moved from Talk:Robot transport shipEdit

changed the title slightly -- i'm just not sure that these cargo ships were meant especially for grain -- they could probably transport any type of cargo, even though the description "robot grain ship" is specific to their TAS use. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk

Life supportEdit

so, if there isn't any life support, why does it have so many large windows?-- 22:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Because that is how it was drawn. --OuroborosCobra 22:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
That was Jessica Rabbit's explanation.... -- Captain M.K.B.
And she wasn't bad, was she? ;-) --OuroborosCobra talk 18:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I would guess, now thanks to TOS-R, they would be there because the ship was probably at one time a manned vessel. --Alan 03:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, it kind of all makes sense now if you take the dialog from "The Ultimate Computer", which describes the Woden (now remastered as this type of ship) as "as an old-style ore freighter converted to automation..." So the TAS version of this ship is the semi-retired version. --Alan del Beccio 23:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Antares type vs. Woden type (moved from Talk:Woden type)Edit

In the spirit of simplification, I'm thoroughly glad the bastardization of the Antares-type was discussed prior to the creation of this page, as lifted off the latter, as I fail to see the necessity. What's next, Enterprise-A-type, Enterprise-B-type, Venture-type...? C'mon already... --Alan 20:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

In that light, a simple question: Is this ship the same class as this ship?
If it is, then why do we need to have two pages here, where we're, too, talking about just a different module attached to the same basic ship design, and do not even have some official class designation to worry about, but just a more informal type definition? -- Cid Highwind 20:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
That's totally irrelevant. The fact is there is no on screen evidence that the Woden class is the same class as the Antares. Automatically assuming that this is so, we should then make all models based on the Batris the same class, declare the Raging Queen and Curry the same class, and merge the Soyuz and Miranda classes. In those cases, we don't
Assuming they are the same class would only work if there were no on screen contraditions to the theory "similar models=same class". The Yellowstone/Danube classes and the Saladin/Hermes are proven instances that differences don't even have to be that prominent, even visible. The Soyuz and Miranda classes show that variations of models can still be two distinct classes. It would be different if they clearly said on screen "The Woden is a Woden class ship" and "the Antaries is a Woden class ship". Then it could be considered a class variant, like the Enterprise-B or the Saratoga 31911.
Not only that, but our prior approach brought on too much speculation. It assumes that the Woden and NCC-Gs were both converted and once looked like the Antaries-type, whereas there is no on-screen evidence that they ever looked different or once had "crew sections". Maybe they never changed in appearance. But is not our right to assume anything.
Besides, it is much easier to say the two types could be the same class then it is to have one type and conjecturing that they could be different classes. In the latter example, we are automatically assuming something, while with the former we are just going with what the on-screen evidence shows us. Ambassador/Ensign_Q 21:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Your use of the term "speculation" is certainly relative, especially when choosing to use it in your favor, seeing as one could either speculate that they weren't described as being two different classes, or speculate that they were. More evidence supports the latter than the former, I'm afraid. In the case of the Woden, it was described (as I mentioned on talk:Antares type) "as an old-style ore freighter converted to automation...". If it was "converted" from one thing to another, then that explains that a variation exists. Visual evidence supports this as well... --Alan 21:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Following Ensign Q's suggestion to its logical end would mean that we're going to frack our whole system of starship class/type classifications good, hard and beyond all recognition - after all, most of the time a model is reused, we don't get ridiculous dialogue as, for example: "Captain, this ship out there, looking just like the Lollipop-class ship we encountered last week. It's a Lollipop-class ship, too, I just checked my copy of Jane's Federation ship recognition manual(TM)!"
If we can't even trust visual evidence of one ship looking like the next to mean that those ships do indeed have the same class (unless specifically noted otherwise), we'll have to give up all of our class articles completely. -- Cid Highwind 09:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
>In the case of the Woden, it was described (as I mentioned on talk:Antares type) "as an old-style ore freighter converted to automation...". If it was "converted" from one thing to another, then that explains that a variation exists. Visual evidence supports this as well...
So? There is no evidence that it was ever like the Antares. Those lines are to be taken with a grain of salt anyway, considering they were originally describing a DY-style vessel anyway. Nor is there any evidence, as I said before, that Antares-types can be converted to automation by removing the command section. That is speculation. We don't know how extensive the conversion was at all.
There is a key difference between the scenario described by Cid Highwind and the situtation presented itself here, as well as the "problems" suggested by Alan above, where he suggest that we would need to make a page about an "Enterprise-B type" and a "Venture type" if we go with the solution I have implemented here. This is complete nonsense. The Enterprise-B was always meant to be an Excelsior class, as seen on the "Dedication Wall" and confirmed by production sources. There is also onscreen evidence that proves this. The Lakota, which is identical to the Enterprise-B, was verbally identified as an "Excelsior class". In this case, there is clear on-screen confirmation that the Enterprise-B is an Excelsior-class. The Venture has no such verbal reference, but production sources confirmed it was a Galaxy-class. Also, the later CGi version of the ship was identical to the USS Galaxy prototype seen in the same episode, so once again there is on-screen confimation that the Venture was a Galaxy-class.
Other similar examples of this? The Constitution-class refit (confirmed with on-screen evidence), the Ambassador-class refit, etc. In these cases, there is always production source info and oncreen evidence, whether it be an obscure Okudagram or whatever, that confirms that these ship "types" are just variants of the same class.
However, for MA to declare that the Woden and Antaries are all part of the same class, there would have to be clear on-screen evidence that says modifications of models are always of the same class. This is clearly contradicted by the Saladin/Hermes and the Danube/Yellowstone. Both cases show that the differences between classes can vary to being a slightly different number of phasers arrays (in the case of the Saladin/Hermes) to being completely internal (Danube/Yellowstone). The Soyuz/Miranda classes show that even if the classes look similar enough for one to be considered a variant of the other, they can still be seperate classes. The Talarian Freighter Batris model has been reused and modified several times to act as different ships, but there is no way they are all the same class [1]. The orbital shuttle and the Sydney class may share a simlar model, but they are definitely two distinct ship types.
In the case of the Curry-type, we have stated that the Raging Queen is not the same class as the Curry, even though the changes are arguably even less than that of the Antares/Woden. So why are we looking at the Antares/Woden so differently? Other than admitting to using a similar base model, neither Okuda or any of the TOS-R production staff have indicated that the Antares and the Woden are the same class. So the pairing of these two ship types is based purely on the faulty theory that "similar models = same class", which I have proven is not true in canon. We don't even know the class name of the two ships, like we did in the examples Alan provided. We are therefore dealing in unknowns, and when dealing in unknowns, we go with what the screen evidence tells us. In this case, the screen evidence shows that the Woden and the TAS Robot Grain Ships are similar but different from the Antaries. Period. Since both Woden-type and Antares-type are preliminary designations anyway, the background section is effective in allowing the reader to decide whether or not the the two classes are one and the same, whilist having both types in one article is forcing speculation down the reader's throat. Ambassador/Ensign_Q 13:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
4.5k? 4000+ characters? Are you serious? Please, PLEASE, do not turn this into another Melbourne with Shakespeare sized responses that NO ONE is going to read. It doesn't make your point, it doesn't win you arguments, it makes us ignore you. Learn to be concise, dammit. --OuroborosCobra talk 14:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I was consise before. My second response was essentially a more detailed version of my first post, because people weren't getting the point. If you and other users want to ignore the second post because they are lazy, then you and they are therefore ignorant, and are no better than someone covering their ears and screaming "LALALA I can't here you!" in order to win an arguement. I suppose then that you don't bother reading the actual articles either because of their length, or any of the articles posted by Ex Astris that we so often link to. Give me a break. Ambassador/Ensign_Q 15:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
"I was consise before" and you repeated yourself UNconcisely. No new information. Well done. Why don't you try again to triple the length of your argument while saying nothing new. It didn't work before, maybe it will work this time. TRY ALLCAPS. You think we're all "LALALA I can't here you!"? Well, YOU'RE all "LISTEN LISTEN LISTEN TOOOOOO MEEEEEEEEEEE". By the way, don't accuse ignorance if you're not going to spell correctly. It sort of undermines your otherwise-persuasive namecalling. --TribbleFurSuit 16:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
P.S. Just because we don't agree with your point doesn't mean we don't get it. That would make you smarter than us. Do you think you are? It's OK, you can tell us. There's no right or wrong answer here, you can be completely honest. --TribbleFurSuit 16:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Following the oppositions suggestion here to its logical end would mean the reuse of models and footage is the same ship/shiptype every time, most aliens use the same class of ships, and that all those tng alien shuttles were actually klingon shuttles, even with kitbashes every ship is of the original kitbashed class. Forget Curry-type, it's clearly Excelsior-class. that's what the spirit of simplification would bring us. Let's go for it and simplify everything then, not just this case. Clearly we need to have a line somewhere and Ensign Q has defined a good one right here. --Pseudohuman 22:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Obviously not, as those were most often referenced by different designations in the first place. I think the (already existing) line might as well be kept in the place it has been for the better part of the last five years... -- Cid Highwind 22:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a suggestion to combine two alien ships of the same or similar design -- those were all explicitly described or alluded to as being different -- which is not the same case as presented here. This isn't a matter of merging two designs that are clearly in different kit-bash configurations as being one in the same, as there is no kit-bashing involved here. This is a simple suggestion to keep two ships of the same design (with the only variation being the adding or removing of a single component): one with and one without a "crew module"; same as the case with the Nebula with various "module" configurations, or Danube with or without its' module, or where the top and bottom is on the Sydney class, or the multiple other Miranda (or Danube) designs that weren't explicitly described as being another or different class. The facts pointed out above regarding variants bearing the same class designation as the original shows that renaming the class in correspondence with the establishment of a new design variation is as much the norm as not-- the difference here, is that those we know to be of a different class designation were rightfully stated as such, that is not the case here. This is as straight forward and convenient as it sounds: the two appearances of this ship without the "crew module", described as either "automated" "old" or "converted", should not be dismissed as being of a totally different design than the one crewed ship of the same design (only with a "crew module"). --Alan 22:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty tired of these supposed unintended attempts to massacre our ship classification system. This is a pretty simple case, so why are some people making it so complicated? The ships are of the same design and both used for the same purposes. It may be missing a single component, but that just means a variation of the same class. Excelsior class ships have different variations; but they are all Excelsior-class ships. And I'm pretty sure any ship can be "automated," so there is absolutely no way you can figure that one ship type is different than the other based on that. Basically, I agree with Cid and Alan above. My apologies if I missed any other points brought up, but from what I can tell from the discussion, the only reasons this is being discussed is because one ship had an additional component and they had different command modes... which basically tells me they're variations of the same type of vessel. --From Andoria with Love 23:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  • By the way, Ensign q, it's not that we're lazy or don't care about your point-of-view, it's just that some of us just don't have the time and/or tolerance to sit through an entire speech (no offense). Most of us are here to write an encyclopedia, not to argue or read Homeric poems. :) --From Andoria with Love 23:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Ultimately, I view these discussions as illustrations of how bad the current state of objectivity is in MA. When writing an encyclopedia with this sort of fanedit approach, it is healthy for someone to say from time to time, that this may not accurately represent the information at hand. As the alternative seems to be blindly following old precedence and policy. --Pseudohuman 00:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

By "blindly following old precedence and policy", you obviously mean: to following our lesser instincts and succumb to the paranoia that nothing is the way it seems in favor of a hodge-podge of confusing references that are spread from here to eternity across MA as a result of making ourselves completely devoid of common sense? --Alan 00:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Wait... we're disagreeing with you, so we're not objective? I'm not sure how that works, but okay. If you're addressing my "massacre" comment, that was strictly my own opinion of these types of discussions but shouldn't be taken as dismissive of the discussion... if that makes sense. Actually, I think I just confused myself. Anyway, how these talk pages work is: someone suggests something, others discuss it and either agree or disagree with the suggestions. What happened on the Melbourne page was someone suggested something, the majority disagreed, the person who made the suggestion and his supporter disagreed with our disagreement, and we just basically went around in circles from there. I am hoping the same thing doesn't happen here. Basically, if you suggest something and next to nobody else likes the idea, then the idea just doesn't get implemented. That's not a lack of objectivity, that's lack of agreement for the idea. That's how these things work. I'm sorry if my initial comment seemed adversarial, but I really didn't want a repeat of the Melbourne debacle and that's where I saw this going. --From Andoria with Love 00:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Ex Astris Scientia separates the three "types" (Cargo drone, Antares, Woden), but's that's mainly because of the design of the starship database (Starfleet, Civilian, and TAS). It separates Oberth and Constitution class starships the same way. I can see where someone reading that site might be persuaded into transferring some of the conclusions given there over here (as has been done in the past and vice versa).
The TOS-R team, and I believe this may be on record, specifically designed the Woden and the Antares to be of the same type as the TAS cargo drones, and I believe we should respect production intent, especially in this case.
Now this case is different than the Melbourne and remastered cases (although it is obviously linked to the remastering in the Woden's case). I believe the article (as well as all ship type articles) can be written in a way to be vague about whether the ship types represent different classes or not, since we don't know and likely never will. However, we should always strive to keep the ship classes to a bare minimum (based on cultures, and perhaps usage) to avoid being overly speculative.--Tim Thomason 00:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
To me, the bottom line is: Alan's right. This should have been discussed. This isn't a case where some classless ship wasn'[t already covered and someone started the "type" article. These ships already were covered, and their "type" already had an article. To illustrate how much we have to unwind in order to support this change, I counted at least 10 items that now don't agree with the content of the Woden-type article. The Antares-type template. The pages for the ships now identified in the "Woden type" article. The episode pages. The Antares-type article, whose background section is a nonsensical mess now (the canon information about "conversion to automation" has been deleted, ignored). When established MA content is to be changed, unilateral action should not be acceptable and should be reverted. Discussion is the only appropriate way to go. I am extremely tempted to immediately revert the Antares-type page to the state it was in before, redirect "Woden-type", and move this discussion to Talk:Antares-type as the discussion of a proposal. Unless this community is ready to proceed now with the "unwinding" of the tangled Woden/Antares discrepancies I described, and accept once and for all that a never-before-described "type" now deserves a home on MA, we need now to BACK UP and allow the decision-making to proceed the RIGHT WAY. Unilateral destruction of long-extant content, without discussion, ain't it. --TribbleFurSuit 03:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
You know, it really just occured to me (yeah, shame on me for not thinking this through in the first place) that this suggested split is not a split between different designs from different producer teams years apart (TOS vs. TAS vs. TOSR) - it is supposed to be a split between the TOSR-design of the Antares and the TOSR-design of the Woden. Both created by the same creative team, whose intentions we're perfectly aware of through interviews and behind-the-scenes information (and the only ones we could just ask if we're in doubt, on top of that). Of all the possible splits that could have been suggested, exactly this one is supposed to be the one that makes sense and is more objective than anything? That really doesn't make sense to me. -- Cid Highwind 08:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually my comment was simply a reference to the MA fanedit style that everyone else here seems to believe is the right way to go, that is what we think is not an objective presentation of canonical material. The Retcons forum has a more detailed version of this argument so I wont repeat it here. We are simply attempting to work inside the box you want to hold on to to achieve as objective a presentation as is possible there, not to make the whole MA into an encyclopedia of incomprehensible paranoid nonsense as you seem to misunderstand. But that is basicly the last argument I have in favor of a split. Ensign Q has given all the canonical reasons for one. If the majority thinks its not the right thing to do, we can only agree to disagree and move on I suppose. --Pseudohuman 14:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
"suggested split" I think you mean "fait accompli". Since nobody has yet objected to the cleanup I described, I'm going to proceed with it... after a more reasonable period for comments. --TribbleFurSuit 02:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


Wow! I've just sat here and read every word written above! Okay, some questions come to mind, like why do average IQ and EQ people like to pick on people with higher scores and lower scores, and higher IQ and EQ people pick on those with lower scores, but why don't we ever here of people with the lowest scores ever picking on those with the higher scores? But such a question isn't relevant to this article now is it? What it seems to be about is how different the "ANTARES" and the "WODEN" are from each other, yet still seem to be a lot alike, and whether or not such differences in details warrant classifying those differences as being of different ship classes if not types, am I right? Hmm. Would it help a lot, or just a little bit, if everyone went to "Wikipedia" and read the article about the U.S.S. JUPITER AC-3 and how it became the U.S.S. LANGLEY CV-1 and then how it was altered into the U.S.S. LANGLEY AV-3? Or look at the U.S.S. KEARSARGE BB-5 and how it became the U.S.S. CRANE SHIP No.1? That's an eye opener! See how different the U.S.S. MIDWAY CV-41 looks now compared to how she started. The MIDWAY was/is the lead ship of her class, but not her type, i.e. "aircraft carrier". The JUPITER went from being of the PROTEUS-class collier type, to being the LANGLEY-class and the second type of aircraft carrier, with seaplane tenders/carriers being the first. But then ironically enough, she gets converted into a seaplane carrier by the time she's scuttled and sunk. (By the way, "type" and "class" don't mean the same thing, no matter how many "land lubbers" in Hollywood try to make it so.)Or think about cars. If you take a regular street stock "Lincoln" and convert it into a "Hot Rod Lincoln", does it cease being a "Lincoln"? (Not according to the song.) But take a "Lincoln Futura" and convert it into the "Batmobile", that seems to make a legal difference. I'm just supplying more food for thought here. or adding more thought cars to the train of thought here if you prefer. Cheers! Leo Star Dragon 1. 11:56, April 8, 2011 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-NC unless otherwise noted.