Talk: Class F shuttlecraft

Dates of service format

While I see the point of not adding question marks before (or after) hyphens (they were there to keep the hyphens away from the cell border), I think that specificity is better when listing dates. Thus " - at least 2271" rather than " "circa 2271" (which should probably be "c. 2271") when we know that the year was 2271, and not simply one near it.

A number of authors use Memory Beta as a reference; it would probably be a help to them (and to detail-oriented fanfic writers and the like) if we were as specific as possible when making a list like this.

Just my two cents. --Archimedean 22:33, September 28, 2011 (UTC)

Here's another point of view - if someone is looking for exact dates of provenance for any particular topic, they'll probably click the link and read the actual article. Those people will have the advantage of seeing every specific detail spelled out for them in a full-length article.

There is a limit to how much information can be imparted in a listing chart or table - and when it involves various question marks to show unknown quantities, dashes to show duration, and no readable words or statements, unfortunately an author using this as a reference would not be able to decipher the array of "? – at least ? year – ?" presented to them. I certainly had no idea what you meant until you explained it here. If no one understands what you are writing, it fails as a reference, doesn't it?

The lists and charts can present generalized data quite efficiently while the linked articles themselves can spell out the more in-depth and arcane details you were (apparently) trying to impart. -- Captain MKB 22:46, September 28, 2011 (UTC)

I can see your point about including excessive detail (I thought it was a good one on Grand Admiral of the Imperial Starfleet), but I disagree that the service date details are better presented elsewhere. If someone is looking for the dates of service of, say the Einstein, they will click on that article, yes. But what if they want to know which shuttles were in service in 2268?

If the dates are included here (which is fairly standard practice in encyclopedic lists: [1] [2]), that information will be easy to obtain. But if those dates are excluded here, the answer to that question would require searching each of the individual articles - where the articles exist - and making a separate list on their own of the shuttles that meet that critera.

I think it would be better to settle upon a format that we can agree is clear, but which includes slightly more specificity in the dates. (Basically, I'd like to separate true c. 22XX entries from entries known to be active in 22XX specifically, and not just a year in its vicinity.) --Archimedean 00:25, September 29, 2011 (UTC)

I have to say, that's a different interpretation of "circa" than I'm used to, and I'm not sure if the extra meaning you're trying to read into it is necessary.

If someone held the office circa 2267, it means that we don't know when the office began or ended but we are presenting the date we are aware of. I think the vague notation is called for as, in some cases, the person could have assumed office immediately before the presentation (without our knowledge, as omitted by sources) or been removed immediately after the source specifies (again, we don't know). But I do think that the "circa" references, combined with awareness our policy of only using valid sources, makes it clear that we can count the person as having been in the office in 2267. I can't see what other data you are trying to impart, besides that earlier and later in 2267, as well as 2266 and 2268, 69, etc. are unknown quantities. The individual articles will clarify that, of course, as I've already stated. If the individual articles do not state these facts clearly, then the original articles should be corrected. I don't think this is a reason to change the way we present data in charts, which has already been discussed and used as a standard on this site. -- Captain MKB 00:35, September 29, 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me, but I would read c. 2267 similarly to a reference from 2287 saying that something happened "20 years ago" - thus in a year near 2267, but not necessarily that year. I think the format I've seen most often when a specific year is known would be "by 2267 - ", which I think is used on some pages here. --Archimedean 00:56, September 29, 2011 (UTC)

Strange, since I think that "circa 2267" means "2267 and maybe before or after too", and that's how we've been using it here, without any serious complaint, for years.

"by 2267" really doesn't mean anything to me. I can't see why anyone would want to use it and i don't think there would be any advantage to adopting such usage, as it is confusing... -- Captain MKB 01:21, September 29, 2011 (UTC)

Circa properly means "approximately" or "about" (Wikitionary:circa). It's generally used for dates or measurements one is uncertain about, or an estimate with some degree of uncertainty attached. Some uses of it are given at circa. For example, circa 2267 implies 2267±2 (or ±1, or ±5, depending), so the date could be somewhere in 2265–2269. The exact date is unknown; it could equally be 2266 as 2269. So, Archimedean's is the correct usage.

Bear in mind, a shuttle may be constructed, used and destroyed all in one year. All one can really about a shuttle that appeared in 2267 is that it was used in 2267. To avoid confusion, I'd suggest stating events specifically, where known; i.e., "constructed 2226, used 2267". Could that work?

I'm going to have to do some more research on the use of a ? to indicate unknown data.

Another point is that ranges are indicated by an en dash, –, not a hyphen, -. Unfortunately, they look the same in a Wikia editor. -- BadCatMan 02:25, September 29, 2011 (UTC)

Aside from the Delta Flyer, I don't think we've ever seen a shuttle constructed. I labeled the column header "service dates" to indicate that the dates are those when the shuttle was known to be in service.

I didn't realize that the separator was properly an en dash. Thanks. : ) --Archimedean 02:44, September 29, 2011 (UTC)

I still don't understand what wouldn't be clear about simply listing the dates without unnecessary qualifiers. If a shuttle was in use "until 2277" and then it was destroyed, what else is there to say, if we don't know if it was built? If an admiral was promoted and in service "from 2268" but we don't know when he left service, stating that he was in service "from 2268" imparts the whole bulk of the knowledge. Finally, if we saw a shuttle in the year 2363 and we don't know when it was launched/built, and we don't know when it was destroyed/decommissioned, then it is absolutely true that it was in service "circa 2363" - in service in 2363, and possibly before and possibly after. The concern that "circa 2363" might not include 2363 is not borne out by the fact that the source citation would take place in 2363, thus confirming that uncertainty. There really isn't any reason to introduce more complexity that certainly isn't apparent to the casual reader - the casual reader will get the basic information from the chart, and the researcher/author/fanfic writer will be able to read the whole article to get a deeper look. -- Captain MKB 21:04, September 29, 2011 (UTC)

I apologise if my more mathematical definition was confusing. It wasn't meant to suggest a range of definite dates (every date in this range), but a range of possible dates (one date in this range).

You might be working off an incorrect definition of circa as meaning, say, circling around or centering a range or something. Maybe that was true in Latin, but its proper usage in modern English is "approximately". If you say "circa 2363" then all you are really saying is "estimated to be 2363, with some uncertainty" or "some time in the early 2360s".

If this shuttle only had an appearance in 2363, a confirmed date, then it would be losing accuracy to say "circa 2363" (i.e., early 2360s), and it would be inventing data to suppose some range of dates around it. The shuttle may have been constructed five years ago, it may have been constructed last week - this information simply is not known. All you can say with any certainty is that it had an appearance in 2363 only. -- BadCatMan 02:12, September 30, 2011 (UTC)

Condescending language aside - i understood your mathematical example, and I've addressed your concerns about the uncertainty and accurate meaning of the term "circa" - I still fail to see why "circa" would not meet the requirement of communicating the information. Saying that something was "approximately 2363" does indeed place 2363 in the range of accurate results, no matter how much you try to formulate a reasoning simply to be contrary. Everything else here is turning into a circular argument, and there's no need for it. Perhaps for those shuttles where the construction date and destruction date are not known, but a single date reference is known should be "circa 2360s (2363)" to satisfy this burning need to express that the shuttle existed in 2363 but might have existed in the previous and latter year, but might not have. -- Captain MKB 02:27, September 30, 2011 (UTC)

Using "circa" in this sense is a problem because "circa/approximately/about 2363" implies that 2363 is an estimate and allows for the possibility that the event/appearance actually took place in 2362 or 2364, and not in 2363. So precision is lost.

FWIW, "circa 2360s" implies a date range across the 2350s, 60s and 70s.

I'm not sure it's possible to divine a shuttle's service history off one date. However, the existing Service date column should work well enough: "2363" tells us the shuttle was in service in 2363, and lets the reader or Archimedean's hypothetical author decide when else it might have been in service.

I'm trying not to be condescending here, nor am I being contrary. I'm simply working off the dictionary definition and standard usage of the word, and trying to clear up some apparent confusion. -- BadCatMan 03:39, September 30, 2011 (UTC)

The dictionary definition fits just fine -- the intention IS to illustrate the possibility that the shuttle in question could have been in service in 2362 and 2364 -- even though we have 2363 as the concrete year, the use of "circa" is not trying to establish the concrete 2363 - the intention is to illustrate that there is an unknown quantity that preceeds and follows, the possibility of 2362 and 2364. Shuttles aren't spontaneously created, they have unknown lengths of service time preceeding and following their single appearances. The use of "circa" creates a readable standard to eliminate arcane and confusing constructions such as "?–2363–?" which looks more like a piece of miswritten code rather than a readable expression. -- Captain MKB 04:03, September 30, 2011 (UTC)

Then circa is not the correct word to use for this purpose.

And no, I don't know what is, nor can I think of a concise and unambiguous way of stating such a thing. But I think in this context a simple date of "2363" carries with it an implicit reference to "some time before" and "some time after" - i.e., "Service date: 2363" implying "was in service in 2363" and maybe some time before and after. Readers should be able work it out. -- BadCatMan 04:30, September 30, 2011 (UTC)

A simple date doesn't necessarily imply service surrounding that date, unfortunately. A shuttle first seen in 2363, and destroyed that same year would probably have been in service before that year, but wouldn't be in service after.

An unambiguous format for what you describe would be something like "by 2363 - ", which I agree isn't perfect, but rules out other possibilities. Maybe we could use something along these lines:

c. 2368 (an uncertain year or years near 2368)

by 2368 (in service/destroyed by 2368; i.e. first seen that year, or known destroyed by that year)

2368 (first in service/destroyed in 2368)

Leading or trailing dates could be omitted unless both were known.

For example, the second Galileo was first seen in 2265, and was destroyed in 2267, so it would be listed as "by 2265 - 2267". The Einstein was first seen in 2267. and was destroyed that year, so it would be listed as " - 2267". If someone said that a hypothetical Columbine entered service "about thirty years ago" in a 2297 reference, it would listed as "c. 2267 - ". --Archimedean 22:42, September 30, 2011 (UTC)

"By xxxx" is okay, but may get wordy, especially if we add in other descriptors.

Just thinking of style-type stuff... A sparse table is acceptable in this sort of thing, a slow piecing-together of scattered factoids. The question marks for absent data are messy in a sparse table, but I don't think we have to use them. A blank space should be fine. Also, ideally, a en-dashed range would specify beginning and end points. Mixing years and stardates is ugly but may be unavoidable, but stardates can be converted back to approximate years.

I'll try these, leaving out appearance dates.

• 2268 – 2268: came off the assembly line and destroyed in the same year, 2268
• 2265 – : built 2265, service continuing, fate unknown
• –2267: in service until 2267
• c. 2266 – : built approx. 2266, service continuing, fate unknown
• – c. 2269 : in service until approximately 2269

How does that look? Putting appearance dates does confuse the issue of when built and when destroyed. Would a separate column for appearances be worthwhile, do you think? For example,

• Galileo: Service dates: – 2267; Appearances: 2265, 2267
• Einstein: Service dates: – 2267; Appearances: 2267
• Columbine: Service dates: c. 2267 –; Appearances: <blank>
• Unlucky Larry: Service dates: 2268 – 2268; Appearances: 2268
• The Once-Off: Service dates: <blank>; Appearances: c. 2265
• Random: Service dates: c. 2264 – c. stardate 2/09; Appearances: c. 2264, 2819.3, c. 2/09

This might also solve potential problems with time travel. -- BadCatMan 08:51, October 2, 2011 (UTC)

I had suggested and other users had accepted "until" and "from" as descriptors for these cases, and I like those best. He served "until 2363" or he served "from 2363".

Also, there's no way in hell we should ever use a leading or trailing dash that doesn't have information on both sides of it. This just bad typography and the wiki deserves better. -- Captain MKB 15:43, October 2, 2011 (UTC)

"Until", "from", "by", "to", "in" etc. are also good, if they don't get too wordy. It's simply a choice of whether to write out the potential range in a long form or to use en dashes for a short for.

Actually, the Chicago Manual of Style permits a trailing en dash for a unfinished range:

6.79 En dash with an unfinished number range: "An en dash may be used to indicate a number range that is ongoing—for example, to indicate the dates of a serial publication or to give the birth date of a living person. No space intervenes between the en dash and the mark of punctuation that follows." (quoted since a login may be needed).

En dashes generally should not have spaces around them, except where this gets confusing with other information, such as circas and stardates, so my examples above included spaces for all for consistency. -- BadCatMan 02:52, October 3, 2011 (UTC)

conflicting data regarding craft dimensions

The ST reference: USS Enterprise Owners' Workshop Manual gives a length of 7.3 meters for the class F, while the ST reference: Spaceflight Chronology gives a length of 6.8 meters, a width of 4.1 mters and a height of 2.3 meters. Now, the OWM also gives dimensions and other stats for TNG era shuttles and all of those correspond to those given in the TNG reference: Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual, apparently having been simply copied over, so my question is: Is there a second source for the 7.3 meter length? - Bell'Orso (talk) 21:56, September 23, 2015 (UTC)

There are quite a few sources remaining to be checked, but given the different outfittings possible of the shuttle design used over a number of years, i'd say most of the close variants (we seem to be looking at +/- less than 1m) could be explained by design variation. I don't think we necessarily need to start delving much deeper into expounding upon the contradiction. In reality the sources had poor consistency, but in Starfleet a slight length difference could be explained by a slightly different contour of the nacelle or forward or rear hull (just as different nacelles and outcroppings account for different lengths/widths/heights of ships of the Constitution class or Excelsior class, for example)

The sources remaining probably include Starships and Starship Spotter, as well as FASA, LUG and the Star Fleet Technical Manual itself. A summary of their side views would probably be useful too since they all show shuttles that are shaped slightly differently as well, based on the individual artists who interpreted the design. -- Captain MKB

Well, I guess for now I'll leave in the stats from the Spaceflight Chronology, since that one has at least a full set, unlike the OWM. I was simply hesitant to do that, because the Chronology has long been superceded as just that, given how it puts the 1701's launch date in 2188 instead of 2245. - Bell'Orso (talk) 12:35, September 24, 2015 (UTC)

Our rule of thumb is to honor canon, but i doubt we can look there for numerical answers. It might be best to identify a rough range of lengths available in the sidebar (or even an approximation) and then source them in the text. The focus should be on adding useful information to the article and not just to the sidebar. -- Captain MKB 23:40, September 24, 2015 (UTC)