Talk: Enterprise class (23rd century)

The article is based on theFASA Federation Ship Recognition Manual, not on any other sources.

In this source:

1. Intrepid is 1707, not 1230 (That is Soryu)
2. El Dorado is 1724, not 1722

Ref. isFASA Federation Ship Recognition Manual pp. 11

See included scan of the relevant page of the document in question:

Keep in mind that different sources have different names assigned to registry numbers; if USS Intrepid is NCC-1730 in one of them, that does not affect that according to FASA, NCC-1730 is USS Soryu.

FWIW, Ships of the Star Fleet has USS Bunker Hill as NCC-1730. I cannot find any reference to USS Intrepid being NCC-1730.

Canonically, USS Intrepid (NCC-1631) is a Constitution-class ship. FASA agrees with canon.

Franz Joseph's Starfleet Technical Manual and Ships of the Star Fleet both assign the registry NCC-1708 to USS Intrepid (Constitution class).

USS El Dorado is NCC-1722 in both Franz Joseph's Starfleet Technical Manual and Ships of the Star Fleet, but is unequivocally NCC-1724 in FASA's book.

Besides Canon registries and FASA's registry, there is Franz Joseph's, Ships of the Star Fleet, and Jackill's, among others, each being incompatible with each other.

I'd keep the article straight with FASA's numbering system (changing the name to reflect this), and to create separate articles for the different numbering systems. I've been working on a master comparison list, and trust me, it is not going to be a neat fit using wikia code.

--Sings-With-Spirits (talk) 04:09, August 14, 2016 (UTC)

You are incorrect that the article is "not based on any other sources" -- there are a great deal of other sources with alternate registry number systems listed here, user. There are registries from Starfleet Command the game, the FASA Technical Manual, as well as numerous novels.

All of these sources contain alternate registry systems, some of which may contradict or supercede the FASA book on a number of points.

Please reference the individual articles for sources before addressing these lists. For example, I can tell you this list does honor the registries for Intrepid II and El Dorado from the SF Technical Manual which preceded the FASA source --Captain MKB 06:15, August 14, 2016 (UTC)

With all due respect, the article itself states clearly that its source is FASA, not any other source, and with the sole exception of Intrepid 1730, all registry numbers correspond to the FASA numbering scheme as evidenced by the scanned page.

The registry numbers of other sources are (most often) incompatible with the FASA numbers. I suggest that this list be exclusive to FASA numbers and other articles be made for other schemes, until a composite list including all ships associated with a particular hull number.

--Sings-With-Spirits (talk) 14:26, August 14, 2016 (UTC)

The article has been updated to reflect that various sources are used, and I am adding the non-FASA registries in detail.

"With all due respect" it is wrong to change the article because you think it should only reflect FASA. the article should reflect all valid sources.Captain MKB 17:35, August 14, 2016 (UTC)

The section in which the 1730 Intrepid is in is labeled "Refit to mk I specification". That is FASA. FASA states that Intrepid is 1707, not 1708, as can be read in the cited page. Since my assistance seems to not be wanted, I'll leave you to correct this issue in this article and in other related articles, such as that of USS Intrepid.

--Sings-With-Spirits (talk) 18:16, August 14, 2016 (UTC)

You did make a good catch with that one -- the ship in this list should be the NCC-1730/NCC-1707, the "1708" number was the SF Technical Manual registry for the previous Intrepid. Thanks for catching that, and thanks for finding the fanfic Avenger that should not have been here in your first edit. Sorry that you don't agree with the policy to respect the non-FASA registry numbers. --Captain MKB 18:54, August 14, 2016 (UTC)