FANDOM


if there is only one known class, there probably isn't a good reason to start a category here. i suggest this category be deleted. -- Captain MKB 14:40, June 22, 2010 (UTC)

There isn't only one class. More articles on the way--8of5 15:53, June 22, 2010 (UTC):
Federation Starfleet starship classes (Kelvin timeline)
UFP Kelvin seal ArbiterConstitutionDefenderDreadnoughtEinsteinGuardianHermesInterceptorSaladinsee also: unnamed Federation starship classes (Kelvin timeline) 2250s alt cmd badge


Wow i didn't realize there were sources that specified so many... new book? -- Captain MKB 16:16, June 22, 2010 (UTC)

The D-A-C video game. Five classes and eleven starship names, unfortunately those names are applied completely at random to any ship of any class! --8of5 17:06, June 22, 2010 (UTC)

So 55 ships, according to the precedent we set with the ST LEgacy klingon and romulan ships all having the same names as each other... -- Captain MKB 01:44, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, looking at the Legacy article that set-up is a little different to how I planned to handle the D-A-C ships. I was intending to make one articles for each of the given names, describing it pretty generically as a Federation starship operating in that era. Then in the background note describe how, due to the way the software works, the ship could be a member of any of the five classes. Thereby avoiding 44 articles with practically nothing to them. --8of5 12:55, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
Well, I don't see the detraction of defining each of them for completeness sake. I'd rather we stick with precedent as it gives us mnore opportunity to define each ship. -- Captain MKB 13:53, June 23, 2010 (UTC).

But there's nothing to define. Whether it's 22 or 110 articles (as it's the same with the Romulan side) they're all saying more or less: "this ship might of existed, but it might also of been a member of a different class, and we don't really know what it did" :P --8of5 14:32, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry didn't explain that very clearly, what I mean is: This is a little like schrodinger's cat; we know a starship exists, and in theory it can occupy every given class, but in practice when we open the box/play the game it comes out as one class. So would it not be simpler to admit we don't know what class these ships are, are describe that fact, than to create articles for both a dead and living cat... --8of5 14:44, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

I think that covering all those possible ships as individual ships gives us a complete list -- a list of all ships a reader/player could possibly see of that class. I'd say we should follow the earlier precedent and go for the most complete lists possible by fleshing out each article. There is something to define, each ship is possible to occur in the game, with a defined name, class, affiliation and time period. Sounds like quite a bit to define, actually. -- Captain MKB 20:06, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

All of which could be defined on a single page per name describing the name, affiliation, time period, and fact that each given name has no definite class. Making 110 articles instead of 22 isn't fleshing out, it's cloning! :P --8of5 20:30, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

Yes the articles would all be very similar, but I favor giving each possibility equal time, as has been done in the past with the similar case. -- Captain MKB 20:33, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

Just because it's been done before doesn’t mean it's the best solution ;) Unless someone is willing to swing this one way or the other I intend to make those 22 articles. If you are so inclined feel free to do a bit of cloning. --20:45, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

I'd say do it the same way as Legacy was done. It gives a much more complete listing of possible ships and the precedent has already been established, and I don't see a reason to change it.--Long Live the United Earth 01:44, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Then the argument is duly swayed. I'll get on those 110 articles in due course. Yippee! --8of5 01:53, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Lol, sorry for causing you extra work 8.--Long Live the United Earth 02:08, June 24, 2010 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.