Difference between revisions of "Category talk:ST Starships"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
* It would certainly be a good thing. That of course requires us to agree on a format or have someone in authority decide on one, then we'll have to go through and get them all updated. --[[User:Ted C|Ted C]] 08:34, 21 March 2008 (EDT) | * It would certainly be a good thing. That of course requires us to agree on a format or have someone in authority decide on one, then we'll have to go through and get them all updated. --[[User:Ted C|Ted C]] 08:34, 21 March 2008 (EDT) | ||
** Well, any template is going to need a history of the ship/class, a description of what it looks like, maybe a stat box with size/crew/armaments and some notable examples. If we can at least settle on a format for doing those, the articles are going to look a lot cleaner. --[[User:Bounty|Bounty]] 18:05, 22 March 2008 (EDT) | |||
Latest revision as of 22:05, 22 March 2008
Would it perhaps be a good idea to draw up a template for "starship" articles and stick to it? Right now everyone seems to use their own system and it makes this category look very disjointed. --Bounty 07:57, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
- It would certainly be a good thing. That of course requires us to agree on a format or have someone in authority decide on one, then we'll have to go through and get them all updated. --Ted C 08:34, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
- Well, any template is going to need a history of the ship/class, a description of what it looks like, maybe a stat box with size/crew/armaments and some notable examples. If we can at least settle on a format for doing those, the articles are going to look a lot cleaner. --Bounty 18:05, 22 March 2008 (EDT)