Template talk:StarshipEnterprise

This template...
This template needs to be more clearly defined. For one, it is extremely bulky-- as in it needs to go on a diet. Additionally, Enterprise (XCV-330) was not an Earth Starfleet starship, as far as we know, so that much of the template is pure speculation. Finally, I don't think the inclusion of the mirror universe Enterprises quite fits in the legacy of the name "Enterprise". To my knowledge, mirror universe starships are not supposed to be the represented here as the same classes (or same ships) as "our" universe starships -- as in, we've made every effort possible on this site to draw a distinct line between the two universes. With that said, in addition to adding to the bulk, it seems somewhat inappropriate having those ISS's on the list. Clearly there was no discussion in the creation of this template, it would be nice if we could do so now. --Alan del Beccio 19:02, 19 Dec 2005 (UTC)

About content
Regarding content, I partly agree. XCV-330 shouldn't be listed as Earth Starfleet, and the "Terran Empire" shouldn't be used as a section title. However, I believe the mirror universe ships should be included somehow if the idea of this template is to list all ships called Enterprise. Ideas:
 * Is it really important to have sections at all, or would a chronological order, with the mirror universe ships at the end, suffice?
 * If we have sections, shouldn't their titles all belong to the same "class" (all political entities, or all names of the organizations, or perhaps simply using centuries)? At the moment, "Pre-Federation" doesn't really fit the others.

-- Cid Highwind 19:49, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)


 * For some reason when Picard said "Let's sure history doesn't forget the name Enterprise," he was referring to the ships that appeared on the wall in the lounge...that is starships in the Enterprise legacy, and not of the mirror universe starships. Additionally, "Pre-Federation" is more accurate, in it's current state, than "Earth Starfleet" was...or in other words, it was a temp-fix-for-accuracy until someone replied. --Alan del Beccio 20:26, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)

But this is a navigational template for all "Starships named Enterprise", not a list of the "original universe Enterprise legacy"... -- Cid Highwind 21:06, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * But like I said in my original posting: "This template needs to be more clearly defined...." When I originally saw the template that is what I presumed it to be about; obviously it is not. That is, however, one solution to cut back the overall "bulkiness." --Alan del Beccio 16:56, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)

About formatting
Regarding formatting, I couldn't possibly agree more. Not only does it look bulky with all those margins and wasted space, the formatting also leads to some ugly line breaks (depending on the screen resolution), and the left column seems to small. On top of that, and that's a general issue I have with many templates and some of the tables used throughout the site - please, don't use Yet Another Version of HTML Formatting. We should define a small number of designs in our CSS file and then just use that formatting. Defining different shades of red, different font sizes, different margins and border styles with each template is just ugly, and even problematic, should we at one point decide to change the general look of this page. -- Cid Highwind 19:49, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Looking at it again, there are even more severe issues with it. For example, the template uses the "toc"-ID, which is simply wrong (because id's are supposed to be unique, and "toc" is already used for the table of contents div). Before I change all that and create a new style for this in the CSS, could we perhaps decide on what exactly this should look like? A table, with different cells for the various organizations, or a simple container for all ships? -- Cid Highwind 11:31, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)


 * I think it should just list the ships in chronological order, and include the mirror universe ships within it. For example:


 * USS Enterprise (XCV 330) | Enterprise (NX-01) | ISS Enterprise (NX-01) (Mirror Universe) | USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) | ISS Enterprise (NCC-1701) (Mirror Universe) | USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-A) | USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-B) | USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-C) | USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-D) | USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-E) | USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-J)


 * Hmm, looking at that, maybe we should seperate the Mirror Universe ships from the rest of the content. I dunno, what do ya'll think? --From Andoria with Love 12:20, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)

That would be my preference as well: remove the sections, just list the ships in chronological order, but separate the mirror universe ships from the rest. -- Cid Highwind 12:24, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * I know next to nothing about the HTML formatting. When I created the starship templates I copy and pasted one of Scimitar's designs and changed the ship/class names around. All of the navigational templates can be located at Memory Alpha:Navigational templates, with Scimitar's and my starship templates at Memory Alpha:Starship navigational templates. If someone can explain to me exactly how to fix them (most if not all use the problems already mentioned, the "toc" id, color tags, and the like), I will gladly devote some time to it. Here's my proposal for this template, the text is a little big, but it doesn't use any of the problems listed, and I'm pretty sure doesn't use any of the HTML formatting:


 * or


 * I think that handles any problems, although it's different than all of the other navigational templates.--Tim Thomason 15:58, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Much better, I think. If we can agree that this should be the general "content layout" (not necessarily final "graphical layout"), I could create a final formatting for this template which could then be used to update all the others... -- Cid Highwind 16:08, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Oops, forgot the text with my suggestion... As you can see above, there's no formatting left in the template itself, just a link to the new css class "nav-simple", to be used for all templates consisting of just a title line and an unformatted list of links below - which is the case for most of the nav templates. As always, you might need to reload this page to see the correct formatting. -- Cid Highwind 12:54, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Simplification
As it stands the template repeats the name Enterprise much more than is necessary for usability or clarity. I am suggesting either of the following: —MJBurrage • TALK  • 13:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I support a change to the second one. – Cleanse 23:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support to the later one, if there are to be a change.To change or to keep, I don't know what to say. -- Rom Ulan Hail 23:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

ship-templates
Can we use the USS undefined instead of the longer "normal" MA-link? We can get the exact same link, but shorter code. thoughts anyone?-- Rom Ulan Hail 23:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, it expands to exactly the same code. -- Sulfur 01:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)