Spacedock as "Warp Five Complex"[]
Well, I tried to delete this info, but then it popped up again. I'm really not sure why, as there's not one scrap of canonical evidence to support it. Not even so much as an insignia. And really why would it be? The Warp Five Complex is part of the Warp Five program, which, obviously, preceded the NX test program. The NX Project, which sponsored the construciton of the NX-01, is far more likely to have its name attached to the drydock facility than the Warp Five program. But the absence of NX Project insignia on site mitigates that possibility, as well. There's no suggestion whatsoever that the Warp Five program was even a part of of Starfleet, except, perhaps, as a civilian contractor. Calling this drydock the "Warp Five Complex" is like saying Cape Canaveral is the "Boeing Complex". CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 13:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Non canon evidence, sure. That's why it's BG information. Especially the auction notes. The auction notes suggest that the "spacedock" in question was the complex. The other background note merely notes what it was called in the script and points out that they may or may not be the same. They're background note. Background. -- Sulfur 13:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Secondly... archive. Not delete. When you remove text, especially such a large amount, move it to the talk page and bring it up for discussion. Don't just arbitrarily remove it. -- Sulfur 13:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, I think I do tend to bring notes over to discussion pages when I'm not sure about a thing, or when I can see some rationale for keeping it. I didn't think archiving applied to stuff for which there is absolutely not one scrap of evidence. Besides, there's a history, and I left a detailed revision note. The stuff I deleted in this particular article was so obviously false, it simply didn't warrant a note on this talk page. Its removal seemed uncontroversial. As far as I can see, the only thing which ties the drydock to the Warp Five complex is this auction item. But I'm curious: does the blueprint actually say "Warp Five Complex" on it? The language you restored came from a point where the article was actually asserting, in the main body, that this drydock was a part of the Warp Five Complex (see original pic cap and order of drydock pic). Sounds to me like the blueprint doesn't actually say "Warp Five Complex", but that the original editor, believing the two facilities part of the same thing, was saying that the the blueprint calls the drydock Orbital Drydock Facility 314, Station 15 B. If the auction item doesn't say something like "Warp Five Complex Launch facility, Orbital Drydock Facility 314, Station 15 B", then there's not even non-canon support for this notion.
The assertion of the Warp Five program article has long been that that the W5P, quite logically, preceded the NX Program—something which can actually be inferred from on-screen information. For this article to say, even in background, that the launchpad for the NX-01 was a part of the Warp Five complex confuses readers who may be leafing through the various articles about this early stage in Star Trek history. That it has no on-screen support, nor even (apparently) hard non-canon support just makes it absolutely pointless information to include in this article.
While background notes are rightly given fairly wide latitude in the things they can assert, they can't just say anything. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 05:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter how sure you are about the deletion. It's still best to bring removed text to the talk page, especially when you're removing as much as you did in that edit. I agree with you that it was not a good fit for the way it was previously presented and that the assertions may have been in error. Having said that, it does suit a background note, whether here or on the Spacedock article. And yes, it may be more suited to that one than this. It's hard to say. At least having it on the talk page enables that discussion. Simply removing it loses the text. Yes, it's in the history, but it's still not readily available.
- In terms of the blueprints comment, that one obvbiously belongs on this article. And I say obviously because it makes notes about the subject of the article. No, I haven't seen the auction item myself, and even if it said it in 5" high letters, it wouldn't make the item canon. That's why it's indented and italicized, to indicate that it's a potentially interesting point of note for someone. Nothing more... just that it's something to note. -- Sulfur 12:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Red image[]
Image no longer exists. Anyone know where it went? — Morder (talk) 20:20, November 30, 2009 (UTC)
- It has to be one of these: File:Enterprise (NX-01) in drydock.jpg, File:Enterprise (NX-01) leaving drydock.jpg, "File:Enterprise departs spacedock.jpg". - Archduk3:talk 20:24, November 30, 2009 (UTC)
_in_drydock.jpg){kind=link}
_leaving_drydock.jpg){kind=link}
removed[]
I removed
The Enterprise departs the "spacedock"
The docking facility Enterprise launches from in "Broken Bow" may be part of the Complex, but this was never confirmed. The facility was referred to as a "Spacedock" in the episode's script.
as speculation. There is absolutely no onscreen or dialogue evidence that drydock is part of the same complex. On the contrary, the Warp 5 Complex is specifically referred to as being located on Earth. However, if someone thinks I'm being overzealous in the removal, so be it. -Angry Future Romulan 20:46, May 10, 2010 (UTC)