At Talk:SS Tsiolkovsky it has been brought up that that vessel was called "SS Tsiolkovsky" in dialogue, "K. E. Tsiolkovsky" on its plaque, and probably never called "USS" -- so probably it shouldn't be (even though it is an NCC starfleet registered vessel)

This vessel's name is only known from its hull lettering, there's no dialogue, there's no plaque or graphic display -- do we have enough cause to assign it an "USS" prefix or should we go with the appearance, and move this to Raging Queen. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 15:44, 18 Aug 2005 (UTC)

I recall reading up on the Raging Queen earlier this morning on Ex-Astris-Scientia. They mention that the Raging Queen was never labelled with the traditional USS and was just named Raging Queen NCC-42284. The reason for this is unknown, and it may have been done on purpose (Though civilian vessels have the SS marking, so if this was a civilian vessel, it would've been SS Raging Queen.) It's difficult to say whether to transfer this to Raging Queen or not. Enzo Aquarius 16:03, 18 Aug 2005 (UTC)
I don't remember the exact circumstances of its appearance, but I guess it might be a good idea to move... -- Cid Highwind 15:57, 24 Aug 2005 (UTC)
I think this is as simple as the Val Jean discussion. Go with what the image shows and don't assume the prefix. I'm going to make the move on that basis. --Alan del Beccio 16:28, 24 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Ship Type Suggestion Edit

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. Ambassador/Ensign_Q 00:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, this is just stupid and WP:POINT run amok. You are proposing a merge with an article you yourself claim shouldn't exist, and it seems to me out of anger from losing the Antares debate. --OuroborosCobra talk 00:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Also, this doesn't even make sense. This is an article for an individual ship, not a ship type or a ship class. Why the hell would we merge it with a ship type/class? --OuroborosCobra talk 00:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I never said "merge" anywhere. I just said we should start calling it a Curry-type in the article, considering we apply the same flawed logic to the Antares-type article. As for the rest of what you said, eh, I bet it will all work out. :)

P.S. Hey look, I didn't move pages this time!Ambassador/Ensign_Q 01:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, it was hard to tell since you created your own little "notice" that has absolutely no place being in the article, and isn't how we have ever handled other disputes in the history of the website, that looked an awful lot like a merge notice.
Good god this is annoying. --OuroborosCobra talk 01:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Then why don't you just quit if you're so unhappy? Ambassador/Ensign_Q 15:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

A serious look at this that isn't trying to violate WP:POINT Edit

Constitution class variant model

Connie with a different nacelle config

I thought I would point out how the only difference between this ship and the Curry type seems to be the orientation of the nacelles. On the other hand, we have Geordi's Connie model, with the same exact difference, yet we still call it a Connie. I wonder, were this a Constellation-class that had a more traditional vertical nacelle mounting, would this even be a question? Would we call it a new class, or simply a mild variation? I'd add that with other similar ship models, such as the few variations on the Galaxy, Nebula, and Miranda classes, we only consider them a separate class when we are forced to do so by dialog or other canon information, as in the case of the Soyuz class. Should we not consider putting this as a "Curry type"?--OuroborosCobra talk 20:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, looking through to script for "Booby Trap", apparently the episode with that model, I can find nothing in dialog or anywhere else designating that model as a Connie. --OuroborosCobra talk 20:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I initially had the same thought when the last "discussion" started... but then I wondered: This article does not claim that ship is any other type than "Curry type", and that article even lists this ship as a member (although "uncertain"). So, what's the whole fuss about? Probably not much, because even last discussion's "point-making" was quickly moved to a different article pair.
For the record, I wouldn't really mind a different wording regarding the "type" this ship belongs to - but, after all, "type" is just an inofficial identifier, so it doesn't make much of a difference in my opinion. -- Cid Highwind 21:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Has there even been an "official" sighting of this class on screen anyway? I mean, where's our picture for it? Seems like a lot of discussion (as a whole) about something that might not have even been seen on screen, or that one cannot even make a sound decision on based on the lack of facts. With that said, I might not have a problem merging this with the Curry.. if they are as similar as the text suggests, which, to me, is unlike choosing just the Excelsior class as a merge point, when this consists of components and configurations above and beyond what are found on the Excelsior. -Alan 21:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The Ex Atris page linked in the article has the onscreen appearance. Will respond more when I get home. I'm not proposing a merge, for the record, for the reasons I said above in the last discussion. --OuroborosCobra talk 21:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Raging Queen, A Time to Stand

The retreating Raging Queen (on the left).

The ship on the left of this image is what Ex Atris Scientia says is the Raging Queen. --OuroborosCobra talk 03:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)