Talk:NCC-70367 shuttlecraft

Title?
Shouldn't this article title be reserved for the actual ship where this shuttle is from (if we want an article about it), while this one gets moved to NCC-70367 shuttlecraft or something similar? Shuttles usually display the registry number of their "mother ship" and do not have their own registry number. The article even is worded so as not to imply that this is the case. --Cid Highwind (talk) 11:08, August 1, 2013 (UTC)


 * I am respecting the precedent set with NCC-71325. I am open to your suggestion; however, if we do that, shouldn't we do the same with NCC-71325?Throwback (talk) 20:31, August 1, 2013 (UTC)

You are right, we should handle both articles the same way. I believe it would be cleaner to not name this article after the registry of (most likely) a different ship. But if we do, and imply that this is the registry of the shuttle itself, we shouldn't at the same time state that this shuttle was "assigned to NCC-70367” on pages like Federation shuttlecraft. --Cid Highwind (talk) 20:41, August 1, 2013 (UTC)


 * And "assigned to NCC-71325"?Throwback (talk) 06:25, August 2, 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I assumed I wouldn't have to make my comments more complicated than they already are by adding "and the other one, too" every time. :) Anyway, the page title now has a capitalization issue (it should have been "shuttlecraft", not "Shuttlecraft") - and also, I believe that the "(starship)" disambiguation for the newly created articles (like NCC-70367 (starship)) are unnecessary. -- Cid Highwind (talk) 09:07, August 2, 2013 (UTC)


 * When creating pages and moving pages, please take the time to update the incoming links. In my cleanup of this mess, it took me a while to figure out what links should go to which articles. -- sulfur (talk) 10:43, August 2, 2013 (UTC)

Sulfur, I apologize for the mess I created.Throwback (talk) 13:58, August 2, 2013 (UTC)