Template talk:Ship

From Wookieepedia, the Star Wars wiki.

Any objection to removing "in standard atmosphere"? RMF 04:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Kill it. --Imp 07:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• I prefer "Max. airspeed" or "Max. speed (atmosphere)" myself. Since the existence of a speed limit implies a force of resistance, we could just use "maximum speed" for air vs "maximum acceleration" for space, but on some ships there's not a published acceleration number, just a speed figure like "10 space" for RPG stats or "100 MGLT" for the X-wing games, in which case we'd need to distinguish that from the atmospheric speed. (Takes a deep breath.) My opinion boils down to this-I like "Max. Airspeed" or "Max. speed (atmosphere)" for the speed in KPH, and either "Max. Acceleration" when we know the maximum G's or just "Space speed" or "Max. speed (space)" when we only have a game stat. —Darth Culator (talk) 16:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • And this is one of those situations where if I had my own fansite for this kind of thing, I'd just make something up. There's been some discussion about this at the X-wing Alliance Upgrade forums, and I now have a spreadsheet with many of the X-wing Alliance MGLT speeds, all the WotC RPG speeds posted on the conversion chart, a lot of the NEGVV acceleration figures, and all the ILM speed chart MGLT's. I have a rough formula for the interchange of G's and MGLT's and RPG numbers. I'm thinking of staging a Fleet Junkie coup over at the SWFanon Wikicity and just copying starship pages from here and filling in the blanks over there. (No, not seriously. This site takes enough of my energy to keep me from doing anything so grandiose.) —Darth Culator (talk) 16:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Consensus track 2 removing... 3 For specific ships 4 Cost and Introduction 5 Hyperdrive Range 6 Ref code problem

[edit] Consensus track

I just started a unified discussion here. —Darth Culator (talk) 13:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] removing...

What would you say for removing countermeasures??? it is useless for all capital ships, freighters, frigate and even some fighters don't have countermeasures. Mayby there should be made Template:Fighter with such things... SkywalkerPL 15:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• The whole point of this template is that unused fields are not displayed on the article, as long as you leave the field blank. That's why the template has so many fields. Just leave the value blank for anything that isn't there or is unknown. —Darth Culator (talk) 16:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] For specific ships

If we're to use this template for specific ships as well as ship types, might we add some potential fields for creation and destruction? --SparqMan 04:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Anyone? --SparqMan 03:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I've actually been thinking about this for a while. I'd like to take the current box format but modify the fields somewhat. Sort of like this:

Picture
Name

Production information
Manufactured by (original manufacturer)
Class (actual ship class)
Modified/upgraded by (if we know this)
(leave out "product line" and classification)

Technical information
Known modifications (either "none" if none, or a list of modifications if just a few, or "several" if it's a laundry list like the Falcon)
Leave all the tech fields intact (but don't use them if they don't differ from baseline)

Usage
Commission date (to be used if we know the actual date)
Earliest sighting (to be used if we don't know the exact commission date)
Destruction date (to be used if we know when it ceased to be)
Decommissioned (if we actually know that it was mothballed and when)
Latest sighting (to be used if we don't know an actual destruction date)
Affiliation
Known owners (listed in chronological order)
Known captains (would be more often used for military ships)

If there are any other useful fields, we can just throw them in. That's the real beauty of this new infobox. But individual ships should probably be a new infobox, since we'd have to use a bot to add blank fields to all the current ships if we just add the lines to this template. —Darth Culator (talk) 04:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• • Is it confusing to use the same template for ship types and ships? --SparqMan 04:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Confusion isn't really an issue (we already have several individual ships using the current ship template and they look/work fine). It would just be a lot of work to adapt the existing pages so they don't end up with weird-looking code at the top of the pages, because the self-collapsing template is intolerant of missing fields. I'll whip up a box that has the fields listed above as soon as I have time, so we can refine it. —Darth Culator (talk) 02:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cost and Introduction

Can we add Cost or year it was introduced in the template, or both?

• Cost is already in there...people just don't use it much. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 19:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Really? I had no Idea. What about the year it was introduced?--Herbsewell 19:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see cost.

• • • That's because nobody has bothered adding it to the template instructions...look at the Hapes Nova-class battle cruiser page to see it working. We don't currently have introduction year, however. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 19:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Should it be added?--Herbsewell 19:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Done. I added the "cost" field that was already there to the instructions and added a "firstuse" field. I also updated the standard preload. -- Darth Culator ^(Talk)(TINC) 20:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hyperdrive Range

I would like assistance to inserting new fields in Template: Ship; specifically if power output is called for, I'd like to insert a new "hyperdrive range" field for warships described in the AOTC and ROTS ICS. Thanks! --IP 04:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ref code problem

There seems to be some problem with this infobox and ref tags. Look at Chu'unthor, C-9979 landing craft, & Lucrehulk-class Core Ship. -- Ozzel 21:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)