Captainmike (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tag: sourceedit |
Kittyburger (talk | contribs) (→Class) Tag: sourceedit |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
::Actually, no -- this wiki only recognizes valid information from within the body of the publication. Information dropped on the authoer's twitter is unofficial, and not valid for inclusion here. sorry, you win some, you lose some - [[user:captainmike|Captain MKB]] 17:14, October 27, 2016 (UTC) |
::Actually, no -- this wiki only recognizes valid information from within the body of the publication. Information dropped on the authoer's twitter is unofficial, and not valid for inclusion here. sorry, you win some, you lose some - [[user:captainmike|Captain MKB]] 17:14, October 27, 2016 (UTC) |
||
| + | |||
| + | :::Which features do you think qualify as sufficiently different to count as "this is a completely new class" as opposed to "variation under construction" or "artist's error"? [[User:Kittyburger|Kittyburger]] ([[User talk:Kittyburger|talk]]) 17:58, October 27, 2016 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 17:58, 27 October 2016
Class
Unfortunately, I can only access the first couple of pages of the comic. Is it conclusively identified as Endeavour--class ship? In any case, it's the same class as the USS Aegis NX-1787 from ST video game: Bridge Crew. Kind regards, -- Markonian 18:07, October 19, 2016 (UTC)
- Since Aegis is the same hull design and marked with a lower NCC number, I went ahead and started an "Aegis class" page and listed Endeavour as an Aegis-class ship. Kittyburger (talk) 14:10, October 22, 2016 (UTC)
- I've got to say the ship does not appear to be the same class or design as any vessel that's ever appeared in Star Trek before, making you both wrong - Captain MKB 17:10, October 22, 2016 (UTC)
- The writer of the comic confirmed explicitly that Endeavour is the same class as Aegis. So the assertion that Endeavour "does not appear to be the same class or design as any vessel that's ever appeared in Star Trek before" is, well, wrong.[1] You win some, you lose some. Kittyburger (talk) 03:09, October 24, 2016 (UTC)
- Actually, no -- this wiki only recognizes valid information from within the body of the publication. Information dropped on the authoer's twitter is unofficial, and not valid for inclusion here. sorry, you win some, you lose some - Captain MKB 17:14, October 27, 2016 (UTC)
- Which features do you think qualify as sufficiently different to count as "this is a completely new class" as opposed to "variation under construction" or "artist's error"? Kittyburger (talk) 17:58, October 27, 2016 (UTC)