FANDOM


Ten Forward"categoried" and ship class templates (Reply | Watch)


I reeeaaally hate how the "categoried template is alway on the right of the page. I'd prefer it to be centered like all the other templates I'm aware of. But is there a reason for this? If not, is anyone opposed to me changing that? Also, several starship classes have appeared in two or more reference works and therefor have two or more sets of stats. I've seen the template for the Saber class subdivided both by affiliation and configuration (apparently, some sources list the class as light cruisers, others as destroyers, others again as frigates). I've noticed other ship classes where the corresponding templates are not (yet) subdivided. For example the D'Kora class, which appeared in two different games (both of which do not provide much, if anything, in the way of actual stats, but each categorizes the class differently). Where that is the case, would it be OK to subdivide the template accordingly? - Bell'Orso (talk) 00:34, July 17, 2017 (UTC)

"Categoried"?Edit

if you're talking about {{categoried}}, i really didnt like the idea of it being centered (looking like it was floating and pushing down the rest of the page content, especially if it is at top of page), and if it was centered, there was a chance it would overstrike the name of the subsection (if the name was long enough to get to the center of the content area)

those are the two logical reasons it is right layout. i'm not sure what 'other templates' you are referring to because there arent many similar to this one, most other templates belong at the bottom of a page or subsection, where the two concerns i listed arent as severe.

and, yes, logically this belongs at the head of the page and subsection that is categoried. one similar template (that introduces the subsection by describing its contents) is {{realworld}}, which is similarly right of layout (presumably due to same concerns) -- captainmike Wiki-wordmark 01:19, July 17, 2017 (UTC)

By "other templates" i was talking about stub templates etc. Stuff that usually goes at the bottom of the page, as you said. - Bell'Orso (talk) 05:59, July 17, 2017 (UTC)

Ship class templatesEdit

Yes, we should describe both ships.

As always, beyond designing a complex code infrastructure to make a sidebar templates bifurcate two sets of information, i'd have to point out that the sidebars should NOT be considered the most important or necessary part of the article. I havent reverted users trying to do two sets of sidebars on top of each other, but i do NOT consider this to be a great accomplishment when they occur and would recommend we move away from the practice

Those paragraphs to the left of the sidebars, if you've ever noticed them, can be used for a wealth of information. Just in case you've never considered it, you can literally write a description of multiple sets of information into the body of any article right now without any preemptive discussion.

I really want to emphasize that the predilection towards choosing to add complex sets of info to sidebars without taking efforts to upkeep the body of the article is one of the most negative editing behaviors i currently observe on this wiki. its entirely possible to make a loose summary of the article in the sidebar and then add more robust sets of data in the body, under the sidebar. And that's what I recommend. -- captainmike Wiki-wordmark 01:19, July 17, 2017 (UTC)

I see I have not made myself clear enough, so let me clarify: I was talking about infoboxes in ship class articles, but ship class templates like {{Saber class}} and {{D'Kora class}} at the bottoms of starship articles. Basically what I'm asking for here is permission to subdivide the second template in a manner similar to the first one, as the marauders that appeared in "BotF" are referred to as battleships and those that appeared in "Armada" as scavengers. And I'm sure the same principle applies to other ship classes, like the Klingon Vor'cha or the Romulan D'deridex. - Bell'Orso (talk) 05:59, July 17, 2017 (UTC)
I think I was the one who'd done this to the {{Saber class}} template. it's not a bad idea, as long as its logically applied.
The possible flaw in logic would be applying a designation to ships from certain sources that do no explicitly state the designation. Sometimes we aren't dealing with a different ship. Sometimes we're just dealing with two sets of terminology describing the same modification. Is a "marauder" really different from a "scavenger"? -- captainmike Wiki-wordmark 10:37, July 17, 2017 (UTC)
Example
Saber-class starships
Federation Starfleet
(primary universe)
standard light cruiser configuration ArianBellinghamBhuttoChakaCutlassda VinciDenmarkDosalnarFalchionGagarinGarzaHrisalKal'HrisKatanaKhwarizmiLaplaceLarueLu'gharaLuxembourgMarco PoloMek'lethMercuryMontgolfierMusgravePetersonSaberSandersSchirraScimitarSentrySharpesShasqaShepardStortaT'PoraTriumphTulwarVeldarYeager UFP seal Starfleet Command logo
destroyer configuration AsamaBardabungaBayudaFalcon IslandGrimsvotnHarujHeklaIschiaJan MayenKilaueaKoroKrafgaKverkfjollLaboLaconaLagafellLarderriloLongongiManarunuManengoubaMaroaMarsabitMauna KeaMenengaiMetis ShoalOkuPeleRotoruaSan CarlosSixxSuswaTamboraTarso VoonTaupoTaveuniTofuaTongariroVesuviusVulsiniWallis Island
frigate configuration AmstrongAndersonChakaDegrasseDoolittleDu BoisGarveyGleavesHalseyHosegawaHughesJonesMcCluskyNimitzRandolphReynoldsRichard I. BongSaberSenyavinSpruanceThomas B. McGuire, Jr.TowersVilleneuveWhitetreeYeager
other variant configurations Gladius-subclass: ArmstrongGladiusRapier-subclass: Rapier
Terran Imperial Starfleet
(mirror universe)
Saber TerranEmpire


Well, in the case of the D'Kora class, what stood out to me where the designations "marauder battleship" (from "BotF") and "marauder scavenger" (from "Armada") given consistently on the individual ship pages. Of course, ships that have never appeared in either game and therefor never been classified as either of the above (like those exclusive to novels), would go into an "other configurations" subdivision of the template in my proposed redesign, similar to what you did with the above. - Bell'Orso (talk) 11:29, July 17, 2017 (UTC)
I like the Saber template in this example. It looks neat, and it is easier to get than overview than if all the ships were lumped together. I agree that is not suitable in every instance (e.g. Klingon battlecruiser vs. battleship), but classes that do enjoy configuration mods would benefit from it. Kind regards, -- Markonian 20:46, July 17, 2017 (UTC)

I went ahead and made amockup of the revised D'Kora class template at User:Bell'Orso/temp#ship class templates. Note that, even though I put all four currently unwritten ship pages in the "other configurations" section, I believe that at least one of them is an "STO"-only ship (of which I am unsure if that game gives another subclassification to "marauder" the way the games "Armada" and "BotF" or the RPG "Starships" do) and therefor belongs there, but the other three might be sourced from "Armada" and therefor belong in the "scavenger configuration" section. - Bell'Orso (talk) 21:45, July 17, 2017 (UTC)

Seems like you've covered it pretty well -- captainmike Wiki-wordmark 10:45, July 18, 2017 (UTC)
just as a conclusion, besides thanking you for tackling on of our famous "multi=source" issues, i'd say the most complicated set of similar situation might require logically derived sublistings -- for example, a source that is 'cruiser' in canon but has been used as a 'battleship' of 'dreadnought' in derivative works might derive that some hero ship was both a cruiser and battleship as well as a dreadnought at multiple times during its career or that it simply had multiple classifications the whole time. the Saber class example breaks off two sublists based on NPC ships from two games, but theres always the necessity to recognize ships mentioned as multiple configuarations either simultaneously or changing over the course of a career. but regardless nicely done. -- captainmike Wiki-wordmark 03:43, July 22, 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, I did notice that both the "Saber" and the "Yeager" appear in two different sublists each on the "Saber class" template, and I did the same with the "Krayton" and "Kreechta", two ships that were named in canon episodes and appeared in multiple licensed sources. Anyway, I'll go ahead and update the "D'Kora class" template now and go looking at which others might be in need of similar upgrades. - Bell'Orso (talk) 09:23, July 22, 2017 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.