Talk:List of fictional spacecraft

Point of this Page?

I don't understand the point of this particular page. What possible use does a random list of spaceships from all kinds of fictional universes which have no interaction with each other have? I can understand the idea behind collecting information on various starships for a specific universe to provide additional information in the article focused on said universe (e.g. list Star Trek ships in a Star Trek article and so forth), but this page here seems rather useless.

I agree this page is just a list of hundreds of spaceships from a load of different series, why would anyone find this information useful, i can imagine a person looking up a series but why would anyone need a jumbled mess of spaceship names 68.106.217.181 (talk) 06:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I also agree. It's not even as if it's even very thorough. (Seems very TV and film orientated too.) I could probably more than double the length of the list by picking random books off my shelf, but why? If it was done thoroughly it would be too big to be managable; if not, there's no point. The-Dixie-Flatline (talk) 04:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I like this page very much. I think it has great potential. I do not think that the point should be to list ALL fictional spaceships. I like that the ships are all categorized by size and purpose. Please preserve the spaceship grouping on this page, by linking all spaceships to categories (IE. orbital, lunar, interplanetary, etc.)Ccubedd (talk) 01:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Personal opionon on a page's relevance or usefulness is irrelevant in itself. Just because you don't like a page or see how it could be useful doesn't mean that nobody will. You have lost the whole point of Wikipedia, which is a source of information for everyone, not just you. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.129.23.146 (talk) 09:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Comic Starships

Those obscure comic starships (what is gundam seed, after all) overdominate this page. Somebody should trim those down to the most important two or three and put the rest into an own section (as is done with the Star Trek ships).

Furthermore I'd like to remark that Gundam Seed is utterly obscure and doesn't capture a more general imagination the way Star Wars, Star Trek or some of the other mentioned ships do. I mean, what is next, deceptecons, or mighty morphin power rangers ? hero turtles ?

Last but not least, the gundam seed entries do describe ship classes not individual ships, and therefore do not fit into this article's theme. I'm leaving them alone right now, but somebody should do something about that, preferably the contributor of those entries. Wefa 01:47, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The Gundam Seed ones could be moved to: Starship class

Organization

I'm trying to make this page a little more organized. I would have put them by size class, but that seemed too complicated so I went for "purpose" instead. Unfortunately, I don't know every single one of these works so for the time being, most of the ships sit in "Military & Exploration" right now (I put those two purposes together since things like Star Trek combine the two anyway).

I also took out the Star Wars stuff for now since it seemed redundant. I have nothing against Star Wars - it's just that those ships fit into different categories and I didn't know whether I should be separating them right now. Additionally, I took out any "types" of ships that were listed, since this is supposed to be "named" ships only (like I removed the White Stars from B5, since they are actually a whole type of ship, the only named one I ever saw was Maria (White Star 27) in season 5). - Lampbane

I agree with the cleanup, although I have restored three entries that definitely warrant inclusion here. The Enterprise needs an entry here given that it has been a part of the sci-fi world for four decades. Trek's Voyager is the namesake for a series, and the Millennium Falcon is an icon of the Star Wars films. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with the decision, yet on that note, shouldn't the list then include the Death Stars 1 & 2? And what of Slave 1, Boba Fett's ship?

Should we get this on a vote? And/or should we list them better - with links to the lists of SW/ST ships?

~ender 2008-01-13 12:10:PM MST

Videogames

What's the stance on famous video-game ships? I'd like to see the High Charity, the Autumn, and In Amber Clad from the Halo series listed here. -Westerly

There's videogame stuff in here already, from Wing Commander. - Lampbane

For Starcraft, you could include the Nagglfar, Sarengo, Reagan and Argo; they were the four original ships that brought the Terran to the sector.

How about the Von Braun and the Rickenbacker from System Shock 2? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.201.1.85 (talk) 15:28, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with this, as they are "fictional spacecrafts".Ccubedd (talk) 01:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The Transformers

Forgot Nemesis, The Ark, Darkside and Axalon. Shame. Oh, and Omega Delta (Autobot shuttle that crashed into bridge of Nemesis at the end of Beast Wars).

Stasis pods sounds like a good idea too.

Comics

While his character isn't originally a spaceship, Ultimate Galactus is actually represented by a fleet of spaceships collectively known as Gah Lak Tus.

First Ark to Alpha Centauri by A. Ahad

Article needs to include the first human colony ark to New Earth, an as yet undiscovered planet of Alpha Centauri B depicted in A. Ahad's famous novel series First Ark to Alpha Centauri (2005):

File:Centauri princess schematic.jpg

Sitara12 22:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Removed Star Wars/Star Trek listings

I'm not sure these made it to the appropriate lists, but they weren't suppossed to be on this list:

• Millennium Falcon - Star Wars
• USS Enterprise, various incarnations - Star Trek
• Phoenix - Zefram Cochane's X-warpship - Star Trek
• SS Botany Bay - hi-jacked 20st century sleeper ship - Star Trek episode "Space Seed"

~ender 2008-01-13 12:10:PM MST

Merge proposal

The newly created Fictional spacecraft article is a content fork that largely duplicates content from here. To avoid such duplication and facilitate article maintenance, I propose that it be merged back to here.  --Lambiam 17:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree with the suggested merger, although i would like to see the introduction of that page be added to this one as it offers a far more detailed explanation of what a "Fictional spacecraft" is. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I also agree. There isn't all that much difference between "spacecraft" and "spaceship", so why try to make things difficult? Crablogger (talk) 16:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that seems very reasonable. There's no clear distinction between the two, and no obvious reason why they should be separate topics. HolisticReality (talk) 15:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

No. That's wrong. That isn't a list, it's scoped to be a proper encyclopedia article. It's supposed to talk about how different fictional spacecraft compare and contrast, talk about historically significant (in terms of real life, not in-universe) fictional spacecraft etc. etc. The other article is just a list.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 22:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

both currently are just a list of fictional spacecraft. An explanation of what each type of ship(lunar / orbital) followed by the list of ships would be good enough. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

While 'fictional spacecraft' should be a stand-alone article, its just a list, and severely lacking. I think it needs some refining and merging with space opera. I think both articles need to go under the care of WikiProject Science Fiction. Colonel Marksman (talk) 08:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I merged it. If anyone thinks there is scope for a separate article then by all means draft it somewhere outside article space, e.g. as a user subpage, and invite comments here or at WikiProject SF. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Mass Deletion on 27 Nov 2008

On 27 Nov 2008, Duffbeerforme made this edit which reduced the number of spaceships listed on this page from well over a hundred to just a handful (I haven't counted exactly). I am aware that there was a proposal for deletion (which reached no consensus), but this edit does not, as far as I can see, have any "official" sanction.

The description that Duffbeerforme supplied for this edit was "rem all without own article. WP:SAL", implying that he/she has removed all entries that don't have their own dedicated page. I would argue, however, that this edit is far too draconian - as a minimum, it should have retained all entries that have their own section on another page. I am aware of the SAL guidelines, but they are guidelines, not rules, and I would claim that any spaceship significant enough to have its own section in any Wikipedia article is notable enough to be listed here.

The entries removed by Duffbeerforme include:

• Thunderbird 3 - Supermarionation series Thunderbirds (TV series)
• Fireball XL5
• Jupiter 2 - Lost in Space, film & series
• LEXX - a living spaceship, from Lexx
• USS Voyager (NCC-74656) - Intrepid Class Starship - Star Trek
• Dark Star
• Moya - a living spaceship, Farscape
• Battlestar Galactica - Battlestar Galactica (1978) & Battlestar Galactica (2003)
• Red Dwarf Ore Freighter - Red Dwarf

You may or may not be fans of these, but are they really "not notable"??

Is there really a consensus that this edit should have been made, or has this pruning been somewhat overzealous?86.7.21.237 (talk) 00:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Against Deletion of Article Jan 2010

I'm against the entire article being deleted. Some references are not possible due to nature of science fiction's televised. Some of the anime entries for spacecraft/starships are listed in exclusively in Japan don't have englished based references. Others are older than internet itself. I'm not sure if some of the entries can remain on the article if Wikipedia doesn't allow it without a modern reference. -- Colt9033 (talk) 04:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The list should contain all fictional spacecraft without limitation. Otherwise the title of the article may as well be renamed to "List of fictional spacecraft (with their own Wikipedia articles)" or something similar. The only limitaiton should be that the craft must be fictional (as the title makes clear). Those that are into fighting over significance and relevence should be redirected to wikis dedicated to their cause (such as Wookiepedia for the Star Wars obsessed). For this article to be complete, it should contain a complete list of fictional spacecraft, including the obscure ones. People who are interested in finding out what fictional spacecraft exist will be drawn to this page, and they will expect a long list. Listing only craft meeting certain criteria (besides being fictional) is a limitation on the information that can be extracted from such an article. If any discussion or argument is to be had, it should be over such things as classifications, but perhaps there should be more than one page presentation, using JavaScript to change the organisation on the fly (I'm not sure how that would be done in Wikipedia, but those who say it cannot be done shouldn't get in the way of those doing it, and everything is impossible until someone shows that it isn't). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.129.23.146 (talk) 09:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Really?

There's a lot of talk about what counts and what doesn't, when it's really simple: apply existing standards of notability. Is a ship well-known in its own right (like Millennium Falcon and Enterprise) or is it very prominent within an especially notable fictional work (like Serenity in Firefly and the Planet Express ship from Futurama)? If not, it shouldn't be on the list. For example, the entire "Small Craft" section can be axed: it's nothing but small vehicles in TV series that all have much more notable craft already on the list, and I'm not sure anyone knows what the hell Doctor Snuggles is. There should also be more of what's been done with the entry for the Battlestars: a listing of a type of ship, with one or two notable examples. The Nadesico and Freelancer ships, at the very least, should be so condensed - if they're even notable enough to be here to begin with. The lists might also benefit from being arranged according to the name of the work in which the ships exist, which would help with consolidation. It's easier than people have been making it, and the only reason I'm not doing a lot of it myself is because I don't know enough about most of these works to judge notability. Anyone else feel game? ~e.o.t.d~ (蜻蛉の目•話す•貢献) 08:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Unnecessary Deletions

I thought I was editing my own personal list (same fonts), when I realized it was the Wiki page ! Obviously, great stupidity & massive idiocy on my part - But, those edits have been retrieved and the current page does not contain my very latest changes, but reflects the page of 4:08 15 January - note the difference (AW JEESE, WTF ?) - (also, the AfD was not on the current page). Massive apologies on my part to those who've added items in the last few days. They have been returned... Never do it again. Promise. Really. . . . . And a neanderthal dolt signs out.PFSLAKES1 (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Your unsourced changes have been reverted. The honus is on you to provide sources for material you introduce (or re-introduce) once it has been challenged as non-notable. JBsupreme (talk) 10:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

"Personnel Spacecraft" category?

Can we merge this category? I think that the way the page is organized already, it would be best to continue organizing ships based on their capabilities. Orbital, Lunar, Interplanetary, Interstellar, Intergalactic, and Space Stations... It makes sense to have interstellar split by military and transport, because most wars in science fiction are interstellar...Ccubedd (talk) 01:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of fictional spacecraft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100824173950/http://www.mania.com/starship-operators-vol-3_article_112012.html to http://www.mania.com/starship-operators-vol-3_article_112012.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposal for reorganization

While the organization of this list by function is interesting, I think organizing it by franchise or alphabetically by the ship name in a table may be more useful. Determining the function of a fictional ship can be difficult when definitions vary across franchise and because many fictional ships are multi-purpose. Basmith0 (talk) 21:28, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Notability

The article starts by saying identified by name in notable published works of fiction.

That's not how notability works.

Sure, the works might be notable. But this article isn't about the work. It's about individual space craft. And the vast majority of crafts listed here are not even remotely notable. I noticed most entries have a reference, but that only establishes notability for the work (the franchise) - NOT the individual entry.

In short, this reads as a fancruft article, whose existence is predicated upon completeness. Fan wikis do completeness, Wikipedia doesn't.

I propose we prune away any entry that can't be sourced as being notable. I predict the list shrinking by at least 90%. CapnZapp (talk) 09:08, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Also, I noticed The Orville article linked here. And now I see more such links that are entirely irrelevant. This list doesn't even list Orville ships, but that's not the point. The point is: even if it did, that would be a useless link to give to a reader, since all the entry would have done, is state the ship's name and link back to where we came from. My point is: assuming the list only contains notable ships, it has a place on wikipedia as a place from which you can quickly reach various franchise articles. Its use as a link target from those pages is much much more dubious - there simply is no reason why a reader of The Orville (say) should be sent to a list of Last Starfighter (say) ships. Yes, both feature spacecraft. No, that's not a valid connection. TL;DR: Send readers of general articles here (things like "space battles" or "history of SF" articles), but not readers of individual properties - we have no reason to believe just because you're reading Gundam you're interested in Orville ship listings. Such a reader would move on to a general article, from which we can offer this link. I propose we examine each link to here ("what links here") and remove any instance where "spacecraft" or "scout vessel" is linked with this article (as I just did on Orville). This page simply does not explain any of those terms, and is generally useless as a link target from a specific property. CapnZapp (talk) 09:19, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

agree. Was considering Q-ships for Thanos (Infinity War) but following this agree not fit for this fictional list. Earnsthearthrob (talk) 18:10, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

"Steelhaven" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Steelhaven. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Reyk _YO! 14:17, 27 February 2020 (UTC)