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)