Talk:Intrepid type escape pod

screencap
It is a screencap.

a thousand quatloos to he (or she) who can tell the episode. --Babaganoosh 04:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Then I might suggest that you please read up on the proper way to describe images you upload. --Alan del Beccio 04:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

fine, I'll jump through your hoops. --Babaganoosh 04:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, THE SITE would appreciate it. --Alan del Beccio 04:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

They're not Alan's hoops, and he's not asking for anything that he wouldn't ask from anyone else (including himself). There's a specific format we use to describe and cite images that are uploaded, it's as simple as that. -- Renegade54 04:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * better? Oh, and I'm sorry for my 'tude. I just get frustrated when my contributions get picked apart. --Babaganoosh 05:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

title
"(Defiant class and Intrepid class escape pod moved to Defiant class escape pod: really not kosher to combine articles by title)Gvsualan (Talk | contribs)"

Normally I'd agree, but in this case the pods used on the Defiant and Intrepid classes are one and the same vehicle, so making separate articles didn't make much sense. If there is an article "Defiant class escape pod" and another named "Intrepid class escape pod", then that seems to imply that the articles are about two different craft, when in fact they would both be relating to the same type. --Pearse 23:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

merge suggestion
Merge suggestion

I propose a merge with Intrepid class escape pod as the escape pods are identical (the same cgi-files were used) while at the same time suggesting a renaming of the article, something along the lines like "Defiant class escape pod type" or rather "Intrepid class escape pod type" since it was first shown on Voyager as to clarify these pods were in use aboard multiple ship classes.

As for the renaming suggestion, the same goes for Sovereign class escape pod which were also employed on the alternate


 * I agree with merge. Not the "type" renaming. But info here should be moved to intrepid pod page. --Pseudohuman 23:13, April 2, 2011 (UTC)

Name
While I'm not a fan of adding a type at the end of this, I did it in the article for now since if the pod type is used on several starships, it's name it after only one. The way I see it, we have some options: I'm open to ideas, but I think the current title is not the best option. - 09:29, May 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * Starfleet/Federation escape pod (type #) - ...or other disambiguation
 * Intrepid type escape pod - similar to Kelvin type shuttlecraft


 * I like the first suggestion "Starfleet escape pod" followed by a type denomination of the class it first appeared in, in this case "Starfleet escape pod (Intrepid type)" It has a nice uniformity about it if we should apply this, the other I ones can think of, becoming "Starfleet escape pod (Miranda type)" and "Starfleet escape pod (Sovereign type)" -- Sennim 12:53, May 16, 2011 (UTC)


 * I suggest we go with year "Starfleet escape pod (2370)" with the year being the earliest known ship seen or commissioned with this type of pod etc. I think its enough for us to specify in the article text what ship types actually featured them. --Pseudohuman 13:50, May 17, 2011 (UTC)


 * Would work for me as well...It has the advantage of not having the kludgy "type" denomination in the title and it falls in line were we have used it before as for example with the USS Defiant...And on second thought I think "Federation" instead of "Starfleet" is probably more in order since we cannot tell that these vessels were only in use with Starfleet vessels or that these type of vessels were also employed on civilian ships...--Sennim 15:27, May 17, 2011 (UTC)


 * Federation sounds better, yes. Also we might consider similar treatment for unknown shuttle types. We now use Kelvin type shuttlecraft or Chaffee type shuttlepod based on a shuttle of the type or mothership of the shuttle. Federation shuttlecraft (2233), Federation shuttlepod (2374) might be better? --Pseudohuman 19:14, May 17, 2011 (UTC)

I'm actually leaning more for Intrepid-type, since while this works now, it might not by 2012, since we may end up with another shuttle used at the same time as the Moore type shuttlecraft. The use of the year with the Defiant only works because one followed the other after it was destroyed. This type and the one used on the Sovereign-class are only two years apart, and this type remained in use after 2372. - 20:15, May 17, 2011 (UTC)


 * I have to admit that Archduke's year argument was nagging in the back of my mind when I wrote down my previous remark...I seem to remember reading that that format was chosen as the best of all the options which all had their flaws...While in the Defiants case we could pinpoint a year of commission, this of course is not the case with the escapepod types (with the arguable exception of the "Federation escape pod (Delta Flyer type)"-the format I'm leaning towards in this case-). I also agree with Pseudohuman that whatever format we choose, it should also be applied to unnamed classes of shuttlecraft and shuttlepods for consistency's reasons also with the adjunct "Federation" for reasons I stated earlier (in real life the Huey helicopter, our equivalent for Treks shuttles comes to mind as being used by both the military as well as civilian organisations as well as several Russian helicopter types)...Sennim 09:04, May 18, 2011 (UTC)

In that case we shouldn't change the format from what we are using, since A) That's a lot of work, B) It's still working with a minimum of problems, and C) Having loads of pages start with "Federation starship" or Federation shuttlecraft" will make finding and linking to these pages harder, not easier, with no increase in accuracy, since a "Kelvin-type Federation starship" isn't any more or less accurate then a "Federation starship (Kelvin-type)", and the latter looks worse. That pretty much leaves the article titles at Intrepid type escape pod, Sovereign type escape pod, and Miranda type escape pod. I think the Delta Flyer pod is fine as is because it was made for that craft, as far as we know, and is less likely to have been in use on other shuttles. - 10:00, May 18, 2011 (UTC)


 * Can't argue with that and your suggestion is just fine by me...As for the Delta Flyer we can not also be sure that Tom Paris didn't pull an existing design from the database to be incorporated into his Flyer design, but I have no problems leaving it as is, especially since there are some Borg enhancements on top of it.--Sennim 10:47, May 18, 2011 (UTC)


 * I can see your points, and it is fine with me to leave things as they are, while i like the neutral naming system myself, it is clearly easier to identify an article when the name is based on a mothership/ship of the class. My suggestion was based on the thought that a reader, not familiar with our naming conventions, might accidentally interpret from some of these type-articles, that somewhere in canon there appeared a designation like the one we use. but that propably doesnt happen that much. --Pseudohuman 14:01, May 18, 2011 (UTC)


 * They will no be left quite the way they are, Archduk's suggestion will have class replaced by type, which sounds about right, type being a bit more generalistic as opposed to class which implies specific use...--Sennim 14:45, May 18, 2011 (UTC)