Template talk:Sidebar starship class

Starship stats
I have noticed a problem with our starship class pages. The stats. We seem to not allow people to cite where that information is coming from. This has allowed a lot of information that would seem to either be non-canon, or simply incorrect, to be added, and there is little or no way for other archivists to confirm or correct. I have already corrected 2 pages since I joined, the and the.

In the case of the Nova class, it said that it had 11 Type-X phaser arrays (if I remember correctly). While the number of arrays can be determined by looking at the ship model, the same cannot be said for the type-X designation. In fact, I do not believe that type-X is stated anywhere in canon. I posted a question on this in the talk page, and after a long time of no one answering, I just removed the type-X. As for the Wells class, someone stated that it is armed with both subatomic disruptors and temporal disruptors. How do we know this? Sure, the was armed with subatomic disruptors, but that was never said for the Wells to my knowledge. The temporal disruptor isn't even a ship mounted weapon, it is a bomb. I removed the temporal disruptor.

There are more notable cases as well. I think most of us know about the issues with the size of the. I have heard horror stories about the from before my time.

My point is, I think we need to figure out some way to cite these stats. I understand it does not make sense to do so on the tables (it would look terrible), but maybe we could put it in the talk pages? We are so bug on MA about citing sources for accuracy, yet we have this gaping hole on what some consider VERY important information.

What do you all think? --OuroborosCobra 04:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, speaking for myself, I've only added references to on-screen referenced stats- either visually or verbally. I can't speak for those who rely on the various technical manuals. --Alan del Beccio 04:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Some technical manual inclusion seems to be at least "arguable" under some old discussions. however, IF you see something uncitable to an episode,  -- either bring it up on the talk page, or remove it from thae article altogether and leave a copy of whatever you removed on the talk page. I know i support removing some of the less relevant info. -- Captain M.K.B. 14:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The sidebar states that this class is armed with phasers. There is no evidence of this. The only thing I can think of is the orange beams seen firing from the forward photon torpedo launcher in. It is never stated that these are phasers. In fact, Klingons are always said to use disruptors. Even the color is no evidence. Cardassian destroyers have been seen firing orange beams, or white beams, and they are disruptors. Therefore, the argument that disruptors are green and phasers are yellow also does not hold up (just answering that before someone tries it). Given the complete lack of evidence for phasers, I am removing it from the sidebar. --OuroborosCobra 23:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Copied from Talk:K't'inga class


 * Evidently you haven't researched this article quite as thoroughly as I have, therefore I might suggest you rewatch for your evidence. There the weapons of the  were specifically called "phasers", and not only that, but they were also green.  --Alan del Beccio 23:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I forgot about that episode. Thank you for bringing it up. This should be mentioned somewhere in the article, then, to explain why it is said they had phasers. This is exactly what I meant when I said there was a problem with not citing sources for stats in the sidebar see Forum:Starship stats), it is very difficult other archivists to confirm where information is coming from, and other articles DO have errors in the sidebars.
 * I would like to bring up one little problem with this argument (or perhaps that of the article). Riker once stated that the Romulan Warbird had phasers, and that is stated in the article as background information, and not in the sidebar stats. Shouldn't we be consistant with what we decide to accept and what we decide not to? --OuroborosCobra 23:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The previous discussion is an example of what I was talking about. Bigger though is an issue brought about what we decide is an "accident" on the part of the crew, and what is accepted as truth. I seem to remember Riker saying that warbirds have phasers, yet that is discounted as a mistake. One tactical officer, with a lot less experience than Riker, says that the IKS T'Ong fired phasers, and this is accepted as truth. Why one and not the other? --OuroborosCobra 00:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, just a cite on my claim on Riker saying warbirds have phasers. In, Riker asks Taris of they have phaser capability, and if so to use it to destroy a probe. That seems as good evidence to me as statement by a tactical officer. Therefore, I have added phasers to the sidebar for the D'deridex. --OuroborosCobra 00:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You do at least realize, don't you, that asking someone if they have phasers doesn't necessarily mean they could have ever had them -- it just means that you asked them. -- Captain M.K.B. 15:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

He did not just ask if they have them, he asked if they were working. At least that is how I interperet the line in the episode. It also is not the only time that Romulans are said to have phasers, just a prominent one. I don't have time this second, but I will try to find other references. --OuroborosCobra 15:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Realize that they are using a universal translator when Riker asks Taris in . The romulan universal translators may very well have translated "phasers" to be "disruptors" or Romulans noted for their duplicity may have known a disruptor can be used exactly as a phaser.--User:Unknown 00:35, 31 July 2006


 * Of course, to be completely fair, "phaser" is a term used very loosely in the Star Trek 'verse to describe a wide array of weaponry but is also used to describe a specific class of weapon (much like the word "gun" in today's vernacular.) Also, Riker said, "phaser capability" and not "phasers", which could mean, "do they have technology to the equivalent of phasers?" In the end, I just consider the words "phaser" and "disruptor" as interchangable in the broadest sense, while they can also be used to describe a much more specific weapon. --User:Unknown #2 11:45, 14 August 2006

My opinion on Riker's statement on phasers is thus: Riker needed to have the Iconian probe destroyed. His own weapons were not functional. He was not asking if Romulan Warbirds had phasers, as that did not matter, he simply needed to know if they had working weapons. Since he did not ask "do you have weapons capability?" but instead asked "phaser capability", I therefore believe he already knew the Romulans had phasers, and was asking if they were working. He had no reason to need to know if they were armed with phasers or something else, he just needed a weapon that would destroy that probe. --OuroborosCobra talk |undefined  07:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok I'll detail a bit more of what I meant on the page for that. He didn't say weapons because a photon torpedo, or plasma torpedo, or other such projectile weapon might not have been what they needed. They needed phasers or something close enough. And the Romulan didn't quibble over semantics like we do, they were in danger remember. The argument could be expressed like this. A US ship and a Russian ship are in trouble, and the US ship has been damaged so their weapons are out. Somehow. So the commander of the US ship asks the Russian if they have Vulcan cannons that work, and the Russian says yes and destroys the problem. NOW... does this mean the Soviet ship was actually equipped with 20mm Vulcan cannon, like US ships, or that the Russian ship had 30mm rotary cannon that are standard in the Russian navy and knew it fit what the US commander needed? If I ask someone for a "Band-Aid" and they give me some store brand bandage and I use it, does that imply that it is actually a Band-Aid product? No, it means our communication accomplished its task in spite of inaccuracy and we didn't fuss over it. I think this is the case. Sometimes it seems like fans hold their favorite shows to unearthly expectations of precision in conversation. Reality is a lot more sloppy, but still gets things done. --JCoyote 19:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Captions Twice
I'm not sure what's going on, but I am viewing the site in Monobook, and am using Firefox and if an image caption is entered, it appears twice whereas without it, the page default is listed only once. Just thought it should be put out there, as I tried to look at the code but realized the history hasn't shown a recent edit to this template. --Terran Officer 07:38, December 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * Something broke on the back end is my theory. The uncentered caption is the text that appears on a mouseover, and shouldn't be displaying as actual text. Removing that code fixes the problem, but also removes the description text. - 10:02, December 17, 2010 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, the recent edit spree to all these templates made some of the captions disappear completely in some combinations of browser and skin while not in others. Since we already know that there's some bug with displaying thumbnails... how about not editing the templates if we're not sure if the edit actually solves anything? -- Cid Highwind 10:16, December 17, 2010 (UTC)