Recently there has been considerable expansion of the background section of starship article concerning the name origins for various starships. It is believed by some that this is necessary, but others believe that what should be included is simply information that can be confirmed by reputable sources. --Alan 10:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
The following was moved from talk:USS Essex:
- "It is most probably named after five ships of the same name of the US navy, which were named after Essex County in Massachusettes, which was in turn named after the County of Essex in England."
This is all fine and well, and as that run on statement makes clear, something is almost always named after something else. I fail to see this obsession with why it is necessary to list every feasible possibility? I seriously believe that unless it is stated from a source, be it the episode writer or the Star Trek Encyclopedia, or is an obvious reference to a franchise derived name (ShirKahr, Sarek, T'Plana-Hath, Sitak), we really don't need to include all this frivolous commentary. If the need be, simply say: "See: Essex for possible name origins." - seeing as we do not know what it is, especially in the case of the Essex. Then the readers can fancy their day away reading about all the possible references wikipedia has listed. --Alan 22:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm, a good point Alan. I do see having one reference, but I don't see a need to have a run-on statement like that (that's when one can go to Wikipedia ;)). On the other hand, it would be even better if there was, indeed, a background source for what the ship is named after (unless it is REALLY obvious, like the USS Tolstoy). - Adm. Enzo Aquarius...I'm listening 22:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well, just in order to defend myself a little bit: The original text wasn't a good read either. All I did was to take out the "previous Essexes" and add some links. Where is the problem? No one has to follow the links unless they want to. – Ambassador 22:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
...and for the same reason they don't need to be there, especially in excess. The fact that I just corrected the USS Potemkin (NCC-18253), which stated: "The Potemkin may have been named after the Потёмкин (Potemkin), a Russian battleship involved in the Russian Revolution of 1905','" when in fact, "According to the Star Trek Encyclopedia, the Potemkin was "named for Grigory Aleksandrovich Potemkin, (1739-1791), Russian military figure under Catherine II." This seems to validate my point, and brings me back to my original point, If the need be, simply say: "See: Potemkin for possible name origins." - seeing as we do not know what it is. Since the origin of the name can be cited to some kind of production source, we can deem the origin more valid than what we had. --Alan 23:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well...I never said "Don't change it!". If it isn't so good...do it better! That's why we're here, isn't it? And the Potemkin...well, I just put the reference to the battleship in there because I was not aware of an explanation being already given in the Encyclopedia. There was no reference in the article, so I added the most reasonable, albeit I'm well aware of the man Potemkin. But in this case I simply had not all facts, so please excuse my "arrogation" to present a possible reference. – Ambassador 23:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I simply wish we would put some thought into this before haphazardly hitting and expanding existing information on each and every starship article without coming to an understanding of what is being added and why. --Alan 23:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Look...I do not really understand what this all has to do with my recent edits on the Essex article. I did not change any information, aside from removing one or two superfluous "Essexes" and creating two or three external links to the ships and the places they were likely named after. All of this has already been written, before I went to work. I really just made it a bit more readable and provided links for all those people who will be interested in information about the places named Essex. So how come there was no complaint about the original paragraph, even though it was an even bumpier read? CHANGE IT if it conflicts with what a good article should look like! I just reworked what was already there. So please stop beating around the bush and either leave it the way it is, restore the original or change it to something more appropriate. – Ambassador 09:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Consider this an extension of the talk:USS Nautilus discussion, if that takes away the "beating around the bush" aspect of this. This has to do with the recent number of contributions being made to all starship articles, regarding extraneous information. I restarted the conversation at talk:USS Essex, but could have just as easily continued the discussion at the Nautilus page, talk:USS Potemkin page, etc. Either way, as I stated in my last point, which was clearly not beating around any bushes, I simply wish there would be some thought put into this before haphazardly hitting and expanding existing information on each and every starship article without coming to an understanding of what is being added and why. --Alan 10:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- And that's what I don't understand. Think about it for a second: I myself am from Austria, so do not necessarily have a clue what "Essex", "Wyoming" or "Princeton" could refer to. Well, in fact I do have every clue, but that does not mean that there are no people out there who do not. Those people might be quite grateful for any information.
- Having said that, I can only repeat what I've already said. Not only did I never simply put in speculation (well, forget about the Nautilus. As a student of Latin and Greek I felt somewhat obliged to add some reference on the derivation, although a simple translation is in fact not a speculation at all), but rather tried to come up with sensible explanations.
- If you are trying to tell me now that a sentence like "The USS Lalo was most likely named for the famous composer." is pure bullshit......well, then there's probably something wrong with the regulations and I am definitely member of the wrong community...
- Alright, coming back to your concerns about the "what" and "why". Well, if you take a superficial look at the "what" that I added you will probably see that it's just as good (or bad?) as all the other references on every other starship article that I did neither write nor edit.
- The "why" I explained above. Don't you think that there are lots of people out there who might want to know what or who a "Potemkin" was/is? Sure, it's not the mission of the MA community to copy every article from Wikipedia, nor should it be. BUT we can refer those people there! And that is all I did in the last two days. – Ambassador 16:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Although this topic is now over 2 years old, I wanted to bring it up after noticing more name origins are being deleted from articles because they aren't cited in the Encyclopedia, etc. If MA really just wants to get rid of all of them, fine, but some of us, as Ambassador already stated, do find that information interesting. For instance, the USS Tombaugh had a single sentence stating that it was most likely named after the discoverer of Pluto removed. This and other explanations still listed on many other ship articles are part of what makes MA a fascinating reference for me at least and I suspect for others as well, much more than just starship listings that can be found on various other sites. I'm curious to read the thoughts of others on this issue. Wangry 08:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Looking at the history of USS Tombaugh, it included the following information, formatted as background information:
- This is not even a case of "most likely" speculation, it was stated as fact - although, apparently, we can't really be sure if this fact is even correct. Without speculating, we could only link to Wikipedia's Special:Search/Tombaugh and let the reader do the speculating himself. -- Cid Highwind 09:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)