Talk:Curry type

seeing as "Shelley class" is a term devised by internet fans, and not relayed in any published form, should we take the more canonically neutral road and move this article to Curry type and leave the apocryphal designation as a footnote? --Captain Mike K. Bartel 17:21, 28 Jul 2004 (CEST)

Already done. I was thinking the same thing. -- Michael Warren 17:31, 28 Jul 2004 (CEST)

Ok, cool. We could probably put both Curry and Raging Queen under this, since they are basically the same type of vessel (this is one instance where "type" versus "class" will work in our favor.. these ships may not be the same exact class, but they are of the smae type so we don't need to create an unneccessary made-up class-name article for Raging Queen.. --Captain Mike K. Bartel 17:40, 28 Jul 2004 (CEST)

Again, already done :D. I've put it in ==Unknown ships== for the moment, and made a note about it more than likely being a Curry type, with expected manufacturing variations due to their nature. -- Michael Warren 17:44, 28 Jul 2004 (CEST)

The picture needs a description, both on this page and on it's own page. If it is the USS Cury, you could also place the picture there... -- Redge 01:54, 29 Jul 2004 (CEST)

Merge Suggestion

Considering the "solution" we decided upon with the Antares type, it is only fair we should do the same here. We can't be "wishy-washy"; we either apply the solution to every applicable article or not do it all. There is no middle ground. We can mention this ship type in a seperate section in the Excelsior-class article as an "Excelsior-class variant" as the producers intended. Ambassador/Ensign_Q 00:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• Massive oppose. We aren't dealing with a minor visual difference that was explained within dialog here. The differences between these two models are massive, there is absolutely no reason to believe they are the same any more than we should consider the Freedom class as a Galaxy class subtype. They share similar components, sure, but in a configuration so massively different that the similarity in components only denotes that they are from the same technological generation (just as the Nebulae and Galaxies, or refit Connie's and Mirandas). In addition, I seem to recall we had background information from production sources indicating the intention of the Woden and Antares to be the same class. Can you say the same here? I can in fact say the opposite, given what we have in the DS9 TM. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 00:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. No kidding. It's not even close to an Excelsior class vessel. This isn't just a different module this is a complete rearrangement of the ship. There's no wishy-washy about this — Morder 00:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh I see... so you believe there should be a level of "difference-ness" in order to declare whether or not an unknown ship class should be the same class as a similar ship class.

Well, let's look at Cobra's example, the Freedom-class vs the Galaxy-class. Well, it seems different enough. It has a saucer and neck totally different from that of a Galaxy. But its saucer is the same as a Niagara-class, so maybe those are the same class. Oh wait, both the Freedom and Nebula have been given official class names.

>It's not even close to an Excelsior class vessel. This isn't just a different module this is a complete rearrangement of the ship.

Well that's you opinion on how different one ship type has to be in order to be a different class. Based on the Antares-type, the criteria for this at MA is if the majority of the model is the same. But hey, a lot of these criteria are based on personal opinion, so let's base our criteria on canon evidence.

Well I'll be. According to a comparison between the Hermes class and the Saladin class, the difference between two ship classes can be as little as a different number of phaser arrays! Even more, the Yellowstone and Danube classes show that the two classes can have no exterior changes whatsoever!

Of course, I'm not without reason. We should have a more objective example of difference-ness. Having only minor differences to seperate classes would be insane, except that those ships had their class made clear. Hmmm... how about the Soyuz class and the Miranda class. Oh I see, the Soyuz only has minor changes, like a "module added" onto the back and some tacked-on sensor pods. Clearly, by the criteria set by the Antares-type, we should call the Soyuz a Miranda-class and then say that some Mirandas had a module attached to their rear and sensor pods tacked on everywhere... oh wait, they were said to be two classes in canon and thus provide a criteria.

I've hoped I made my point clear.

Oh and Cobra:

>In addition, I seem to recall we had background information from production sources indicating the intention of the Woden and Antares to be the same class.

No, all Okuda said was that they reused the model. Kinda like how they reused the Batris model to represent different ship classes that happened to look similar. Game. Set. Match. Ambassador/Ensign_Q 01:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)