Talk:Antares type/archive

Antares type

In the spirit of simplification, I'm thoroughly glad the bastardization of the Template:ShipType was discussed prior to the creation of this page, as lifted off the latter, as I fail to see the necessity. What's next, Template:ShipType, Template:ShipType, Template:ShipType...? 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 other users want to ignore the second post because they are lazy, then they are therefore ignorant, and are no better then someone covering their ears and screaming "LALALA I can't here you!". I suppose then that they don't bother reading the actual articles either, 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)