From "Talk:Aurora type"Edit

The class of Aurora was never specified, I don't think we should have a type for the ship if not mentioned onscreen. --TOSrules 05:52, 18 Feb 2005 (GMT)

That is exactly why this page was created. A ship is referred to as "type" when a "class" is not specified. There have been numerous discussions on this topic - SEE: Talk:Yeager type. --Gvsualan 05:59, 18 Feb 2005 (GMT)
Pages of this sort exist due to an urge to create a reference for every ship design ever canonically seen -- unnamed classes would need to be a part of this list. While there was only one aurora type ship shown, some unnamed classes have numerous ships belonging to their design, the Centaur type for example, where this page would serve as a list of the various vessels seen. The type page serves as an easy partial disambiguant between this and articles related to it (in this article, for example, for the issue that this ship is related to the Tholian webspinner, or for the Centaur, that that ship is related to the Excelsior and Miranda classes). -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 17:39, 18 Feb 2005 (GMT)
Just stumbling across this article, I have the same problems with it... why do we need to have an article for a class of starship that has no valid name and appeared just once? Not a single article that currently links to this page really needs to do so - all of them would do well with a link to the only existing ship. All content of this page could easily be merged with Aurora itself, if it isn't already duplicated there. -- Cid Highwind 15:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I'm in favor of merging, too. I came across this article when I edited the Aurora article and I wondered what possible use it could have to replicate information from the Aurora article here without adding anything significant to it. Only the pictures are much better here. On the other hand I find it strange to show the Aurora shortly before blowing up in the other article. The two pictures of the Aurora type article here would be sufficient for a merged Aurora article, with the pre-blow-up picture a nice but unnecessary addition.--Skon 23:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
This was created in an attempt to differentiate "classes/types" from "individually named ships", which is reflected in the images and page categorizations. The pre-blow-up image specifies the Aurora, while the more generic angle captures help depict any ship that might represent that class. Additionally, in terms of categorization, Aurora is not a class, therefore cannot be categorized as such. The discontinuation of the Aurora type removes that type from our ultimate list of starship classes. --Alan del Beccio 23:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what I thought - however, if we don't have any information about a ship class, not even a correct name, should we really create an article, just so that we have yet another article and something to categorize? I'm sure we had that discussion before, but I still strongly believe that this is misusing the categorization functionality... -- Cid Highwind 09:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Apparently, it is now possible to categorize redirects (see J. Michael Bingham for an example) - one reason less to have articles such as this one. -- Cid Highwind 17:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I've categorized redirects a few times now... if I'd known that it wasn't a well-know feature, I would have posted an announcement somewhere. I know that when I started here, you couldn't categorize redirects, but I'm not sure exactly when that changed... with one of the recent upgrades, obviously. -- Renegade54 18:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I now merged the articles, making Aurora type a "categorized redirect" as described above - best of both worlds, hopefully... ;) I believe the image I added here has no place in the article at the moment. Could be kept to be re-added to the article once there's additional text. -- Cid Highwind 15:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Aurora type remastered Edit

Shouldn't Aurora type be a redirect to Class J starship now? --Pseudohuman 20:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Preferably after the episode had aired and this information was no longer considered a "spoiler"...but it seems someone went ahead and mucked that up already.... --Alan 20:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
That would be me, I guess... sorry. Someone already made the changes to the article so I figured I would move it to the changed name. Next time, I'll just revert it until after the episode aired. ;) --From Andoria with Love 06:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
For the record, I did say to feel free to move it back if it wasn't supposed to be moved. So... wanna move it back until it airs in all markets (i.e., by Monday)? --From Andoria with Love 06:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

And I initially changed the text. Sorry. I hadn't at the time read the spoiler policy all the way through. Even though the info could have been added as bg stuff... that would have spoiled the appearance as well. I see the point, as this minor detail really is the only thing you can spoil regarding this particular episode and the only new thing people are looking forward to finding out, who are waiting to see this episode. I will not be as proactive in the future now that I know the intentions of the policy better. Feel free to revert info in the Aurora, Class J etc. articles for the few days it takes for the episode to air. --Pseudohuman 10:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Well what's done is done, the information has been submitted no matter if you hide it or not. What kind of miffs me is that I've been patiently sitting on those rather exclusive "spoilers" since March/April which I had eagerly waited to add when the time was right only to be beaten to it by the overzealous. If that is the way we want to operate, I might at well start adding the rest of the info I have on subjects that is yet to be revealed. --Alan 13:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Again, my apologies. Even though it was mostly Pseudohuman's fault. (Kidding!! :D) I agree, though, that we should refrain from adding any further information from unaired remastered episodes. And, since you appear to have some of the info already at hand, I think we should leave it to you to add the info once the episodes air. --From Andoria with Love 14:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
It's all been added. Redirect has been updated as well. --Alan 15:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, I meant for all remaining remastered episodes as they air, not just this one. :) --From Andoria with Love 15:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Rename to SS Aurora Edit

Eaglemoss Class J Aurora

CGI model

I noted on the image of the CGI model that the ship's name was S.S. Aurora. I am arguing for a name change based on this image. What do you think?--Memphis77 (talk) 06:55, February 23, 2016 (UTC)

to be honest, the text on that looks more like the "SS AI" than the "SS Aurora". I think that it's fair to show that early CGI model in the background or use it on the models article, but the model itself is different than that which appeared on screen. -- sulfur (talk) 10:46, February 23, 2016 (UTC)

Registry number? Edit

Where is the Aurora's registry number NC-17740? I can't see it on any of the pictures. NetSpiker (talk) 03:46, March 15, 2016 (UTC)

On the nacelles. --Jörg (talk) 05:17, March 15, 2016 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-NC unless otherwise noted.