T'varo-class[]
It is possible that the 22nd century BOP is actually the same class as the T'varo from the 25th century. We're conservative with speculation here at Memory Beta. Thus, I wonder what would be the less speculative assumption - that these two ship classes are the same, or that the younger design was based on the older? -- Markonian 11:49, November 1, 2014 (UTC)
- You're right: we are conservative with speculation. I'm all for a bit of speculation as long as it's reasonable and the outcome is agreed upon by most (not all, as you can never please everyone as the saying goes!). This seems reasonable, although I am not really in a position to make an informed decision as I don't play STO (can't abide it, actually, and it's not part of my personal canon). Having said that, I'm going to add my two-penneth anyway: both ship classes look the same, just with different liveries; and the T'Varo article states that the class was based on the 22nd century design. Plus, it'd be a lot less clunky to have an actual name for the C.22 class rather than a description. -- Cyfa (talk) 12:16, November 1, 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed. Further arguments: If the T'varo-class was in continuous use since the 22nd century, we could merge the C.24 class as well.
- In STO, several ship classes of the 22nd century are still/again in use: The Raptor spawned its own lineage; the Somraw-class is a lookalike to the original. The Kumari-class was heavily refitted and is in use. The NX-class was revived (see USS Utopia), and the Vulcan D'Kyr-class has been in continuous service (it also appeared in the TOS comic "Vulcan's Vengeance"). Thus, it can be argued that the evidence supports the notion that the C.22 BOP and the T'varo-class are one and the same. I propose a merger of the C.22, C.24 and T'varo class articles. -- Markonian 19:57, December 29, 2014 (UTC)
Merge[]
Re: merge with T'varo class. The STO tooltip about the ship tells its an upgraded version of the BoP used in the 22nd century. In the meantime, STO has released more ships that have been in continued use, and reintroduced, since the 22nd century (like the Pralim class, and Xindi classes). I propose to merge the 22nd, 24thc and T'varo class articles. Kind regards, -- Markonian 21:11, January 28, 2018 (UTC)
- While the ENT RomBoP and the T'varo look almost identical and I would therefor support a merger of those two pages, we have no information on how the TNG RomBoP looks. It may well be of a completely different design, or maybe a variation of the TOS RomBoP. The point is, we don't have enough information in this case and I would therefor propose that we leave the TNG RomBoP out of this merger. - Bell'Orso (talk) 21:50, January 28, 2018 (UTC)
- Agreed on the TNG/24th century version not correlating with this discussion. But the ENT/22nd century version seems to be the same class as the STO/25th century version -- captainmike
21:56, January 28, 2018 (UTC)
- Agreed on the TNG/24th century version not correlating with this discussion. But the ENT/22nd century version seems to be the same class as the STO/25th century version -- captainmike
Sounds good. How do we perform the merger? Kind regards, -- Markonian 21:06, February 2, 2018 (UTC)