Is there a need for these pages?
- It is if you don't want to double the size of the Constitution-class, Intrepid-class and Galaxy-class starship page by adding all of the decks ever referenced for those ships on there. As for the other classes referenced (ie Excelsior class decks), they are evidently just along for the ride. --Alan del Beccio 20:54, 12 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Accuracy of article titlesEdit
Is sorting each of these articles by class really an accurate way of approaching these articles? We know that different Federation starships of different classes often have different internal layouts just with respect to the bridge, not to mention episodes like TNG: "Contagion" seem to imply ships of the same class may have different arrangements. I'd suggest placing these articles at something more accurate; for instance, the Galaxy class decks article should be moved to USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-D) decks with all the information exported from the USS Enterprise-D article. At the very least, we should specify at the start of each article that the source of the deck information is from one particular ship and may not be representative of the entire class. -- SmokeDetector47| TALK 00:13, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what line from "Contagion" you are referrng to, but I actually think that we should limit it to the class (as it currently is) and subsection the article by ship (where necessary) or simply place the variations side-by-side (such as was done with D'deridex or Constellation classes), as a majority of the ship-specific changes you speak of are really only cosmetic. Otherwise, there has been no indication that deck plan layouts (which these articles are really about) differ so radically that they cannot be universally applied to the class as a whole, and not per ship. --Alan del Beccio 15:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)