Category talk:Starships

From FEInfobase

Naming Conventions & Disambiguation

There's a bit of change in how some vessel articles are titled. When there's more than one with the same name (for example, the Two Ronnies), it seems the norm to have, [[USS Ship (NCC-12345)]]. But we've got USS Excalibur NX 100000 and USS Enterprise NCC 1701 – E showing two different styles. I'd suggest moving such pages so they fall in line with the scheme used for the Ronny, but hesitate to do so myself, in case there's some justification I'm unaware of.

Regarding the Disambiguation pages, they don't seem like the best choice in some situations. To use the Ronny as an example again, both pages are small stubs, so it seems logical to have them on the same page until such time as one of them is large enough to warrant an individual article, in which case I'd recommend retaining a small summary paragraph on the disambig page along with the link. The USS Essex page is a good example as well. Of the three linked articles, only one isn't marked as a stub and even that's borderline, and of the other two one has practically no content whatsoever, and the other (the Daedalus) is unlikely to ever evolve much past its current length. The USS Yorktown (NCC-1717-F) article is also a very small stub. I'm not saying individual starships should never have their own pages as there are cases when the detail on a ship is so available that to include it on a page alongside other vessels would be confusing and harder to manage (The Enterprise-E article is a good example), but where vessels only warrant a paragraph or so, why use up extra space with a new article when you can simply throw them all together - this also saves time for people trying to access pages as they don't have to go that step further. Memory Alpha format their starship pages with numerous entries on one page where the name is shared (USS Essex) and though we're of course not retrained by their practice, it seems to be the most logical course of action. - Chris 14:29, 12 February 2006 (EST)

We do follow some of Memory Alpha's practice in keeping particular names of ships together USS Galaxy, USS Defiant and USS Voyager are all pure examples of these.

The use of disambiguation I believe comes down to the creator if they feel its required. For example I know Dan has notes somewhere on both the Yorktown-E and Yorktown-F to add to the infobase - it would depend on how much he would want to add to the ship's history, etc.

I like the idea of renaming particular ship articles so they all conform to the standards of USS Something (NCC-00000-Z) as the title of the article. ~MJ

Uniform is good.-Cash

I moved the mentioned pages, as well as USS Excalibur which was, rather than a disambig, about the one vessel (#2). I fixed the links that went there except those on Starfleet Re-Exploration Initiative and it's dual page pending whatever edits are made to those, and now the USS Excal page can be used for link to both ships' pages. - Chris 07:05, 14 February 2006 (EST)

Category Listing

I changed a couple of the starships pages so they list better here. Before for example, you'd have the RR-A showing above the RR. I changed the Category at the bottom on some pages so rather than something like [[Category:Starships|Excalibur (NX-10), USS]] or [[Category:Starships|Excalibur2, USS]], you've got [[Category:Starships|Enterprise, USS, E]]. The reason I changed it like this, is just so they list 'in order' on the category page. Because the Excalibur is a bit of a special case, instead of A or B, I used |Excalibur, USS, 0]] and |Excalibur, USS, 1]], simply so if an Excalibur-A comes along in the future there's less confusion. I also added 0 to the Yorktown disambig page, and F to the 1717-F page. The theory being then, that if you have articles on all the Yorktowns, they'll list perfectly, and the world will keep spinning. :) - Chris 06:13, 15 February 2006 (EST)

Although, all that being said, the Essex articles show quite well that |Essex-A, USS]] and the like work quite well. The only problem with those is, that the one marked as B isn't actually the B ship, but the theory's sound. :P - Chris 06:16, 15 February 2006 (EST)