Talk:Inspection pod

Nomination (03 Jan - 29 Jan 2012, Failed)
Self-nomination; I've exhausted ways I can think of to improve this article. The only issues I'm unsure about (and they're both relatively minor ones) are the naming of the page (see the article's talk page) and whether the history section should encompass a description for each of the times when inspection pods are shown in the distance of Earth spacedock scenes. Other than possibly doing that, I really can't think of any more ways to upgrade the article. --Defiant 17:30, January 3, 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose . This article seems to be about each pod seen instead of the "class". Individual pods should be covered on an Unnamed inspection pods page, assuming the name change suggested on the talk page is done, or on pages like Orbital 6. There is also no section with links to these pages either, and there should be cause it's nice if you don't want to scan the entire text to find the links. Sections describing the interior, exterior, and specs (if any) should be included as well. Pretty much the entire in universe part needs to be redone to be consistent with other articles of this type. - 13:11, January 4, 2012 (UTC)


 * I haven't read the article yet, but the same problem Archduk3 identified in the article is also apparent in the blurb. Its last paragraph seems to be about the specific pd "Orbital 6", not about the vehicle class. Independent of that, it also doesn't seem to be the most important/general information about the topic. The blurb should be somewhat of a "teaser" for the article, so information of somewhat "lesser importance" should probably not be in the blurb but only in the article. -- Cid Highwind 13:57, January 4, 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. They're very informative and therefore much appreciated. :) I still have uncertainty about whether the name should be "orbital inspection pod" or just "inspection pod". The function of the vehicle class isn't always orbital and it's called simply an "inspection pod" in, though the script of "Broken Bow" commonly uses the name "orbital inspection pod" to refer to Orbital 6, and this term doesn't necessarily contradict the on-screen one. --Defiant 17:51, January 4, 2012 (UTC)

I'm aware that the article could benefit from descriptive text about the exterior and interior, but that would be delving into the area of speculation (for example, there are apparently seatbelts inside the pods, though how do we know if they are actually seatbelts or just look like that?!) I'm not entirely sure what is meant by "specs," as there are no established specifications; really, the only functions we know these pods have are the ability to communicate and the capability of short-range (at the least) spaceflight. And I can't really think of much that could be added via text, about the exterior and/or interior, that can't already be seen by looking at the images already on the page. It might just be my lack of experience with this type of article, but I am willing (and trying) to learn. The comments so far have been great and insightful, but some more suggestions/clarification would also be much appreciated. Thanks for the input so far. :) --Defiant 18:27, January 4, 2012 (UTC)


 * If you think they just look like seatbelts, you simply say "seatbelt like straps" or something similar. It's not speculation per se to assume that it is a seatbelt because it looks like that; unless we have a reason to think otherwise a chair with straps is a chair with straps, not a personal convenience with force fields. As for the images rendering the text moot, imagine the article without images and then compared it to Type 6 shuttlecraft, Galileo type shuttlecraft, Military shuttle, Type 7 shuttlecraft, Danube class, etc. Images support the text, not eliminate the need for it. - 01:21, January 5, 2012 (UTC)

All those vessels have far more facilities than the relatively spartan inspection pods, but I'll have a try at adding some more interior and exterior info to the inspection pod article. So, thanks for the references. Some input on the naming issue would be much appreciated. --Defiant 01:41, January 5, 2012 (UTC)


 * "Inspection pod" should be used, if that was the only on-screen name. A check of the transcripts suggests that it was also used in (TUCKER: They've isolated every hull breach, every damaged system. I'll be damned. We scratched the hull right here, a year ago. I bumped it with the inspection pod, remember?)


 * –Cleanse ( talk 02:32, January 5, 2012 (UTC)


 * I've renamed the page, moved the individual pod info to unnamed inspection pods, summarized that info on the page, and updated the blurb to reflect these changes. I've added a PNA for the tech info for now though, since it still is incomplete. - 00:47, January 8, 2012 (UTC)

Really, this page has been under development over a period of years. If there was such a drastic formatting "error" with the article, I honestly think it should likely have been mentioned by now. I don't personally think it is an error; just a difference in opinion in how much leeway should be allowed with the different styles of formatting. But I see there's developed a very rigid way of thinking about that, recently. --Defiant 02:25, January 8, 2012 (UTC)


 * And all that's constructive how? If you want to wash your hands of another article instead of following though, go ahead, just make it clear you are doing that. Also, do you check all articles on a regular basis, cause I simply don't have time. -  05:40, January 8, 2012 (UTC)

Obviously not the minor changes to all articles, but if another page required such a radical makeover while otherwise being fine or even exemplary, I think it would usually stick out like a sure thumb! I agree that thinking in such rigid terms as to so severely limit the stylistic formatting options isn't constructive, and there's nothing to suggest I want to "wash [my] hands" of this article. --Defiant 13:21, January 9, 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose: I agree with the way information has been split between this article and Orbital 6/Unnamed inspection pods by Archduk3. However, what's left doesn't seem to be "FA material". At the very least the PNA needs to be resolved and, unless much more information gets added by doing so, some of the section headers need to be removed so that there aren't three of them for slightly more than one paragraph of text. Also, at least one, if not two, of the images currently in the sidebar should be moved to standard thumbnails, so that the sidebar isn't longer than the whole in-universe section of the article. Depending on how that section looks after those changes, I'm willing to rethink my vote - but for the moment, oppose. --Cid Highwind 14:12, January 9, 2012 (UTC)


 * As an aside: While I prefer short blurbs, I believe that this one is too short for one - and it is the whole in-universe part of the article already. So, there needs to be some more "meat". -- Cid Highwind 14:17, January 9, 2012 (UTC)

I personally think that the fact the pna wasn't placed sooner than after FA nomination has a lot to do with this (something I'm admittedly as much to blame for as anyone is!). I agree with the statement "what's left doesn't seem to be 'FA material'." Given the circumstances regarding the pna, I think that's understandable. I'm still interested in this article being as good as it can be, which is why I'm not prepared to just "wash [my] hands" of it, though I now don't think achieving FA status is a realistic expectation. I'm honestly kicking myself for not realizing the formatting problem, but kudos to others (such as Cid and Archduk) for not only doing so but also attempting to sort out the problem. I hope this post helps clarify my position (for others) a bit more. --Defiant 14:34, January 9, 2012 (UTC)


 * The in universe history section could be slightly larger, it just shouldn't be finger to nose detail for every pod seen. Stating what they did at the spacedocks could provide another sentence or two. As for if there's enough article for FA status, I would say there is, since the article doesn't stop when the appendices sections start. We do have things to say about this, just not a whole lot of it is canon right now. The blurb can be updated after the article is further fleshed out, though we could always decided to "feature" the real world info over the in universe info in the blurb. Just a thought. - 20:17, January 9, 2012 (UTC)

Well, some information could still be added about the number of windows and the writing on the side(s) of the vessel. Also, maybe the info from "Shockwave" could be added to the historical section. IIRC, that wasn't just in the normal canon universe but also in an alternate timeline. Plus, it's about some inspection pods collectively, not just a specific unnamed one. --Defiant 22:57, January 9, 2012 (UTC)


 * Revamped the wording of the tech info, but I don't remember enough of "Shockwave" to comment on that right now. I think the major problems I objected to have been addressed though, so I'm changing my vote to support. - 00:40, January 14, 2012 (UTC)

Name change
I suggest this page be moved to "inspection pod". It not only seems to be a much more used name in bg sources in general, but is also the only canonical name for this type of craft (said in ). Inspection pods were also carried aboard Enterprise and stuff, so they weren't always "orbital." --Defiant 14:13, December 31, 2011 (UTC)