Template talk:Ships

Discussion page of Template:Ships
Revision as of 03:59, 13 October 2007 by Joe Beaudoin Jr. (talk | contribs) (getting rid of red link)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

What's with the lower case stuff? It looks really awkward. --BklynBruzer 21:33, 9 May 2007 (CDT)

It's the standard though. I don't think it looks that bad. Btw, it's not necessary to revert right away in case of such a disagreement. Just bringing up on the talk page first is enough. --Serenity 01:04, 10 May 2007 (CDT)
Its not in the middle of a sentance though it's in its own little sentance between the | signs. If I were to talk about a battlestar then fair enough. Battlestar however begins with a capital because it is the starting word. --Mercifull (Talk/Contribs) 03:21, 10 May 2007 (CDT)
Yeah, I see that point. This is one of those things were I could go either way. Neither is entirely wrong IMO. It's not really a full sentence though, which is why I prefer lower case personally --Serenity 03:35, 10 May 2007 (CDT)
I do personally believe that Battlestar is a proper name, I don't consider it on par with something like "destroyer" etc, for multiple reasons. I agree that it looks odd lower-cased as well. Bradley Thompson responded to this question at Battlestar Wiki:Official Communiques/Archive6#Battlestar or battlestar? (Basestar or basestar, et cetera). The Wiki's MoS does state not to capitalise (BW:SAC#Ships). Matthew 04:17, 10 May 2007 (CDT)
I think we gotta make an exception in this case. Otherwise the works Galactica and Pegusas would be the only clue. Shane (T - C - E) 07:02, 10 May 2007 (CDT)

Physically-seen ships only?

Despite the coolness of their recent discovery (a Battlestar Wiki exclusive!), I removed the two new battlestars from the list, as we don't have Solaria, or Triton or Atlantia there either, and it just musses up the template. --Spencerian 15:31, 14 May 2007 (CDT)

Maybe we should make a template for "mentioned-only" ships? Or simply create a list of ships, a la List of Vipers? -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 16:22, 14 May 2007 (CDT)
I love template, but that's too much. ;-) If we really think or more information about the mentioned only stuff comes about then I say template it up. Shane (T - C - E) 06:11, 15 May 2007 (CDT)
I concur with Shane. The categories work fine, and the Battlestar super-disambig is pretty good (if I do say so myself) for this idea as well. --Spencerian 10:34, 15 May 2007 (CDT)