sovereign was mentioned in Star Trek: Bridge Commander. The player would eventually captain the ship in the battle against the Kessock. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

USS Sovereign's registry number NCC-74222? Edit

I've saw one Sovereign-class prototype at site has the registry number of NCC-74222. Is it canonical or not?

Not -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 17:15, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)
The registry seems to originate from custom made decals by Thomas Models (just thought it would be worth telling) -- Kobi - (Talk) 18:24, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)
Some have suggested that there is a canonical version, based on a chatroom post by Rick Sternbach or Michael Okuda -- but i've never seen any proof of this -- i've heard another version where a fan supposedly asked "is it NCC-75000" (or something like that, i've seen a few registries that are associated with this story), and a production staffer responded "sure" -- but this hardly qualifies as canon, IMO. Thomas Models published stickers for models, but is not strictly licensed to create Star Trek material.
The closest to the real thing (still non-canon, though) is one used in Star Trek: Bridge Commander, NX-73811. This game was licensed by PAramount, even though it isnt considered canon by the producers.. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 22:59, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)
The decals by Thomas Models are made without Paramount's permission, i believe -- i don't believe its appropriate to include them here, even as apocrypha -- apocrypha should always be from licensed works approved by paramount -- even though theyre non-canon, theyre still legal -- i removed NCC-7whatever222 from the article -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 21:41, 4 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Considering available evidence from dedication plaques (USS Valiant NCC-74210 launched in 2372, USS Prometheus NX-74913 launched in 2373) and assuming the USS Sovereign was commissionned at latest in 2372, I think a registry in the 73000s or low 74000s would more appropriate than NCC-75000. --Amtom 16:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Nechayev? Edit

Why do I think that the USS Soverign is commanded by Admiral Nechayev? I think it was in the books somewhere. Since we've already established that this is not canon, should that not be added? The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

You read the Genesis Wave books. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Judgeking (talk • contribs).

USS Sovereign Merge Edit

Under our current canon policy, restricted validity resources do not get their own articles. This should get a mention in the background of the Sovereign-class article, as we are doing with other prototypes not mentioned in canon. --OuroborosCobra talk 18:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Mass ProductionEdit

I've heard a lot that the Enterprise is the first Sovereign class starship, but what happened to the USS Sovereign, and why wasn't the Sovereign mass produced, it was the most advanced Federation vessel? -- 10:59, 30 September 2004 (???)

the USS Sovereign itself was a proto-type ship. As for mass production, im not sure, but i believe the complexity of building a sovereign class ship was huge, so it may have been an economic reason. XNERZHULx 18:48, January 3, 2011 (UTC)
You just responded to a 6 year old discussion. Please do not do that. -- sulfur 19:17, January 3, 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm on Background note Edit


However, from Galaxy class#Physical arrangement:


Hence, he's saying a second sickbay wasn't intended in that scene in Generations. Is there anywhere or anything else that contradicts that? Setacourse 01:24, November 14, 2009 (UTC)

Speed redux Edit

If you have a problem with the speed listed in the sidebar, say why here. Continuing to edit without explanation will result in the page remaining protected longer. - Archduk3 18:00, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

Memory Alpha is a cannon only page for star trek, in the movies the enterprise e never went past warp 8 so putting anything higher for the speed is pure speculation and non-cannon for that matter--Kevmlb93 15:43, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
Where does the current figure come from? I assume it isn't just made up.--31dot 16:26, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
They said that the sovereign class was the fastest in the fleet in first contact, before that the intrpid class held the fastest speed record at warp 9.975, since the soverign class took the record of fastest speed someone assumed that the sovereign classes highest speed was warp 9.985. Nothing confirms that number. The fastest speed stated in the movies was warp 8. I'm not saying that warp 8 is the fastest the class can go, i'm saying that warp 8 is the fastest know speed from the movies.--Kevmlb93 16:41, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
If someone can prove that the sovereign class can go faster then warp 8 please post it--Kevmlb93 18:36, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
Fastest in the fleet. That's faster than 9.975 therefore faster than warp 8. The number may be inaccurate, but a better way would be 9.975+ therefore. Not "at least warp 8". -- sulfur 18:52, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
Warp 9.975+ would be acceptable. Theres no prove that it can go warp 9.985 though--Kevmlb93 19:07, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
I never stated that "9.985" was required, nor did Archduk3. We strive for the best information, and if the ship is listed as the fastest ever, then it obviously has to have gone faster than the Intrepid, which could even mean 9.9751 for all we know. -- sulfur 19:00, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
You are right it could go warp 9.985 or even warp 9.990 but theres no proof to it, warp9.975+ would be best for the article--Kevmlb93 19:07, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, there has never been a reference to the effect that Enterprise-E is faster than Voyager specifically. We learned in "First Contact" that it was "the most advanced starship in the fleet", but that's hardly saying it has a higher maximum warp factor than Voyager (not even "faster" would be enough given what we know about warp factors and their relationship to speeds, it has to be "higher warp factor"). Yes, it probably can reach a higher warp factor, but for the canon section, all you can do is rewatch the movies or search their transcripts for the highest reference to "warp nnn" and say "at least warp nnn for yyy hours/days/etc.". – 1312.4 15:58, December 11, 2010 (UTC)
Sulfur thinks he can just revert my change without bothering to address my argument. I argue my changes, but I don't see his argument, only a bold assumption above which isn't backed by any specific quote about warp factors. MA is NOT fanfic! You must shoot holes in any idea until it stands up to the canon. 1312.4 22:33, December 11, 2010 (UTC)
Then what the hell does "fastest in the fleet" mean? Is Voyager not considered to be part of the fleet anymore? -- sulfur 22:31, December 11, 2010 (UTC)
First of all, where was it said it was fastest in the fleet? Even if so, it doesn't necessarily mean it could reach a higher warp factor than Voyager. 1312.4 22:35, December 11, 2010 (UTC)
I also note that you're the only one who has issues here. And it's not just me making the changes. Also, if a discussion is ongoing, you don't make changes like you did. You wait until the discussion is settled.
Well, if fastest doesn't mean that it could reach a higher warp speed, then I don't know what does. Discussion is obviously a waste of time. -- sulfur 22:41, December 11, 2010 (UTC)
I guess I'm the only one paying attention here. See the original comment above by Kevmlb93:
That's where you got your idea about "fastest", from someone's unsourced line. However, what Geordi actually said was that the Enterprise is "the most ADVANCED starship in the fleet". I quoted the line above. I searched an FC transcript, but I couldn't find a reference to "fastest" and I don't remember it either from my many viewings. If someone can find it in FC or another movie, I'd be happy to note somewhere that it was considered to be the fastest ship, but until then, no bold assumptions! The article can survive until this is proven.
Further, I see you haven't noticed that warp factors and speeds don't have a happy relationship. How do we know that "fastest" also means the highest warp factor, specifically? Kirk's Enterprise was faster than Ent-D on numerous occassions, yet it didn't reach Ent-D's warp factors. In order to add "9.975", you would need a line such as "The Enterprise-E can reach a higher warp factor than Voyager's 9.975" – 1312.4 22:53, December 11, 2010 (UTC)
I smell edit war - and I don't like that smell... the article has been protected and reverted to the pre-war version as of 2010-11-29T13:51:34 (probably undoing some good changes, but that can be sorted out later: see diff). Please discuss here before adding any controversial changes again. Page protection will automatically be lifted in three days, or can be lifted earlier if some consensus has formed by then. -- Cid Highwind 22:58, December 11, 2010 (UTC)
This is just ridiculous. Sulfur can make a bold assumption based on Kevmlb93's memory, completely contrary to the need for referencing, but when I uncover the error in logic and make an argued revert, the person who made the bold assumption gets his way, and I lose all my other changes which are completely unrelated to the issue. It's as if it's OK to relax standards of logic just because this is fiction. How about bothering to understand the issue first before locking an article or starting this edit war in the first place (it was Sulfur, because as you can see, he wasn't paying attention to my original explanation on this Talk page - he just went ahead and assumed I was wrong). – 1312.4 23:07, December 11, 2010 (UTC)
Your change to the "speed" attribute of the sidebar was first undone in this edit - not by sulfur, and with a summary that already hinted at a possible controversy to be discussed on the talk page. Also, per definition, it takes two people to have an active war, so please don't claim to be the innocent bystander in all this.
For what it's worth, any or all of your changes could be correct - I deliberately did not take the time to individually check them before doing the protect and final revert. If I had done that, I would no longer have been in a neutral enough position, right? So, three days to bring up good arguments and counter-arguments, while everyone else does not get annoyed by people editing the same article again and again and again... -- Cid Highwind 23:28, December 11, 2010 (UTC)
I don't blame that original user, because he didn't start the latest edit war. I reverted to my change, posted my detailed explanation on Talk and that was the end of his actions, but Sulfur then reverted my change with a mere note not to change it again, so I had to act in the interests of MA readers. He has no counter-arguments, since it is plainly obvious from his comments here that he merely made a serious logic error - he took it on faith that somewhere in FC, it was said that the Ent-E is the fastest ship in the fleet, he assumed that "fastest" also means "highest warp factor", ergo, it's 9.975+! Better to have some number than no number! No fact-checking, no questioning the relationship between speeds and warp factors, nothing. So, I need proof concerning "fastest" and I need proof that "fastest" also means "highest warp factor". If you can't provide that proof, my version wins the logic contest, since it is safer to have no number than some number which could be wrong. – 1312.4 23:41, December 11, 2010 (UTC)
"Fastest" may not have been said, but "most advanced" would at least mean that it was not slower than Voyager. If it was slower then it would not be more advanced. As such the "9.975+" is as accurate as possible.--31dot 01:50, December 12, 2010 (UTC)
Got to disagree with you 31dot. "More advanced" does not mean "faster," it doesn't mean it at all. The F-22 is far more advanced an aircraft than the MiG-25, but is a much slower aircraft. --OuroborosCobra talk 04:33, December 12, 2010 (UTC)
Could you provide an example of that from canon? (I don't mean to imply there isn't one- there probably is one, I just don't know it.) The impression I have gotten from Trek is that generally newer starships have improved attributes over previous ones.--31dot 04:52, December 12, 2010 (UTC)
...I really don't need to. We're talking about dictionary definitions of words here. The fact is that "newer" doesn't mean "more advanced" and neither mean "faster." But hell, let's go with the Class F shuttlecraft. A century later Starfleet is using the much slower Type 6 shuttlecraft. Where the Type F could chase a Constitution class at high warp, half the time the Type 6 couldn't make warp at all, and when it could it was only low warp. The fact is that "advanced" does not mean "better in every way." I mean, a Nova class is more advanced than a Constitution class, but it is well known that it was a small design. The Sovereign class may indeed have better attributes overall, but that doesn't mean it is faster. It could be better armed, have better sensors, better computers, but might be so massive that higher speed is prohibitive, for example. It could still have more advanced engines with greater energy efficiency and still be slower. --OuroborosCobra talk 05:09, December 12, 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, OuroborosCobra. 31dot: look at your argument. In real life, you would (hopefully) never assume that a new aircraft carrier which was described as more "advanced" than the old one is also faster, even if you think it is. You would double-check, or risk failing an exam, having problems at work if you're a journalist or getting into all other kinds of trouble (especially if you make more such assumptions). However, here you're not afraid of being wrong, as if you're one of the writers of Star Trek who has the authority to decide what happens in that universe. Should the canon sections of Memory Alpha be based on general assumptions about newer starships, as opposed to verifiable facts? In that case, you could just as well the abandon the "canon section" concept and quote numbers from official sources. It would do more good to the consistency of Star Trek than this kind of shaky logic. – 1312.4 07:20, December 12, 2010 (UTC)
Cobra, you may not need to, but it is helpful, since we don't deal in reality. Canon can differ from reality in many areas and I found it helpful to read all of your examples. Thank you
1312.4, thank you, but I don't need to be lectured on canon. We use a certain level of assumptions in many areas around here, and that in and of itself is not a sufficient reason to exclude information. Now if something like that is simply wrong or based on nonexistent information, as this seems to be, that is another matter.--31dot 12:24, December 12, 2010 (UTC)
Yes, you do need to be lectured on canon, because you're acting as if you were writing 1970s unlicensed fan manuals. Unlicensed creativity cannot be tolerated here. Assumptions cannot be tolerated. Why not just assume that the Captain's Chair or whatever other publication gave a speed is correct, then? Why should your assumption be preferable to those of official, licensed publications? If someone really has a burning need to fill that section with some data, why not just allow official sources into that section, in order to stifle assumptions by random editors? However, MA would become MB then.
It is such hypocrisy - you're pretending that there is such a thing as a "canon section" here, but then you're going off and making wild assumptions without any official license from Paramount. Again: an UNKNOWN maximum warp factor is preferable to an ASSUMED maximum warp factor (which in this case would be based either on a half-remembered line without specific reference, or on someone's fan-fiction about the actual meaning of "advanced"). – 1312.4 12:42, December 12, 2010 (UTC)
If you want to debate that, do so elsewhere(ideally your page) not here.--31dot 12:50, December 12, 2010 (UTC)
I agree that "most advanced" does not necessarily mean that all individual attributes are better than those of any other random starship class active at the time. If any speed has been given in one of the movies (an earlier comment suggests "Warp 8"), I disagree with simply blanking the line, though. Instead, that speed should be added, worded in a way that makes clear that this is not necessarily the top speed. If that wording (to be discussed here) is too cumbersome for the sidebar, a reference to a footnote (or similar) should be added to the sidebar instead. -- Cid Highwind 14:31, December 12, 2010 (UTC)
We should indeed have something there if any speed figure was given. I'm leaning towards a footnote-style comment that the given figure was the top speed mentioned, however I would be willing to see proposed sidebar comments.--31dot 14:58, December 12, 2010 (UTC)
While I disagree with 1312's candor and method of debate, I have to say I disagree with the low standards of caring for accuracy that 31dot has shown. Your stated reasons for keeping 9.975+ or even justifying "faster" at all have been, well, terrible. 1312 had made amply clear that information regarding the Sovereign class speed was never stated in any shape or form. We use "reasonable assumptions" around here? When do we ever use the kind of "reasonable assumption" that you suggest? It would seem to run against everything from our policies regarding citations, reliable sources, canon policies, objectivity, etc. We remove assumptions, we don't add them. As an admin, it's your job to maintain our objectivity and accuracy, not defend subjectivity and speculation.
As for suggesting that the "real world" and "canon world" differ, that doesn't apply here either. When we're talking about the birthdate of Vladimir Lenin, that applies, but we're talking about dictionary definitions here. If we cannot apply the real world in this case, then we might as well stop trying to make a database here at all. How can we write about the destruction of the Husnock if we don't know that the dictionary definitions of Kevin Uxbridge's words actually mean he destroyed them all, rather than some in-universe difference of word meaning? Advanced means advanced, here and in Star Trek. It doesn't mean faster, faster means faster. Anything else is speculation. It really shouldn't have taken me coming along to point these things out if accuracy to the canon information on the ship was the primary goal, and shouldn't have taken me further justifying that water is wet both in our universe, and in the Star Trek universe.
Again, I don't agree with 1312's methods or candor, but I really understand 1312's frustration, and feel you did not handle this case very well at all. Cid, I do thank you for your intervention in preventing an edit war, and unlike 1312 feel you did the right thing in reverting to the version of the article that had been stable for months and locking it. Yes, that information was incorrect, but your action had the virtue of not taking sides, merely halting things to force discussion. 1312 is wrong to be angry at you. I know I hate big text block posts, but this needed to be said. The method of handling here by admins (Sulfur, I'm not even going to start with your absolute ignoring of what 1312 was bringing to the table, and general rudeness towards him) was overall quite poor, and encourages problem behaviors like that exhibited by 1312. --OuroborosCobra talk 22:08, December 12, 2010 (UTC)

Encouraging it or not, no one here is responsible for 1312.4 actions except for himself, and administrators are people too. If someone keeps acting like a troll I'm not going to keep treating them as any but a troll, and I wouldn't expect anyone else to act differently. I also know it's possible to have heated discussions over trivial matters for days without writing anything as hate filled and venomous as these posts are, so frustration at a one day wait is way beyond reasonable here. The complete lack of any respect for the wiki system as well is not something anyone here has to pander to, since by using that system you are agreeing to the concept at the very least. I know that you in particular OC have reason to be frustrated with how the memories of your actions seem to still speak louder that your actions today, but all this backhand name calling and diatribing was not called for, and generally never is. Regardless, almost none of this now has anything to do with the actual information in question, or this page for that matter. - Archduk3 23:39, December 12, 2010 (UTC)

Administrators are people, yes, but they are people held to a higher standard, a standard they choose to accept when they accept a nomination for administratorship. Duke, I have no problem with the way you behaved in this discussion either. I have to ask, was I acting like a troll when I came here and explained why 1312 was right? I don't think I was, yet the response I received from 31dot was to still cling to information that had no basis in canon, and to come up with reasons that run against the very wiki system you are now trying to defend. Where is the respect for that system from the administrators in question? You showed it and Cid showed it, but I'm not seeing that from the others involved. I'm not defending 1312, but I will not use his behavior to condone administrative action that seems to have willfully stuck to false information that was shown by multiple people, including polite people, to be false. At the least it seems like they were more interested in being right and 1312 being wrong than they were in the article being right with respect to canon. Also, this really isn't about me, or how "memories" of my past actions are perceived. I'm not really bitter about that, as it is I haven't had nearly the time I used to have to devote to MA. --OuroborosCobra talk 23:48, December 12, 2010 (UTC)
I care for accuracy as much as anyone here, and I resent being told otherwise. We have non-explicit information pieced together from other information all over this site which is technically all assumptions. I thought that is what was happening here until I was told the underlying information was not correct. I'm sorry my memory is not as good as other people's. Since the original edit had been here for several months I had thought there was other information behind it, which is why I was defending it. It was not due to anything other than that. The idea that I am more interested in being right and others being wrong is so utterly false I can't describe it. I was simply trying to throw other ideas into the discussion.--31dot 02:05, December 13, 2010 (UTC)
If you resent it, then I'm sorry to say, but "tough" and don't keep screwing up. In 1312's first contribution to this discussion, he said all that was needed, that all we were told was "more advanced" and never "fastest," and the response he was given was harsh and ignored that very fact. As for your claim that what we do here is "technically all assumptions," I ask you to show me where. Seriously, do it. Because you won't find something remotely resembling the level of discussion you are suggesting, where we take one sentence to mean something entirely different and then assign a numerical value to that difference. That is not what we do around here. What "more ideas" were you trying to bring in? You defended the original false idea, and kept going with it even when I reiterated the error of the previous discussion (the idea that "fastest" had ever been stated). --OuroborosCobra talk 02:19, December 13, 2010 (UTC)
It's nice to get this as payback for thanking you and telling you that you were correct. I said you were right and simply thought I would understand it better with an example from canon. I have no wish to debate this with you further, as this is not the place for it and you long ago made up your mind about me. I'm sorry I'm not the perfect human being you expect people to be. I make mistakes, so sue me.--31dot 02:27, December 13, 2010 (UTC)
That's just plain not what you did. If you had, I probably wouldn't be saying what I am now, and would have brushed off your missing 1312's point (though not Sulfur's) because it was hard to pick out from all of the bile in his posts. You didn't say "thank you, you're right, but could you just provide a canon example to help me understand it better?" You instead defended the false position. Nothing about me or 1312 or anyone being right. As I often say when you get on this type of defensive track, I'm not asking you to be a perfect human being, I am asking you to care a little more about the accuracy of the database. Don't recall a line from an episode perfectly? Fine, look it up if someone says our information is wrong. That's what I do, because I want to make sure our information is accurate, and I know I don't have a perfect memory. I'm not asking for perfection, but for a little more effort and downright caring about being accurate, which I often fail to see. I'm also not singling you out. Hell, Sulfur's more at fault here, had he responded better in the first place to 1312, this would have been a quick fix or at least we'd just be trying to figure out the best language to use in fixing the article. If it seems like I've "made up my mind" about it, it's because I sadly run into this more with you than with most of the other admins. Shran and others may make mistakes in recalling things from episodes, but they don't drag out trying to stick to those mistakes when they're pointed out. It isn't as if I go chasing you hoping to see you screw up, it isn't as if I bring up mistakes when you aren't screwing up, it isn't as if I come into a debate and start first by attacking. All I did when I came in here was say, "sorry 31dot, but this guy's right and the dialogue doesn't support 'fastest'." No attack on you, no past behavior brought in. --OuroborosCobra talk 02:43, December 13, 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't sticking to anything here, I was simply offering alternative thoughts. I had already started to see your point when I asked you for another example. Maybe text does not make that clear, but that's what I was thinking.--31dot 02:58, December 13, 2010 (UTC)
Well I'm not a betazoid, so when you don't mean "newer ships have better attributes," maybe you shouldn't write that? Or at least include some amount of language indicating that you are starting to think the text in the article is wrong, rather than only putting up a defense of it? --OuroborosCobra talk 03:05, December 13, 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I'm going to ask everyone to stop with the personal arguments about who should have done what when. This talk page discussion has already covered about 5 times as much space as it should have. Please keep all further comments relevant to the article itself. Thank you.– Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 03:09, December 13, 2010 (UTC)

Back to the speed- as Cid said above if any speed figure was given we should mention it somehow. If Warp 8 was said(Was it said in Nemesis?) maybe we could change the "Speed" header to "Top Speed Given" and put Warp 8. If there isn't a better concise way to put it I would suggest just having a footnote.--31dot 19:43, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

Ok i'd like to say that when geordi said the sovereign class was the most advanced starship in the fleet I thought he said fastest, that's my bad. However someone said that fastest doesn't mean highest warp factor and i'd like to correct that. The higher the warp factor the faster you are going. Warp is simply the speed of light, which is 299,792,458 m / s. Now warp 2 is simply twice the speed of light or twice as fast as warp 1. warp 2 is equal to 599,584,916 m / s. 299,792,458 m / s (warp 1) is clearly slower than 599,584,916 m / s (warp 2) meaning the higher the warp factor the faster the speed you are going.--Kevmlb93 22:17, January 7, 2011 (UTC)

Other sidebar changes Edit

As can be seen in the diff linked to from the section above this, there have been some other sidebar changes that are potentially controversial. Let's just check them too, while we're already at it:

685m to "almost 700m"
855 to <empty>
23, 24, 26 or 29(see physical arrangement + physical studio model Paragragh) to 23, 24, at least 26 or at least 29 (see physical arrangement + physical studio model Paragragh)
High Capacity Deflector shields to <empty>

Any references, citations, comments on either of these? -- Cid Highwind 14:37, December 12, 2010 (UTC)

The Decks line should probably be a link to the section where that is discussed, or we could put the most recent number given also with such a link. The Defenses should simply say "Deflector Shields", unless there is some citation for a more detailed description. I'm guessing that the length figure comes from production materials. I don't recall where the crew complement was given, if ever.--31dot 14:51, December 12, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the suggestions for "Defenses" and "Decks" - in the latter case, neither of the current alternatives even makes sense without a more complex explanation. An uninformed reader will have to ask the following: if "29" is a valid value (whether as simply "29" or as "at least 29"), then why are 23, 24 and 26 listed as well? In many other cases, we're listing "most recent information" in the sidebar - so if a number as high as 29 has been stated, we should use that (and only that!) and (perhaps) link to a more detailed note somewhere else in the article.

Regarding length, there's the following dialogue in Star Trek: First Contact:

LILY: How big is this ship?
PICARD: There are twenty-four decks. Almost seven hundred metres long.

No idea about the "Crew" attribute at the moment. -- Cid Highwind 15:58, December 12, 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't feel right with just the 29 being stated, since even with a link we're making a judgement about the whole class based on the rather wishy-washy number for the Enterprise (and I know it's the only ship we have seen). "23-29" with a link would be my choice, since those are the smallest and largest numbers given for the total and we really don't know which is "correct." I think the rest of the info is from non-canon sources, and should be removed. - Archduk3 23:21, December 12, 2010 (UTC)

Ah, yes. It's true that different ships of the class might have different values for those attributes at different moments in time... that's a generic problem with trying to describe a class while knowing only one of its members. In this case, and because the variance (23-29) is too large to still make that a valuable information, I suggest to completely drop any definite numbers from the sidebar and replace it with a reference to a more detailed in-text explanation. -- Cid Highwind 10:54, December 13, 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. It's not going to hurt anything to simply have a link there to the section in the article. - Archduk3 23:05, December 13, 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I agree.--31dot 01:25, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

Sidebar Remodel Edit

Ok now where are we with the sidebar information I read both the Speed Redux and other sidebar changes topics of this talk page and im lost. Can someone post the new sidebar information here with an explanation why each part is being changed. It is a big help.--Kevmlb93 23:46, December 13, 2010 (UTC)

new sidebar, changed attributes only
Length: ca. 700 m
Decks: variable (+ref to in-text description)
Crew complement: (removed without reference)
Speed: at least Warp # (tbd, +ref?)
Defenses: Deflector shields
The changes have all been discussed in the last two sections. Individual exact wording has not in all cases (for example, I just introduced the phrase "variable" for the #decks) and may need more discussion where considered controversial. -- Cid Highwind 11:29, December 15, 2010 (UTC)

Protection Edit

I've locked the page from anon edits since we can't go more than a a few weeks without having to revert a anon editing the max speed despite the note not to. While I didn't add a time limit, I plan to cite the speed we have now or remove the call from the sidebar entirely, depending on what's in the films, within the next week at most. If this keeps happening though, I'm for keeping the page locked to anon editors, since at that point I'm going to consider these edits vandalism. - Archduk3 06:29, April 29, 2011 (UTC)

Here's everything you find searching for "warp" with a specific speed in the scripts and transcripts:

  • First Contact - "warp point nine six" for the Borg cube.
  • Insurrection - nothing
  • Nemesis - Warp 5, Warp 7, and "Lay in a new course... Take us to Romulus. Warp eight."

So unless we think the Enterprise is now a Borg cube, the max speed in canon is Warp 8. I'll still be checking the films directly just in case the scripts and transcripts are wrong, but I doubt it. - Archduk3 06:53, April 29, 2011 (UTC)

I changed the wording in the article because it would be misleading to say in the in-universe section that Warp 8 was the "maximum" speed. That wasn't said.–Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 09:31, April 29, 2011 (UTC)

Sovereign Class - Maximum Speed from Captain's Chair Edit

Within "Captain's Chair" Star Trek: Captain's Chair

Commander William T. Riker (Jonathan Frakes) indicates that the Enterprise-E has a maximum Warp of 9.95 "almost 5000 times the speed of light"

The below is not correct and should be changed. This is given that this is based on information from the STTNG Technical manual, it can be considered canon.

Warp 8 is the highest speed a Sovereign-class ship was known to have traveled on-screen. According to Star Trek: Starship Spotter, the maximum warp of the Sovereign-class ship was warp factor 9.7. In the Captain's Chair William T. Riker indicates that the Enterprise-E can achieve Warp 9.95The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

The TNG Manual is not canon; any information from it can be in the Background section or a italicized note like the above. I'm not sure what you are saying is wrong about it- but if other sources have different information they could be included.--31dot 22:27, June 30, 2011 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki