I propose a split of the studio model section to its own page for reasons of:
- Being large enough
- and as such, the section is overshadowing its in-universe POV contents.
--Sennim 18:59, October 22, 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure a split is necessary in this case. The article isn't that long.–Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 02:26, October 30, 2011 (UTC)
Maybe true, but there is also an aesthetics element about it...It just looks off...the appendices section only consists of one item, the model section, no background other than the model, no apocrypha, no external links, no nothing... in this particular case the look of the article IMHO would be served by adding a disambig....just my two cents--Sennim 16:05, November 25, 2011 (UTC)
- It's generally not good to split articles unless the article is getting a bit long. Why make things harder for readers by making them have to click through another page, when the info can easily fit here?
- If you want to add background other than the model and apocrypha notes to round out the page, feel free. And there already is a relevant external link, to Memory Beta.–Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 23:05, November 25, 2011 (UTC)
My point is: There is Nothing Else!!!!!!!!, nor will there ever be--Sennim 23:09, November 25, 2011 (UTC)
- If anything, I wonder whether information about the Vanguard Station model (which isn't Starbase 6, and not even canon itself) should really be located on this page - or if it wouldn't better be located at Star Trek: Vanguard. If that is cleaned up, I don't think there's too much information for a single article. -- Cid Highwind 23:18, November 25, 2011 (UTC)
Well, it was just a suggestion...considering the resistance it is just not worth the opposition , so Concede.--Sennim 23:32, November 25, 2011 (UTC)
Not wanting to put fire onto flaming fire: but every reference to the Vanguard Station was modeled upon the "starbase 6 station "--Sennim 00:35, November 26, 2011 (UTC)
- Re:Archduk3 - "relevancy" doesn't necessarily mean that information has to be placed on exactly this page, though - there could be a link to another article containing the information, if the information is a better fit there than here.
- Re:Sennim - what do you mean? Wasn't the "redesigned SB6" modelled after what had already been seen as Vanguard/SB47, not the other way around? -- Cid Highwind 16:51, December 3, 2011 (UTC)
Dear Cid, The redesigned SB6 was modeled after Vanguard, my bad if I´ve confused the matter...but I´m cool with this not being split off as per your arguments, so no worries--Sennim 16:57, December 3, 2011 (UTC)