Template talk:Infobox Fictional Spacecraft

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am considering relabelling "Status" to be "Fate", in accordance with WP:WAF. Having "Status" on a starship is particularly troublesome with Star Trek, which is set in multiple time-frames (obviously TNG era is set later than Generations, for example, but it is not clear that an infobox for the Enterprise-B ought to be saying "Status: Destroyed or decommissioned", when the last time we saw it, it was great, with many years of potential adventures. Morwen - Talk 08:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Take into account this is a global infobox not a Star Trek only infobox.. if the status is unknown then it shouldnt be stated in the infobox. Deus (talk · contribs · count · email) 08:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Aye, WP:WAF applies everywhere, not just Star Trek (it's just that Star Trek's multi time setting highlights its wisdom). Morwen - Talk 08:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Dont forget WP:WAF was writen to make writing about anything not related to: Slugs, Koalas or Cars, et cetera, extremly difficult.. I also dont get what you mean about the Status, fate thing..? Deus (talk · contribs · count · email) 08:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

No, WP:WAF was written to try to bring up the extremely poor standards of articles about fictional material.

By saying the ship has a current "status" we are putting ourselves inside the context of the universe in a particular timeframe. Saying "fate" is an out-of-universe perspective. All these ships will get destroyed or decommissioned or something eventually. We know how the -nil, -A (probably), -C and -D end up, but not the -B and the -E. So -nil fate: blown up, -A fate: probably decommissioned, -B fate: unknown, presumably not active around the 2340s to make way for the C, -C fate: asplode. D fate: asplode. E fate: unknown. Morwen - Talk 09:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

If its unknown you shouldnt be calling the status field just to put "Unknown" - eitherway i've changed it to make you happy. Deus (talk · contribs · count · email) 09:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Ta. By the way, do you know what the "First Appearance" or "Last Appearance" fields are for here: real world or internal chronology? (So, for example, should the USS Defiant be first appearance: In A Mirror, Darkly or The Tholian Web?) Morwen - Talk 10:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

When I created the template the idea I had in mind is to take the real world to keep things simple and not make it confusing :) - All pages using this template to my knowledge do it by the real world first appearance. Deus (talk · contribs · count · email) 10:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

That's good, at least. Personally, I find it very confusing to have an infobox which mixes up real world and fictional data (some of which is actual narrative elements, others of which are technobabble), all together. For example USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) just outright says: "Launched: 2245", as if that was a settled thing. Morwen - Talk 10:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It does also say in the intro "The USS Enterprise is a fictional starship" Template:Emot! Deus (talk · contribs · count · email) 10:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. and so we should treat it as one. Morwen - Talk 10:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Manufacturer

As per discussion, I would like to propose an additional parameter "manufacturer" to list the manufacturer of the corresponding spacecraft. The reasoning is:

• The name "fictional spacecraft" does not exclude mass produced, i.e. non-capital spacecrafts,
• The manufacturer association for these mass produced ones is not different as in e.g. the registry,
• Option is to be optional,
• Plural in manufacturer can be handled as in Template:Infobox Aircraft.

-- Ylai 09:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The thing is I can't see any usefulness to this, registry does have a usefulness as often notable ships have notable registries (e.g., Enterprise, NC-1701(-X)). I personally don't know of any science fiction where manfacturer plays a notable role in the ship except being trivial. Also the template as designed can be used on any spacecraft (i.e. Space stations, battlecruisers or fighters, etc). Arguably fighters/aux. craft play a crucial role for spacecrafts (i.e. Vipers in BSG, SA-43s in SAaB or F-302s in Stargate). Matthew 09:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Then please explain why an optional manufacturer would hinder the template being suitable for any of these functions. -- Ylai 09:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Manafacturers do not play a notable role in fictional spacecraft, better to write it in prose. - Peregrine Fisher 09:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

As in the example above, the manufacturer in SAaB is a crutial information, since the manufacturer itself is part of the story arc. -- Ylai 09:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Apart from being trivial I do not remember Saratoga's manufacturer Aero-Tech playing any significant role, none the less there's no reason why it can not be written in prose. Matthew 09:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

See episodes 1.03, 1.10, 1.16, 1.24. Also, information regarding manufacturer is easily tabulated. Otherwise one could argue everything can be written in prose. -- Ylai 09:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Everything *should* be written as prose as well, the infobox wasn't designed to replace well written text, if everything "easily tabulated" was added then this template would have died long-ago. Also see WP:WAF#Infoboxes_and_succession_boxes, I'm not a big liker of WAF, however it does indeed define why manufacturer should not be added, as unlike weapons, or fighters and even arguably registry manufacturers aren't essential to the ship. Matthew 09:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

1. The key in WP:WAF is - quote - "understanding the entity's context", and above I am still waiting for an argument why Aero-Tech is unessential to understand the context. Also, e.g. an numerical and mostly arbitrary registry is to the lesser extent essential for the contextual understanding.
2. Nowhere did I ever argue to replace the information in prose by the infobox. The context for the debate has been whether to write it in prose only. -- Ylai 09:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Aero-Tech plays no essential role in the ship, it just "made" it, "For entities within fiction, useful infobox data would include the creators or actors, first appearance, an image, and in-universe information essential to understanding the entity's context in the overall fiction." - thus the manufacturer is not essential information to provide commentary/information on the ship. Thus this information is better written in OOU prose. Matthew 09:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

If you haven't noticed, you are still arguing about the ship itself and not the context. -- Ylai 09:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Infoboxes are for information that is universal to their subject. Manufacturer isn't specified for most, and isn't important for almost all the rest. Just mention it in the article. - Peregrine Fisher 09:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Infoboxes aren't meant to be only the intersection of the subjects, but it could also be the union. And in the case it is unspecified or contextually unimportant, it does not have to use an optional parameter. -- Ylai 09:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

For another example, see: Template:SW Craft. -- Ylai 10:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)