Talk: NX class

Encounters

Nothing much to do, except say that this vessel was in Star Trek: Encounters. in the missions you play the NX-01 Enterprise. In the " DS9" area you can make this vessels any ship you want because the ship does not a name or registry on the hull. Make you wonder if Starfleet just builds these for the heck of it. But it is funny to see this vessel take down a Borg Queen ship, and live! also check out my user page to look at my Nx class vessel. Rift Fleet 16:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Citations

Heres an idea! When you put down a ship name like USS Avenger (for our universe not the mirror version) why don't people go to those pages and put down where they saw them. I.E. a novel, game, movie, etc. Makes it easier to find info on them. Thanks!  :) Rift Fleet 16:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Space shuttle reference

I was wondering if anyone else noticed that the names and order of their hull numbers on the NX-class are the same as the space shuttles? and if there was an actual mention of that in one of the novels?--Long Live the United Earth 04:02, November 22, 2009 (UTC)

I did, I did! :D. In my fan fic series I used the exact same name for all the NX's that are used in The Romulan War, I even added the Russian shuttle Buran as NX-07.  :) --The Doctor 10:04, November 22, 2009 (UTC)

This has been long theorized by fans -- it was added to this site as speculation several times before it became 'official'... -- Captain MKB 14:01, November 22, 2009 (UTC)

Link

Is there any source for the NX-07 just added? -- Captain MKB 03:20, March 26, 2011 (UTC)

Indistinguishable from Magic. It's a TNG book. --EarthVsRomulus 17:14, December 31, 2011 (UTC)

Attention

Is there a source specifying the mirror NX as being a "battleship" or "battle cruiser"? - an IP user has been annoting this to many related pages in sidebars without directly sourcing the data... -- Captain MKB 21:16, July 28, 2011 (UTC)

Thats me you are talkin about, I get the Battleship bit from the Mirror universe/Enterprise mini novel Age of the Empress in which there is a line about an oncoming fleet containing "four NX Class battleships" so thats where I get that from, I get the rest of the stuff put in the sidebars from other books as well as the images of the ships in question from the Drex files etc. I just do not know how to put this sources into the page thats all. EarthVsRomulus 21:25, September 05.

Thanks for getting this note in here. A factual addition requires a citation, at the end of the statement in parentheses. If you need an example, take some time to read our Manual of Style or click 'edit' on an article somewhere and observe how the citation is formatted. There's lots of information about structuring articles in the Manual of Style.

Drex-files sometimes includes information derived from valid sources, like pictures of Drexler's work when he contributes to the Star Trek series and books. However, keep in mind that things written on Drex-files that are not derived from an existing book or filmed piece is simply not part of what Memory Beta does. -- Captain MKB 20:56, September 5, 2011 (UTC)

NX "class"

It doesn't make sense from a standpoint of naval tradition or Star Trek lore to say that "NX" is a "class" name. "NX" is the prefix of the registry number of the ship, and "NX" is reserved for experimental designs that have not yet been fully commissioned. For instance, the Excelsior had a registry number of "NX-2000" in TSFS, before it had gone on its shakedown cruise. Once it was fully commissioned, it was "NCC-2000". Naval tradition dictates that a class be named after the first ship in the class, which is why there was an Excelsior class and why what is commonly called the "NX Class" should rightly be called the "Enterprise" class. It's disappointing that the writers of Enterprise would diverge so clumsily from both Star Trek franchise history and naval tradition. 69.15.156.226 19:41, November 21, 2011 (UTC)

The NX class was a product of the United Earth Starfleet. All the other "naval tradition" you cite comes from the Federation Starfleet. Prettyo bvious reason why the naming schemes and registry wouldn't match up. The US and UK also use different formats of naming classes and ships, in real-life "tradition" -- Captain MKB 23:14, November 21, 2011 (UTC)

ISS Invincible

Along with several other vessels on this page the ISS Invincible is listed as an NX Class ship based on the Mirror universe novel Age of the Empress, I often read Mirror books and I am fairly certain that the class of the Invincible is never mentioned at any point in the novel. Has whoever put this in actualy read this themselves or just assumed that the vessel is NX class? EarthVsRomulus 18:14, January 25, 2012 (UTC)

We can remove the reference to the ship's class until such time as someone sources that info. Thanks for the catch. -- Captain MKB 18:27, January 25, 2012 (UTC)

Edit war

There's been an edit war going on the last few days on this with the specifications changes (ie size going from 225m to 825m) and notes about it being in the 22nd century or 25th century.

Is there an "NX class" in STO perhaps? Or is this coming from fan fiction, or? -- sulfur 13:49, April 5, 2012 (UTC)

The NX-class is strictly 22nd century. The S.C.E. creates a replica NX-class in the 25th century, however. The exterior is the same, the technology is state-of-the-art 2409. Would we count that as one or two classes? -- Markonian 21:44, April 13, 2013 (UTC)

Known vessels

A bunch of red entries were placed here. Do we have any documentation/sources on these known vessels? --TardisCaptain (talk) 18:36, April 13, 2013 (UTC)

Maybe they are from Federation' The First 150 Years but I don't have a copy and can't check. However, the registries fit too conveniently with the ships already in the list. Also, I believe an NX-class Constellation was mentioned in the book. What's more, the registry of the Excalibur was changed from NX-03 to NX-08. All in all, this reeks like fan fiction to me. -- Markonian 21:47, April 13, 2013 (UTC)

I've got the Federation The First 150 years book and they are not in there. They name five of the NX class ships and mention that there are six others in assembly but do not give names (at least in the chapter's I've read so far). It sounds like we've got conflicting NX-03 entries and should probably make sure that both starships have a note about it. As for the others, unless someone can document them soon, I'd recommend removing them. --TardisCaptain (talk) 03:58, April 15, 2013 (UTC)

Ship's mass

A mass of 80,000 metric tons has been added, without a source in the running text. Do we have source? Kind regards, -- Markonian 13:48, November 28, 2015 (UTC)

Was wondering about that myself. Also, does this article need two infoboxes? Most of the data in the second seems to have been simply duplicated from the first anyway. I propose that the two be combined, with annotations added to point out which data refers to the 22nd century variant and which refers explicitly to the 25th century variant. - Bell'Orso (talk) 14:42, November 28, 2015 (UTC)

When a ship's various sources quote slightly different measures, the infobox could (and should) be altered to reflect a range (as long as the sizes dont refer to a named subclass, which has its own infobox). If some vessels of X class weigh 80,000 tons and some weigh 82,500 tons, its obvious that one is loaded differently and the class's unified infobox can show both measures. --Captain MKB 15:25, November 28, 2015 (UTC)

I've looked closer at the situation -- it's really cumbersome to have two infoboxes one after the other. This should not be.

Additionally, we need to start reminding newer users to cite infobox stats. It would be easier to have people add this kind of information in the body of the article as well, with citations, but the classic failing of our editors is the mistaken impression that everything must be added to the sidebar and nothing to the article. i kind of wish we didnt have them because how continuously they are incorrectly used - Captain MKB 15:52, November 28, 2015 (UTC)

This brings up another interesting point, by the way, a limitation inherent in these infoboxes. Did you notice how one of them is coloured Earth grey and the other one Federation blue? I suppose whoever first added the second infobox felt that this was the best way to show at a glance that this particular class of starship served two different organizations. This is true of a few other starship classes as well, plus individual ships that were at some point in their service history captured and pressed into service by an enemy (one particular Larson or Loknar comes to mind, as do Starfleet ships partially assimilated, but not completely transformed into spheres or cubes [that is, supposedly, what was going to happen to that one civilian ship in ENT's "Regeneration", hence the different states of assimilation shown in that episode], by the Borg). - Bell'Orso (talk) 21:16, November 28, 2015 (UTC)

I'm the guilty party who added the same infobox because I didn't want squeeze the NX-class (22nd century and NX-class (25th century) all into one box. However, I agreed with your reasoning now that 1) we could fit it all into one box and 2) add footnotes to serve as citations. It would have to be blue because it's a Federation starship class. Thoughts? -- Markonian 16:44, November 29, 2015 (UTC)

Infobox type

So, Markonian's recent edit actually brings up a question. The NX-class is both an Earth and Federation starship class. When creating the infobox, do we use Earth as the type because it was originally an Earth class? Or Federation because it ended its career with the Feds? Or do we have a way of dual typing? Also, this discussion would also apply to Daedalus-class and Intrepid-class. --Long Live the United Earth (talk) 21:35, February 10, 2017 (UTC)

The logical way is to go with the Fed box. The ship goes through a 'career change', so the page should reflect its latest status. Similar to how we update Endeavour NX-06 to USS Endeavour NCC-06. Or when somebody/-thing is permanently assimilated by the Borg. Kind regards, -- Markonian 07:34, February 11, 2017 (UTC)

i've always treated 'latest' state/ownership as definitive (with our naming convention) but this brings question to that practice - as it is a notable Earth class. the USS Centurion, IKS Staav'eMara and the HMS Bounty, as well as the USS Defiant (NX-74205) (II), all using their 'later' names according to this editing tendency, the former very in detriment to the notable USS Farragut II as it is here to the classification/appearance of the NX class.

Some articles present different infoboxes for different subsections (such as the different continuity versions of Rigel) but I've always considered this to be overfilling the article visually, and would like a better arrangement than multiple infoboxes. -- Captain MKB 08:25, February 11, 2017 (UTC)

I can understand that reasoning. But as Mike said,the NX-class is a major Earth starship class and really the main one associated with the United Earth's Starfleet. I'm honestly not the best at wiki coding or template creation (I don't know enough about it). Is there any way to create a dual Federation/Earth infobox scheme?

That said, I absolutely agree with not having two infoboxes. That's clunky and unnecessary. If we want to go with last owner/operator I'm fine with that, I just thought it was worth a bit of discussion, especially for major classes like the NX and Daedalus classes.--Long Live the United Earth (talk) 21:47, February 11, 2017 (UTC)