I know this article doesn't originate the practice, but, why do disambiguated shuttlecraft names come like this? If we had a starship called Kor (civilian so it's not got the USS prefix or whatnot) we wouldn't call the article "Starship Kor", it would be "Kor (starship)". Why do shuttlecraft get this odd treatment? --8of5 21:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- The "USS" in naval prefix practices actually acts as the disambiguant -- for example, the aircraft carrier Enterprise's name actually means "United States Ship Enterprise", but in short form -- and the same seems to go for all prefixed Starfleet and other starships -- if it weren't for the practice of abbreviating, those articles would be called United Space Ship Enterprise (or United Star depending on which "USS" abbreviation you believe from canon and non).
- So if there was a "USS Kor", it would be called "USS Kor", not "Kor (United Star Ship)".. even though we don't have a handy abbreviation for the word "shuttlecraft", it still seems to make an all right disambiguation to use it before the name without have to pipe parenthesized endings into the link -- {{ship|Shuttlecraft|Kor}} for example is easier than [[Kor (Shuttlecraft)|Shuttlecraft ''Kor'']] -- Captain MKB 23:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- I can see the point about being easier to link to, but it does go against the standard disambiguate that we (and Memory Alpha) use. If we do decide to go back to [[Name (shuttlecraft)]] the we can always create a {{shuttle|name}} template. --The Doctor 07:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- Did you see my point about how other vehicles are described by a prefixed description, though? It's not odd treatment for shuttles because both shuttles and starships have a descriptor tacked on to the beginning. Starships it just happens to be a neater abbreviation, but we have heard of "Shuttlecraft Galileo" or "Shuttlepod 5" being used as verbal names for these vehicles.
- Unless you are proposing that we move all occurrences of "USS" after the ship name in parentheses, I can't see this being a "standard disambiguate" for things like this. -- Captain MKB 14:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I specifically compared it to a civilian starship (which wouldn't have the USS prefix) because I don't think USS and shuttlecraft are as directly comparable as you're making them out to be. USS is a proper part of the name, it's right there next to the name painted on the hull. As far as I'm aware shuttlecraft is not (they just have the name and registration painted on the hull). It's not a prefix, it's a descriptor, just like "Starship Enterprise", "Runabout Danube", "Planet Earth", etc. Which, if we didn't have any more info than a name available (no knowledge of allegiances to give prefixes, and no registrations) and we had to disambiguate, would be called "Enterprise (starship)", "Danube (runabout)" and "Earth (planet)". --8of5 14:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- The prefix doesn't always serve as part of the most proper version of the name though -- for example the civilian "SS" prefix which doesn't always show an allegiance or a specific source -- it is the shortening of a descriptor that is assigned by a number of agencies, but also may be self-assigned.
- Since the practice of using the descriptor makes the article name simpler, why dispute it? To cite another case of two articles that do not use standard disambiguants, look at James Kirk versus James T. Kirk -- they are differentiated from each other not by the standard parenthetical but by a more complete version of the proper name. And we use Worf, son of Mogh rather than Worf (son of Mogh) because the descriptor fits as part of the natural order of words created by the description. -- Captain MKB 18:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
But however the SS prefix was attained it's been worked into the ship's name, the prefix might mean starship (or space ship, etc), but it's been attached as a prefix to the name, not just description.
So yeah, like Worf, Kirk, or an Andorian name with the gender prefix, SS (however the prefix was attainted) is part of the name. While having shuttlecraft in front is just describing. Like, for instance, we have an article called Adams (Admiral), not "Admiral Adams". --8of5 18:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- Ranks are different however -- they are time sensitive. Admiral Adams used to be Ensign Adams. We really only use that as a last resort for personnel's names.
- To bring this to the point, how do you know "shuttlecraft" isn't part of the name? -- it is for example, with Shuttlepod 1. I think there is some gray area in the "official part of the name" argument being used here -- and I'm still not convinced that there's any reason to change this practice since there are so many other places where extra parts of names and other descriptors may be used to disambiguate effectively, non-parenthetically. -- Captain MKB 18:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
If shuttlecraft is as integral and proper part of the name as USS as you seem to be claiming, shouldn't Every shuttlecraft article be named in this manner?
And I think you know very well that examples such as Shuttlepod 1 are an exception, it is given no other name than the number, more like the starbase naming.
The reason is consistency, why use many other names and descriptors when we can have one system that effectively works for everything? It's also distracting, the parenthetical disambiguation makes the actual name more dominant "Name of thing (because it needs disambiguation, a describing term)" as opposed to "Because it needs disambiguation, a describing term, oh, and this it's what it's named". --8of5 13:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)