FA nomination (09 Feb - 16 Feb 2008, Failed) Edit

I do not know if I am placing this in the right spot on this page, since nobody has even voted on it yet. But I would like to nominate the article Krenim weapon ship. I re-wrote it late last year. I tried to create a concise, clear, totally encyclopedic, comprehensively informative piece, in much the same vein as Borg-Species 8472 War. – Watching... listening... 13:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Not bad. Could benefit from some pictures and discussion of the interior layout. It is unfortunate that there is no background info. Was anything worth noting stated in Star Trek: The Magazine or some other publication? Couldn't hurt to have a picture or two of some crew members as well. -- Connor Cabal 14:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Update: Added more images and a bit more structure. Unfortuntely there is no information regarding the vessel's layout (Stsr Trek magazine is not, I believe, a canon source, and the only two crewmembers known for certain are Annorax and Obrist.– Watching... listening... 19:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not a canon source, but it is good for production behind the scenes stuff. And I think that's what Connor was suggesting. -- Sulfur 19:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
The layout is not the best, having a whole section for the crew, just to say that there are only two known members and then a gallery of the two taking a big gouge out of the top of the page does not bode well in the aesthetics dept. --Alan del Beccio 05:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion. Fixed accordingly. Please tell me what else, though perhaps it is better to do so on my talk page than here.– Watching... listening... 15:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I still honestly think that it needs a good {{peer review}}. The level of writing needs to be gotten up to par. I've made a few cosmetic changes, but I have not see the episode in some time to make the proper upgrades to the article that seem to be missing, such as Tom and Chakotay's involvement and time aboard the ship. --Alan del Beccio 20:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawing nomination...for now. In keeping with suggestions, I have put the article up for peer review. Please contribute if you can. Thanks. – Watching... listening... 04:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Alternate timelineEdit

Since much of this weapons is outside normal time, most of the article is in italics. This is kind of hard on the eyes. Perhaps some carefull wording and section breaks will make it clear that alternative timelines are present. Drhaggis 01:05, 24 Jan 2005 (CET)

Actually, I was thinking that a better solution would be to no longer use italics for alternate timelines. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 01:28, 24 Jan 2005 (CET)
I usually like the look of italics for alternate timelines, however in this article it is quite ugly. How about a simple ==Alternate timeline== to break it up instead of italics? Tyrant 01:34, 24 Jan 2005 (CET)Tyrant

I have rewritten this article so it is more chronological (if you will forgive the term). Comments before I remove it from the cleanup cat? I am still getting used to the writing style on this Wiki. Drhaggis 02:17, 24 Jan 2005 (CET)

Past tense should be used throughout the whole article - the latter part is written in present tense right now. Also, does all of this info really belong here? Much of it really isn't info about the ship, but about the events of "Year of Hell" and II - maybe move that information there? -- Cid Highwind 12:35, 2005 Jan 31 (CET)

I agree. See my last edit here, before it was edited by I like my edits better, but I didnt want to revert simply over style preferences. Drhaggis 07:57, 1 Feb 2005 (CET)

I understand your concerns, but I'd ask that you don't simply revert it. I put a lot of work into it. -

Irrelevent. I won't revert it because it doen't need it. I may reword it some based on the comments on this page. Drhaggis 04:49, 3 Feb 2005 (CET)

Regarding the alternate timeline issue and italics, that is all irrelevant because the entire ship, and 99% of both episodes existed in an alternate timeline, so it should be normal text started off with "in an alternate timeline". --Alan 15:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Ship status? Edit

  • Starship: "A starship is a type of vehicle that is capable of interstellar travel. Most starships are capable of faster-than-light speeds using warp drive or other propulsion methods."

As such, I would presume that this would fall under the Starships categorization - that's why I added it; it was removed, so I want to check on why before I arbitrarily revert the removal. | THOR 20:17, 23 Feb 2005 (GMT)

I would think it was a weapon and a ship and should be listed as both. Tyrant 20:27, 23 Feb 2005 (GMT)Tyrant

As I received no contradictions, I am reverting the categorization removal. -- THOR 19:17, 12 Mar 2005 (GMT)

It seems Gvsualan has changed it back on you again. That kid is really not too big on democracy. Tyrant 07:52, 24 Mar 2005 (EST)Tyrant
"Kid" Excuse me? Speak for yourself. If you haven't noticed, every single ship in that category is the name of a ship, not a class of ship. Therefore, it should belong in a category dedicated to classes (a la Category:Starship classes). Seems simple enough to me to understand that, just by looking at what's in the category already. --Gvsualan 08:15, 24 Mar 2005 (EST)

Looks like something familiar?Edit

Has anyone else noticed that the temporal weapon ship looks alot like the "Babylon 5" space station? Just a weird co-incidence? Look here, then here, and then tell me they're not similar in design! Zsingaya Talk 10:54, 8 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, you're right, homage or rip-off? --Alan del Beccio 16:31, 8 Oct 2005 (UTC)
It also is similar in design and function to the Chaos Weapon seen in "The Chaos Weapon" by Colin Kapp (1977). -- Auric 14:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
There's a history of Foundation Imaging re-using Wireframes and models from Babylon 5 for Star Trek Voyager and Enterprise. I forgot the name of the artists that said as much but later on recanted, likely under pressure.The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).
This discussion is eight years old- but without evidence of that such a claim cannot be in this article. 31dot (talk) 08:09, August 27, 2014 (UTC)

Peer review Edit

I would like to get this article on the Featured Article list. If you have a contibution to make to it to bring it up to the right standard, please do so. Thanks!– Watching... listening... 04:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)