Talk:Starship Types

From Traveller Wiki - Science-Fiction Adventure in the Far future
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The text entered under the broad starship types is already in the individual type entries. At the very least this text should be integrated with the list following. Otherwise I'd think the individual entries should be sufficient. Tjoneslo 18:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Recent Edits[edit]

Some anonymous user (from - Cincinnati Ohio USA) made a bunch of changes from its to it's (Along with some other useful changes). It's is a contraction for it is, so the phrase "The power of the Imperial Navy is concentrated in it's battleships." Really means "The power of the Imperial Navy is concentrated in it is battleships.", which of course does not make sense. I have reverted these changes. Dcorrin 13:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Ship Classifications[edit]

The astroid miner is listed as a non-comercal ship. I find this to be in error, but I wont change it with out discussing it first. Damnyankee 01:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Where should it go? It's not a merchant ship. I think under the Traveller definition, non-commercial is "not a merchant ship", and a catch-all category.Tjoneslo 13:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
In this case non-commercial means "does not engage in commerce" i.e. direct transport of trade goods and/or passengers. An example a garbage truck is commercial (e.g. paid for doing a service), but is not a commerical carrier. Dcorrin 13:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

"ref" and "reference" error?[edit]

What's this about, and what can be done about it? Sorry that I'm not more familiar with wikia's format at the moment - working on lots of other things... Allens 06:49, March 12, 2010 (UTC)

ref and reference allow you to add footnotes to an article. We don't use them much in this wiki, not being as academically rigorous as Wikipedia. Tjoneslo 22:42, March 12, 2010 (UTC)

Ship type defined as mission statement doesn't really make sense.[edit]

While I can understand mis-stating a ship's type as a political ploy, it really doesn't work. 1. If you use the example of the Washington Treaty, ships were defined on the basis of displacement and weapons. I believe that any treaty, would make similar definitions. Do you really believe that anyone could get away with calling a battlecruiser a destroyer? 2. Also, while using the mission statement might apply to a single vessel, how would it apply to a class of vessels? All 5,000 of Class A Destroyers are now Class X Escorts? Additional points is just because you are using a vessel at one point for a mission outside its normal role, doesn't mean that tomorrow it won't be back at it old job. Then calling a battleship a tug, because it it towing something is too much to be believed. 3. Yes as vessels age, their mission sometimes changes. Historically the mission change did not change their class. Newer ship, with substantial differences, which assumed those rolls had new class names and eventually the old vessels in the old classes fell off the rolls. This reason is why you don't have "battlecruiser", "protected cruiser" or "armored cruiser" any longer. You have "heavy cruiser" and "light cruiser." The exception to this would be where a vessel has had serious modifications. Example: The battlecruiser HMS Furious was modified to be an aircraft carrier. Recommended: That a specific set of types be developed primarily based on displacement, and weapon suite. For any vessel that does not fit in to the established types either generate a new type, throw it in with an existing type with an "experimental" or "prototype" tag, or toss it in to a catchall "Other-Undefined" type. There are historical examples.

  • Submarines with aircraft or battleship guns were still considered submarines.
  • HMS Dreadnaught revolutionized battleships. (This is one case, of which I am aware, where the whole class of battleship changed with a designation of Pre-Dreadnaught Battleship being used for the prior generation.) Nevertheless the older ships were still battleships, not cruisers.
  • USS Sea Shadow (IX-529), type stealth vessel

The reason I recommend this is to make it easier to classify vessels, remove overlapping and confusing ship types, and reduce confusion and conflicting data. Jmattera (talk) 21:20, 29 June 2014 (EDT)