Talk:Canon WarShip Overview


I add the merge tag, i think the WarShip overview is added in other notable WarShip pages, any thoughts.--Doneve 17:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

It's me the creator of this page, Neuling. I disagree to merge the site with the induvidual pages, because it is an intire overvies off all known warship during the mid 31st century. Outgoing from the field manuals to the development in the FM: Update until the horrendous loses of the jihad the site provide vital information about all events with the corresponding references. Neuling 17:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Not that I'm opposed to the idea (I have my own list of named DropShips/JumpShips back from the good old days), but I'm not sure if BTW is the right place for this. Over at there is an excellent "Canon Warships list" thread, providing an Excel file with regular updates. I think what Neuling is trying to do here would better be done the way the community does it. Frabby 19:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
The "higly prized" Canon Warhship list is in someway useful, but lacks many of the latest developments and with every new puplished book or material the gab get greater. The site provide the averge user with an idea how the naval forces shifted from large engagements to small raid, because the development of pocket warships/new weapons and tactics make them easy targets. The fedcom civil war, the jihad, the dominion wars, the battle over alshain, the conflicts at the homeworlds will all include in this overview and explained.Neuling 20:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Frabby, the Canon Warhship site lacks on a lot of information and citations, there can be found on some sarna pages.--Doneve 20:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I think the method we already use is best, info/events on specific ships belongs on the classes pages save for those really notable vessels (aka Invisible Truth) or on articles for those events, while we can beef up the pocket warships and sub-cap weapons sections of the WarShip page to cover the rest, rather than start another new page. Cyc 21:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Absolutly.--Doneve 21:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
To put the information on the individual classes is a thought worth. Many of the information which will be provide are not incorporate in the existing material on sarna net. I find it is easier to gather the information on one place and give them enough substance, in contrast that every bit of informations is spreaded over many subpages. Every faction has its own developing process and this is not shown. As example the CCAF build its naval power as a counter to the might of the FWLM. The WoB hide its true naval strength and many were suprised by the sheer size during the Jihad. Also all known powers developed their unique Pocket warship to have a weapon of choice against the Word of Blake. Many ships are lost and only few wil survived.Neuling 21:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Personally, I rather maintain a quick list, with link going to the individual ship file direct to it's name. Not all users want get into nitty gritty deals. Quick and simple helps. -- Wrangler (talk) 09:30, 7 June 2016 (PDT)
Another idea would be to list them under military commands for each Faction have a sub category for the warships in each faction. Treat each one in a list with small entires we can add references to the small ones on that page and if more data becomes availible then build an individual page. Those notable ones like Invisible Truth merit their own page.ClanJF74017 (talk) 11:45, 30 June 2016 (PDT)


The above discussion stems from a time before we decided each and every single named WarShip, JumpShip, DropShip or Small Craft should have its own article. At this point, my suggestion would be to use categories to keep track of which vessels served which faction (preferrably categorizing redirects with the name by which the vessel was known when it served with that faction). Frabby (talk) 13:00, 30 June 2016 (PDT)


Should WarShip names be italicized? -BobTheZombie (talk) 09:07, 29 July 2013 (PDT)

Yes.--Doneve (talk) 10:10, 29 July 2013 (PDT)
But not service prefixes. CSR Ark Royal is right, CSR Ark Royal is wrong. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 10:50, 29 July 2013 (PDT)
I'm done here; how does it look? -BobTheZombie (talk) 12:17, 3 August 2013 (PDT)