Forums > Senate Hall archive > SH Archive/Shuttles as Starships

As I continue the great recategorization of starships, Category:Shuttles presents a dilemma. Many of the specific shuttles and shuttle classes were intra-system vessels, which is how they got lumped into Category:Spacecraft in the first place. If I move them into their respective Category:Starships placements, will anyone be upset or feel that it is inaccurate? --SparqMan Talk 06:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Starships are able to travel between systems (hyperdrive). Does that apply to all shuttles or at least most of them? They are at a minimum spacecraft, but that does not really help. -Fnlayson 08:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Some shuttles have hyperdrives as indicated by the version used by Palpatine to rescue Anakin on Mustafar and the Lambda-class. Also in Death Star, a medical shuttle has limited hyperdrive capability. -- Riffsyphon1024 11:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Just out of curiosity, is the "starships have hyperdrives" definition established as canon anywhere or is it just an internal organizational scheme? To my mind, it is not confusing for all Shuttles to be under Starships, regardless of their hyperdrive status - which is what I'm asking after. Theoretically if a shuttle got enough momentum on sublight, it could get from one star system to another. =) --SparqMan Talk 16:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Good question. Hadn't thought about the canocity of it. Starship is not defined in the New Essential Guide to Vehicles & Vessels. -Fnlayson 21:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Given that there appears to be nothing official to decide the issue, I would say the "starships have hyperdrives" rule is probably a good one. Granted, a ship without a hyperdrive /could/ eventually get to interstellar travel velocities, but it'd be horrifically impractical and possibly fatal (more from old age than anything else)--this being why it's not done. And we need /some/ way to differentiate, after all. Jen'jidai Azazel 01:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for checking. Is it important enough to warrant a taxonomical division? We don't categorize vessels with laser cannons. If it is desired, my recommendation is to place them all together in respective Starship categories, but tag non-hyperdrive starships in an extra category. For what it's worth, 6 out of ~30 shuttle classes are specifically mentioned to be without hyperdrives. Thoughts? --SparqMan Talk 04:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
    • To my knowledge, hyperdrive has never been a requirement for calling something a "starship." Indeed, vessels without hyperdrives are often referred to as such (e.g. the IPV-1 System Patrol Craft, TIE Fighter, and Z-95 Headhunter commonly appear in "starship" chapters of books, despite lacking hyperdrive capability). As far as I know, anything capable of spaceflight can be rightly given the name. jSarek 04:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • That was my understanding as well. My only question was if the community would care if I did away with the convention that got started early on. Seems like most people don't, so I'll go with it. --SparqMan Talk 19:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)