FA status Edit

The work on this page, by Sennim, before and after it was spun off from the Constitution class page, is impressive to say the least. I don't know of another article on this site that has the depth and detail of this page. It's high time we do what we said when discussing the previously mentioned spin off, and give this FA status. - Archduk3 15:10, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

  • Support, I'm extremely grateful for the more than kind words of Archduke3, and indeed, I do believe it is the most comprehensive article available on the good "Lady E" anywhere at least where its depiction as production asset is concerned. But I would be remiss if I didn't mention people like William S. McCullars, David Shaw and Curt McAloney, whose work I expanded upon. As the saying goes, I stood on the shoulders of giants...--Sennim 18:42, June 26, 2010 (UTC)
  • Support--quite detailed, and meticulously cited as well. The only thing that might make it seem "not FA material" is the number of red links, though much of that can't really be helped as they're mostly people or effects companies that played very small parts in the grand scheme of things, and thus hadn't yet been high enough on the priority list to be given articles of their own here yet. Surely that's more an issue with those as-yet-nonexistent articles than this one, and in fact now that they're linked somewhere they'll be on "Wanted Pages" and someone can come along and create them. -Mdettweiler 16:09, June 28, 2010 (UTC)
Ain't that the truth, as a matter of fact, some hidden extra work was involved while writing the article; I started the articles on Richard C. Datin, Jr., Magicam and WonderWorks Inc., they were too important for the article not to be tackled at once as well as on the magazines American Cinematographer, Cinefex and Cinefantastique which I consider prime sources for background information.--Sennim 08:43, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
  • Support, really, really detailed. --Nero210 23:39, June 28, 2010 (UTC)
Much appreciated--Sennim 00:32, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - as I said in the Peer Review, it's really great to have so much information compiled and properly cited. – Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 07:41, June 29, 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the once-over in that stage.--Sennim 00:32, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - simply cool! --Jörg 10:13, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
Much appreciated, especially from a stickler for detail as yourself, many thanks for finetuning the refit-AMT section.--Sennim 00:32, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

Peer review Edit

Now that this article has been split off, I'd would like to have some feedback from the other members if the article in itself is worthy for nomination for featured article. Normally I'm loathe to selfpromotion of this kind, but since the text is about 95% mine, six months in the making, and since I believe it is now the most comprehensive information on the models of the good ship Enterprise anywhere it is worthy as such. Your thoughts would be appreciated--Sennim 12:04, April 10, 2010 (UTC)

Well, I had a quick look. There's a few minor things (template use, capitalisation, wording) that I fixed, but it needs a once over for formatting etc. by a better proofreader than me. Also, models and starships aren't really my thing. ;-)
I'm highly impressed with the number and varied nature of the citations; a lot of research is evident and I think this article can safely be considered comprehensive of the subject. There was one uncited statement that jumped out though (the last sentence of "Three-foot model"); it just says "reportedly"; it should state which source reports this.
So overall, some minor quibbles, but I think for content this is definitely one of the best FA candidates I've seen.– Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 08:42, April 13, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, citation has been fixed--Sennim 18:10, April 16, 2010 (UTC)

Title Edit

Shouldn't it be "Constitution class models", since there were more than one? - Connor Cabal 22:51, April 12, 2010 (UTC)

We generally use the singular for article names. - Archduk3 02:17, April 13, 2010 (UTC)
Except for articles like this one, which are plurals, like TOS studio models, Film studio models, TNG studio models, DS9 studio models, VOY studio models, and ENT studio models. --OuroborosCobra talk 02:45, April 13, 2010 (UTC)
Those are list articles. This is an actual article like studio model. - Archduk3 03:17, April 13, 2010 (UTC)
List articles tend to have "list" in the name. The reason why "studio model" is not plural is because it is discussing the concept of the studio model. This article is more like the others, it discusses the many models used for the many Constitution class ships. It is as much a list as the others. --OuroborosCobra talk 03:23, April 13, 2010 (UTC)
Actually, most lists only have the "s", but that's neither here or there. I would say the difference between this and a list is that you don't need to go to another page for information on a model. The model lists actually say to go to another article for information on the model, while this one is the article it's telling you to go to. In that respect, I would say this isn't listing the models, it's about the different models that were used as the Constitution class model. - Archduk3 03:54, April 13, 2010 (UTC)
There is no "the" Constitution class model. There are many models. They don't even look remotely alike. This article discusses those many models. It seems to me you are grasping for uniformity with other article titles when the subject is genuinely different. We should be using common sense here, not just grasping for uniformity. --OuroborosCobra talk 04:33, April 13, 2010 (UTC)
Common sense tells me that I should have listened to it and not put in that last sentence. :) The point was that, generally, only list articles have an "s", and this isn't a list article. I do see your point, but I would rather stick with the naming conventions MA has been using. Of course, if no one else joins the discussion in the next day or so, I'll just have to live with the s. :) - Archduk3 04:52, April 13, 2010 (UTC)
PS: I'm blaming Cid. - Archduk3 04:58, April 13, 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Archduk3- this is not an article about a list of different models, it is about the concept of a particular kind of model and how it has developed, i.e. the different models used to represent the Consitution model, as Archduk said.--31dot 07:37, April 13, 2010 (UTC)
I count ten models on this page on a cursory glance. Not one. --OuroborosCobra talk 08:09, April 13, 2010 (UTC)
I don't see anyone here who has said otherwise. This is not an article about specific models, but about the concept and how it has evolved. --31dot 08:18, April 13, 2010 (UTC)
Even you yourself said "The reason why "studio model" is not plural is because it is discussing the concept of the studio model." , and that article discusses different types of studio models (kitbash, study model, etc.) So why does that not apply here?--31dot 08:21, April 13, 2010 (UTC)
It is an article about specific models. It is very much an article about specific models. How isn't it? "Studio model" intentionally is not about any specific models, but this article intentionally IS about specific models. Many of them. "Constitution class" isn't a concept. --OuroborosCobra talk 08:43, April 13, 2010 (UTC)
Since I'm to blame anyway (as always), let me at least join the fun. :) Archduk3 is correct. We've been using plural titles for list articles (the "List of" prefix has been deprecated for years now), and singular titles for everything else. For example, the article about the whole Klingon species (which consists of more than one individual, obviously) is located at Klingon, not at Klingons.
This has been done to make linking easier - it's easier to type [[Klingon]]s than it is to type [[Klingons|Klingon]]. The same reasoning applies here. -- Cid Highwind 09:57, April 13, 2010 (UTC)
It isn't an article about specific models. It is a general article about the history of the design and its use in models. If you want articles about the specific models, we certainly could do that, but that's not what this is. It is about the evolution of the design and its use in building models. If it isn't a concept, then what is it?
I also think that people are more likely to find this by searching for "model" than "models" as they may not know there was more than one.--31dot 18:09, April 13, 2010 (UTC)
It is an article about specific models. What you are suggesting is splitting each of those models out into their own articles, but while they are here it is about the multiple models. I'll line them up in a gallery if you like. If it isn't a concept, it is exactly what it is, physical models, objects that physically exist. I find the search term argument to be incredibly weak, that is why redirects were included in the software. Cid, "Klingons" is about multiple people (as this is about multiple models), while "Klingon" is about the species. The species is a singular. This is about multiple models, so it lines up with the "Klingons" example, which is about multiple people. There is no single "Constitution class model," there isn't even a single "right" one. The design didn't just "evolve," so much as they picked different actual models. --OuroborosCobra talk 18:31, April 13, 2010 (UTC)
I didn't mean to imply that I was suggesting a split, merely that it was possible. Anyway, so should Weyoun be changed to Weyouns? That article is about more than one person. That is about the entirety of the existence of the being Weyoun- just like this article is about the entirety of the existence of this series of models. A gallery is quite unneccesary, as no one disputes how many models there is.--31dot 19:01, April 13, 2010 (UTC)


I would suggest splitting this overly long article into three pages Constitution class model (The Original Series), Constitution class model (Phase II) and Constitution class model (The Movies) etc. --Pseudohuman (talk) 13:31, July 14, 2013 (UTC)

I agree with splitting this article, but not quite the way suggested. For example, the "TOS model" wasn't just used in TOS but also in DS9 and ENT (and "The Movies" sounds strange). I think we should start with a two-way split with one article for the "original" and one for the "refit" model. The information about the intermediate Phase Two model is short enough, so could be added to either one or the other article depending on where it fits best. As a follow-up to the discussion before this one, an additional list article Constitution class models could be created instead of a simple disambiguation, to resolve that topic as well. --Cid Highwind (talk) 13:47, July 14, 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good too. "Constitution class model (original)" "Constitution class model (refit)". Phase II stuff would be a good intro for the refit page. --Pseudohuman (talk) 15:07, July 14, 2013 (UTC)

Provided we're going to put the split articles up for FA status, since parts of a FA should still be up to the featured criteria, I'm tentatively OK with this. That said, I don't think any split here should be followed by another split suggestion at the in universe article. - Archduk3 18:18, July 14, 2013 (UTC)
The fair way to resolve this would be to bring up both split articles as "early FA reconfirmations" - because, after all, there's not much else that is more "significant editing" than splitting an article in half. At least I am not going to suggest splitting Constitution class (edit: I referenced the wrong article USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) here before) following this, but at the same time, I believe this discussion shouldn't be counted as some sort of overriding agreement against that split for all future. -- Cid Highwind (talk) 18:54, July 14, 2013 (UTC)
I've given this some considerable thought, and while there are some merits in the arguments brought forth thusfar, I do find some faults in the reasoning behind them. Since it is cited I might as well reference to it; All the reasons brought forward against a split of the in-universe article (the suggestion of which being withdrawn as I've noticed), apply one-on-one on this one as well, there is no conceptual difference as far as I can see. Secondly, as a concept article, it is not merely a summing up of all the different models constructed, but also an evolutionary history and a narrative about how each and all of these models relate to one and other, and as far as I know the only one of its kind in existence. In my view, any split will disrupt the "flow", necessitating substantial editing. Thirdly, on several other, previous occasions, article length has been used as an overriding argument for splitting up articles being considered "too long" (to which I never subscribed, and never will), not seldomly implying that it was in the spirit of MA Guidelines/Policies (at least on one occasion they, for quotation purposes, were being sought for, but not found). There is however this MA Guideline/Policy, and I quote, "The perfect Memory Alpha long. Brevity may be the soul of wit, but long articles are considered better because they can cover the given topic much more thoroughly. This may not be possible for all articles, of course, because information may not be available for all aspects of the subject. However, where such information is available, it should always be included.", quite unambiguous I think. For these reasons alone, I choose to Oppose a split. I'm quite aware that others feel differently and for their own good reasons, and I acknowledge they are perfectly entitled to their opinions. But with all the respect due to them, these are mine, and I sincerely believe in them--Sennim (talk) 14:12, July 15, 2013 (UTC)
There's a very obvious "conceptual difference" between this and the in-universe article: one is about the single(?) fictional ship design, and the other is about the different(!) models that were used to represent it. Similar to how there's one article about Kahless but several articles about the actors that each portrayed him, there doesn't have to be exactly one model article just because there is exactly one ship class article (or vice versa). Also, as an aside, while that guideline speaks favorably about having much text to work with, I think it is wrong to construe from that a policy against a reordering of text for a variety of reasons. --Cid Highwind (talk) 15:06, July 15, 2013 (UTC)
Cid, I wasn't suggesting that we should never discuss splitting the in universe article again, just that, as you said right above this, having different models portray the same ship doesn't mean the ship is different, especially when it's been stated not to be. The reasoning for splitting this article only works because it's a real world article about the multiple models that portrayed the Constitution-class, instead of a series of ships that were upgraded.
Sennim, I think it might help to further explain my reasoning here, mainly that we can have an article about the original concept and the subsequent refinement of it, and then an article about the refit concept and it's subsequent refinement. The article as is already makes it clear that the refit started as a radically different design, only keeping the primary/secondary/engines concept, that was brought back to the familiar shape of the original, instead of as an extension of it, even though in universe it was always intended to be that. One article would be about deciding on the original design and then tweaking it, while the other would be about intentionally changing that design, more or less. - Archduk3 18:31, July 15, 2013 (UTC)
My Oppose still firmly stands after having given this (very much) further thought. I understand the "how" and the "where" reasoning for the split, but not the "why". I, for one, do not subscribe to the notion that this is not a concept article. While it is stated that "one is about the single(?) fictional ship design, and the other is about the different(!) models that were used to represent it", I seriously believe that the "that were used to represent it" is the operative part of the statement. The example given of several actors playing a particular role does not hold water either in my opinion. Apart from the philosophical question if it is okay to equal a real Human being to pieces of wood, plastic, or bits and bytes, it should be noted that no Human being was ever born to be an actor to play a specific role on a specific date in a specific show. And even if he/she plays that role, he/she is at the same time not only that character, but also a spouse, a son, a sibling, a voter, a lover, a employee, a...well you get the gist. Not so with a studio model, it was designed and built to one specific purpose and one specific purpose only, to represent a specific item. Now if this is not a concept then I do not know what is!!! While a consensus seems to exist that the in-universe article is holy and indivisible, consider this; how does it look when the unsuspecting reader sees these disambigs in the bg section of the same article:
  • for further information on the original configuration studio model, see: original configuration studio model
  • for further information on the refit configuration studio model, see: refit configuration studio model
This of course will be an open invitation to open the can of worms of splitting the in-universe article discussions all over again, and they will have a point this time and ammo. So by inference, if the in-universe article is a concept article , then so is the article of assets used to represent it. I know, I'll never see eye to eye in this matter with others, but after all the thought processes, my vote cast is final, and this is my very last note on this matter.
On a side note, I do agree with the notion that there are valid reasons for rearranging texts (splitting in-universe and bg articles, the more apparent ones); It just so happens that I do not believe that this is one of them --Sennim (talk) 04:49, August 10, 2013 (UTC)
First of all, I'm not going to touch the part where you're trying to discredit my argument by asserting that I unethically likened Human beings to a heap of plywood with a ten-foot pole. That's just wrong, and I hope everyone else can see that.
Second, a term such as "concept article" is only useful if it has an agreed upon meaning - and apparently, this term has not, because it has previously been used for exactly the opposite (on Talk:Matte painting, where it is explicitly described by example as "studio model, but not Galaxy class model". That's not to say that my definition must be correct and another one definitely isn't - but if we can't agree on either definition, the term stays meaningless.
Last but not least, if you're taking yourself out of the discussion (by basically stating that you won't change your mind no matter what), you're leaving the others no other choice than to decide without you - and between the options of going with the majority who is OK with a split, and of going with the one who really, really doesn't want it (end-of-discussion style), I prefer the former. -- Cid Highwind (talk) 11:35, August 10, 2013 (UTC)

I made temp articles for illustrative purposes to demonstrate what it would look like if this page was split into two articles. Constitution class model (original) and Constitution class model (refit). --Pseudohuman (talk) 01:49, August 11, 2013 (UTC)

I think the split works, since the first page would be exclusively about everything related to the first original design that has had most screen time, and the second is about everything related to all the ways it has been modernized and redesigned later on. Even with a split the pages are extremely long, but this way it wouldn't be as long as a book about the subject. --Pseudohuman (talk) 00:40, August 12, 2013 (UTC)

Since an uninvolved admin hasn't called this, I will. The "rough consensus" here is to split the article, so I'll move the temp pages to their final locations. This page itself should be converted to a disambiguation after the current, updated text here is "added" to the temp versions so we don't lose any of the work done while this discussion has taken place. The split versions of the article will be brought up as reconfirmations that are done early, but not necessarily as early reconfirmations, since the idea in the majority here is that this change isn't for the worst. That said, I'm open to further discussion on how to deal with this situation since there is no precedent in how to deal with splitting a FA. - Archduk3 16:20, September 17, 2013 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-NC unless otherwise noted.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Stream the best stories.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Get Disney+