Talk:Spaceships of Eve Online/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Ship Comparison Graphic

The graphic comparing the different ships seems to be missing the some ships such as the Abaddon, Hyperion, etc. Is there an updated graphic available? 208.102.5.40 16:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Alatari, I've changed some of what you did to the comparison chart.

The width attribute is good in theory. However, in this case it made the image overlap the table of contents with a horizontal monitor resolution of 1024 or lower. Have a look. This is an image of how it looked like with 1280 x 1024 pixels. Looked okay with both Firefox and Internet Explorer. This is how it looked like in Firefox with 1024 x 768. And this is 1024 with Internet Explorer. So in this case the width attribute sucked balls. I've removed it. It's not that difficult to check for such display errors. You manually resize your browser window and check different widths. If it doesn't look right down to (at least!) 1024 pixels width you change the code. Better yet are 800 pixels.
The caption of the image was not only condensed (using the <small> tag) but it was also displayed at 80% of its normal size. If I hadn't known what the text said I couldn't have read a single word with it looking like this. I've set the font to normal instead of condensed and at 80% size.
The third change is the caption itself. I'm convinced that the average reader (unfamiliar with the chart) would have mistaken the circumflex for a typo. He wouldn't have seen it as a pointer to the Eiffel Tower. I've restored the former caption.
-- Aexus (talk) 01:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Ship Names?

Proposing the idea of including a list of names of individual ships and to which faction they belong, without necessarily going into the details and dozens of different faction versions (like Serpentis, Navy, etc.)

Two reasons:

A) There isn't any definitive ship list as far as I know. Most websites and forums only cover ships that are part of their faction or race and don't mention the others. It's currently impossible to get a firm grasp of which ships are in the game unless you want to spend an unhealthy amount of time Googling around. B) The market in EVE extends to region at most - if a ship isn't available anywhere within that region, it will simply not show up on the market. Therefore, the only way to know of a rare ship's properties and attributes is by knowing its name beforehand.

Good point - but just so you know, if you uncheck 'show only available' in the market screen, it'll show you every ship type and item, along with all its attributes:) HawkerTyphoon 15:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Damn EVE and its tiny font. I didn't say anything! Forget you saw this page! :P

While that "show everything" approach works for most ships, rare faction ships (such as Sansha ships or the Caldari Navy Hookbill) don't appear. A more comprehensive list of ships might be a good idea, anyway, as all we have at present are those "examples". - AngryMan

Actually, a full, searchable list including full stats of ALL ships available, including faction ships, even the Jove ships that devs fly around in (and damn are they nice) is available pretty easily. This is EVERYTHING. There is no ship currently in use or useable, by any player, dev, or npc, that is not on this list. http://essdb.milair.net/essdb.php --Dalyn Arathon

Of course there are far better and more complete resources for ship stats, but the least we could do is put up their names and a brief description. We could take the description of the ships from the EVE website to avoid bias on the matter. I personally will be getting the game soon, and was dissapointed that wikipedia didn't have the names. I think this is a good idea. (Oh, by the way, something that large should definitely have its own page. The ship class description page is large enough as is.)

Tech Two Ships

Please DO NOT quote allegations of price fixing unless you have CITEABLE proof. Thanks, HawkerTyphoon 02:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I have to say, the edits about the price fixing of Tech II ships is a little odd.. It kind of looks more like an edit war than vandalism, actually. On one hand, this guy (guys? ips starting with 222.152...) only wants to edit one element of this particular article.. On the other hand, he never explains himself, either here or in the edit's summary...

I guess i'm getting tired of reverting his edits :)

Could someone cite sources stating that he is _not_ right about the price fixing?

FiP ^{Как вы думаете?} 13:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Hard to prove either way, but I think this [link] does a decent job of it. sendai 14:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Price fixing would, in my mind, mean that 70%+ of the owners of BPs would need to be talking to each other, and driving the price up artifically. This seems unlikely. We can't prove it either way, but I'd say the odds are on there being no price fixing of the sort I've just described. I am willing to bet the editor is someone just annoyed at not being able to afford HACs... HawkerTyphoon 16:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I was reverting his edits before, due to this user(s) also changing the word "Ships" under the Covert Ops section to "Potatoes", hence the vandalism comments. I did not revert the last one where only the price fixing edit was made, due to not finding any material to really back it up either way.

My impression of Price Fixing was that it is possible for BPO owners to set a price they wanted on the market, which I've seen to be true for _a few_ cases (eg. Hulk exhumer price), but again, can't really prove this. The comment of monopolies is false, however, as the only real "monopoly" that I've heard about is the Cap Recharger II market, but even this is unproved (to the best of my knowledge), and is unrelated to this article.--Jsloan31 08:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The Hulk price fixing is provable. Swaffer, of GeekLab has basically controlled the entire Hulk market. He even threatened the other BPO holders here: [[1]]. Whether the techII market is price fixing or not is debatable, since most of the ships are being sold at a 300% markup. -b0lt

I hate to say it, but this isn't proof of price fixing - It's just proof that people are threatening each other. I cannot stress that we need a letter from CCP, really - that's nigh on the only form of proof I'll accept, at any rate. Until then, they're just allegations. HawkerTyphoon 12:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I've just reieved the following on my talk page:

"I have been adding back in one sentance about price fixing in the game EVE online, which was there before the first time I even read the article.

It is correct, and the first time I noticed this article was when I saw a link on the EVE online forums reguarding in game manufacturers talking about teaming up to remove it, so I have been a thorn in there side.

This is not a page being vandalized, this is a page reflecting the true state of the game, in which there is price fixing by in game cartels. Because four of them want to hide it, doesn't make it go away."

Any ideas?HawkerTyphoon 15:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Delusional paranoia? :o) --Sindri 16:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Ha! Hopefully. I have taken his advisement under consideration though, and changed the sentence to mreflect ythat there are allegations of price fixing., but haven't made them seem real. Deal? HawkerTyphoon 18:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Price fixing is going to be done for in the near future. The Reverse-Engineering skill is just CCP's way of saying "we fucked up with the lottery system".

Hooray.

Removing Dispute: Since the dispute seems to be cleared up, I removed the dispute banner.-AndyBQ 00:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Capital Ships

Is the section on how the Caldari "Charon" freighter's class name would better suit a Gallente vessel REALLY necessary? It really contributes nothing to the article. AngryAngryMan 18:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Unique ships missing?

Hmm,

are we missing unique ships? I can't find references to ships like the one remaining Imperial Apocalypse or the Opux luxury yachts.

The Guardian-Vexor may fall into this category, too. While it may be listed on the market as a regular Tech 1 cruiser, its blueprint hasn't ever been available as far as I can tell. There's some existing ones and that's it.

On the other hand I'd have to say that Wikipedia is the only encyclopaedia I know that would go into details like ship types for fictional universes. I wonder if that's good or bad.

That link at the very bottom isn't such a bad resource and probably updated more frequently.

159.51.236.194 14:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Edit: Oh my gosh, IBDS & IBHK. Just a matter of time till a Mod crops up and hey presto, IBTL. Too bad it only counts half since I forgot to create a proper account first. 159.51.236.194 14:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Additions, Wikifikation, and Standardization

I have done a great deal of adding and standardizing on this article so far. For example, I've standardized the format and pluralizations (which was all over the place) and removed some unnecessary comments in the articles. I've also added more ship lists, and once I'm done I expect there to be a ship list for every single ship class. If you have any comments on my edits, don't revert: post your comment/disagreement here.Dark Shikari 16:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

All non-unique/ultrarare ships are now listed in the article, and all ship names outside of these lists are bolded for clarity. I have also finished standardizing a great deal of capitalization, and have turned all instances of m3 into m³, for example. Dark Shikari 16:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I just added a bunch of unique ships. If there are any I missed, please add them. Also feel free to add more information to the unique ships: I don't know enough to write more detailed accounts. Dark Shikari 17:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Unique and Limited Edition Ships

I have added this section, though I am not entirely sure of the accuracy of my information. In addition, its probably incomplete. Thus, I highly recommend that someone who knows more on the topic of unique ships fix up the section to be more accurate. Someone already has, and corrected me to note that 4 Impocs were given out and 2 destroyed, rather than 2 given out.

It would also be nice to know which events these ships were given out in. Dark Shikari 12:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone confirm there are only two Opux yachts? I've heard tell of a third, though I can't confirm. Hippoking 18:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I have added the Corvus and Storm, as announced by LeMonde as the prizes for the December Alliance Tournament. Hippoking 20:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I just removed a Unique Ship entry called the 'Millenium Falcon' and some associated bovine excrement. You guys should be more careful NTRabbit (talk) 06:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Amarr Design Philosophy

I think some mention needs to be made of the Arbitrator, Curse and Pilgrim in the Amarr section. They are the main deviation from the otherwise straightforwards "Lasers and more Lasers" design ethic. Hippoking 14:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

And of course the Krap--I mean Khanid ships. Dark Shikari 14:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I've added your suggestion to the Amarr section, Hippoking. Dark Shikari 14:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Cited sources

I noticed that this article has a disclaimer about not citing references. The links below should perhaps be labeled as citation material and not just as links? --Stalfur 16:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The article has a more general source-citing problem: a lot of statements about ships and events are completely uncited. For example, a statement that XXX alliance claimed YYY about ZZZ ship could be cited by a link to a forum post. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 01:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Spellings

Someone changed a single spelling in this page from UK to US spellings. I've changed it back, because as it is at the moment, all the variable spellings I can see on this page are UK english. Let's just keep it consistent, shall we? If you see a US spelling, change it over to UK. Hippoking 07:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Just done this with Defence. Hippoking 07:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Kali/Revelations

As all the forthcoming future expansions are named Kali, and the expansion in which the new ships are coming out has been officially named Revelations, I've set all the references to Kali regarding these new ships to reading Revelations, in order to differentiate between the different Kali expansions Hippoking 07:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Faction Ship Models

Should their be some distinction between faction ships that use 'standard' models and those that have unique models (ie, the firetail)?TIinPA 20:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I've added the information on which hull each ships uses, as well as correcting all the names, and splitting it out into three seperate tables. Looks pretty ugly at the moment though, and I suck pretty hard at wikitext, so if someone could just tidy it up: get all three tables with the same width columns f/ex, I'd be grateful Hippoking 22:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Links to ships in the item database?

Just wondering, would it be a good idea to link each of the ship names to the ship's entry in the EVE Online Item Database (for those that are actually in the database - Revelations ships are not) --- TheChrisD, Halo2Leagues.com Head Organiser 15:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't see why not. Sounds good to me. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 00:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Well if no-one else objects, I say we get started in a day or two! - TheChrisD, Halo2Leagues.com Head Organiser 02:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll second this. There's some ships actually flown by Devs or event actors (e. g. the whole Jovian line, Opux Dragoon Yachts or Concord Battleships), and while others are unfinished designs (e. g. Tyrant, Blade) they've been seen used on Tranqulity. 159.51.236.194 12:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Just added a few stubs. Hmm, I divided this into three separate section, which sort of breaks the nice flat hierarchy. Maybe it's better to combine them or get rid of the additional header (but it made sense at the time) 159.51.236.194 13:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure you really know what you just seconded? - TheChrisD, Halo2Leagues.com Head Organiser 17:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Copy this to evewiki?

There does not seem to be an equivalent overview of ship types page like this one in Eve-Wiki. This page would be a great addition in terms of an introductory overview. I propose this is copied to evewiki (and linked in guides or an appropriate front page). I'd do it myself but I'm not confident of my wiki skills. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 121.44.137.170 (talk) 04:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC). Just found a similar page under the title 'Ship', so maybe not...

Ship Volume and Dimensions

Exactly how big is each ship and, in specific, how big are the capital ships (dreadnought, carrier, mothership, titan)? I can not find any information on this anywhere. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.247.208.231 (talk) 20:04, 8 March 2007

You can find out the volume and mass of each ship in the EVE Online Item Database or on EVE Wiki -- TheChrisD ™ 10:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Third Titan Destruction

Shouldn't the destruction of the shipyard building the Titan for LV, destroyed by the RA/GS alliance, be included? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.214.186.128 (talk) 18:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

Since it was not a completed Titan that would have the ability to defend itself of flee (as opposed to built titans which could use their doomsday devices or flee the system or cloak). While some feel the other two titans were destroyed due to improper usage of game mechanics, I think the fact that the titans were in space and at the control of their respective pod pilots marks a distinction. If we must add the info on the LV Shipyard-Titan destruction, it needs a footnote. --Wootonius 21:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Worthy article?

I am wondering idley if this page is entirely useful. Not only is it massively long (72kb's worth), but it essentially lists details about in-game items that can be found (and are better placed) in EVE related wiki's and fansites. Does Wikipedia really need to be a gaming manual for EVE Online? 82.69.37.32 14:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I would agree the article is too long winded and reads more as a game guide than an encyclopaedic article, however the issue lies that there is information contained within that (I certainly believe) belongs in an encyclopaedia, the EVE Online article is to large as it stands and continues to grow. What I don't want to see is this page being summarised and added back to EVE Online, what I would like to see is this page turned into a high quality article. How to go about that, I am not sure, but I am certainly willing to discuss it. -- Richard Slater (Talk to me!) 17:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Ship Pictures

Aside from the great size comparison chart, only three of the battlecruisers have pictures here. Why isn't there some sort of standard for this article? For the moment I've removed them since they just appear messy, but I'd like to see if someone could put one or two back along with some pictures of some other ship classes. Xenigma 18:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

-I found this site: [[2]] it has pics of all ships. --Çiddlər 10:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Titan Destruction

Shouldn't the recent destruction of the Avatar Titan by Goonswarm/Red Alliance be included as it was the first 'real' titan kill while the pilot was online the entire time? All the other instances have been when the titan pilot was logged off or the titan wasn't even finished.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.95.64.254 (talk • contribs) 14:32, 29 June 2007.

It should, I edited the entry to add this a while ago but apparently someone deleted it. 213.101.208.248 12:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

it was removed as it wasn't sourced, find the supporting evidence as per WP:CITE and it can go in. Whilst we don't want the article to become a log of the "GoonSwarm/Band of Developers...whatever" pointless drama, as Titans are quite unique I concur that a mention of their destruction is notable. The references I have tried to use have been from the EVE site, but only accessable by account holders (as per WP:EL, the citation links need to be accessable to all)--The internet is serious business 16:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

here is a killboard link (yes, gs, I can't remember the BoB killboard address) http://killboard.goonfleet.com/km/46129 and a couple screen shots of the event. Still looking for the video as well, can't remember who made it. getting shot at

-removed recent links that cannot be accessed. Searching for more public images.

What the hell is that?

Resolved

I was looking for the Transformers villain when I searched for Megathron, can you guys please leave a message to my talk page telling me why I was redirected to spaceships? Thanks. TheBlazikenMaster 22:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Got reply to my talk page, as requested. TheBlazikenMaster 12:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Still messy

still full of fanspeak, game terms unfamiliar to the laymen etc, needs a bit of a clean up. Can the excitable fans of eve editing this article please realise that not everyone who will read this article is an EVE player. Keep your elitist opinions, your "speshul lickle words" and clique for the eve forums thanks very much. As shocking and hurtful as you sensitive eve players may find this (i.e. an opinion that doesn't agree with the EVE forum hivemind mentality), not all of us are actually that interested in "tanking" and "tackling".....and ppl say Wikipedia is a hivemind.....--79.65.124.14 (talk) 02:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

If you want to do some serious editing get a Wikipedia account and don't hide behind an anonymous IP address. Alatari (talk) 03:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

anonymus editing is allowed on wikipedia and serious editing does not require the use of an account. I suspect your one of the senstive eve players I'm talking about judging by your "don't hide behind an anon IP address" comment. It's as laughable as the eve forums "post with your main" response to criticism. So do us a favour, save your elitist attitude for the eve forums and stop being so sensitive to criticism of your "lickle spaceshipz" game. --79.65.104.199 (talk) 15:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

dern personal attacks. Alatari (talk) 02:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

youre not a mod here, so kindly refrain from acting like one --79.65.126.1 (talk) 21:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Truckload of fail. You're getting angier over our internet spaceship game than we are, and to understand "talk with your main", "tackling", "tanking" etcetera, you almost definetely play the game yourself --62.49.128.72 (talk) 12:19, 22 Janurary 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect, I'm merely pointing out that the article needs to be written so that ANYONE can understand it, not just over excited fan boys. You say " and to understand "talk with your main", "tackling", "tanking" etcetera, you almost definetely play the game yourself". So are you saying that the article should use esoteric terms and if the layman doesnt understand them then he should play the game? and what if he doesnt want to? Is it just tough for him? Is this how Wikipedia works now is it? Must have missed that change....--79.65.126.1 (talk) 21:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

sources are crap

The sources in this article are crap - joe blow said to joanna blow on a talkboard is not a source we find acceptable. --Fredrick day (talk) 10:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Please be precise which source it is that you find inappropriate. Of the nine sources this article has seven are by CCP, for example taken out of the Player Guide or the Item Database. The two sources that are not published by CCP are the 0utbreak Killboard to prove that a ship mentioned in the article actually has been destroyed and the BIG Lottery's website to indicate where two ships have been raffled. Which of these sources do you find inappropriate, Fredrick?
-- Aexus (talk) 16:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

It's ok I scrubbed the section that caused me the most concern - I'll take a deeper look at the article in the morning and see what else needs the cruftcannon turning on it. --Fredrick day 17:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Faction ship design philosophies

Hi, I added a section on the different, factional philosophies inherent in the design of Eve ships - this could use some expansion. -- Unknown editor, 13:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Ship Characteristics

If we going to talk about all the different types of ships shouldn't we also talk about what makes them different? I started a Ship Characteristics section and started by fleshing out a section on Hi, Mid and Low slots and how they differ by ship. Technically every characteristic could be expanded in the same way. -- Unknown editor, 02:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Caldari Frigates

The Heron is not the Caldari electronic warfare frigate, it is intended to use scanner probes, and recives a bonus reduction to the scan probe analyzing time.

The Griffin is the intended electronic warfare frigate, it has more medium slots than the Heron, and recives a ship bonus to ECM target jamming modules. It also has a larger capacitor to activate more ECM target jamming modules at once. -- Unknown editor, 00:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Polaris frigates

I think the Polaris section needs a little rewrite. As far as I know, there are 3 types of Polaris ships (Inspector, Centurion and Legatus), of which first two are unarmed and have no cargo hold space. Also, there is another CCP ship, Enigma, notorious for being destroyed by POS guns when it came to look at the first constructed titan. -- Unknown editor, 11:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

mothership owner

I added CLankillers to the list of known mothership owners, they have a wyvern that almost fell to bruce last week but escaped at the last second before he would have been trapped. -- Unknown editor, 15:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

ORE capital ship.

There is no source listed for this. Can we get one? There has been a lot of speculation about this and the devs haven't even been to sure on what it will be. So far it looks like the ORE cap ship section is pure speculation without a source on it.

Devblog about the coming ORE capital Is this good enough source for you? The speculations started some months ago from a devblog that mentioned CCP working on ORE capital ship.

Yeah good source, but are we putting possible ships in here? I think we should wait for the ship to go on Tranquility before adding it. It could end up drastically differant from what is proposed. (and I hope it does change honestly) -- Unknown editor, 19:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Minmatar

The article states that the Minmatar have the least advanced technology, which anyone with a relatively good command of the game canon will know is far from true - the Amarr are actually the least advanced, having had most of their scientific advances stymied by religious dogmatism (think Catholic church in space). The Minmatar actually developed a significant number of the technologies that the Amarr use today. Can someone amend this? --62.49.128.72 (talk) 12:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

'Apothesis' limited edition shuttle

On May 5, 2008 CCP gave all characters a unique shuttle called the 'Apothesis'. It was distributed due to the 5th anniversary of EVE Online being released (the shuttle's ingame description explicitly mentions this). This ship needs to be added to the article (probably under the 'Unique/Limited Edition Ships' section). If possible, it might be nice to find a forum post we could link to discuss the rush to destroy the shuttles to increase the remaining units' value. 141.153.175.108 (talk) 23:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC) Admiral Thrawn

Image copyright problem with Image:Caldari logo.png

The image Image:Caldari logo.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --03:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I've added a fair use rationale for this article to the image's description page and removed the template FairuseBot has put there. -- Aexus (talk) 12:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I've also checked the three other faction logos. The Amarr logo already has the appropriate rationale. The Minmatar and Gallente logos didn't. I've fixed that. -- Aexus (talk) 12:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Article deletion

A Man In Black today replaced the Spaceships of Eve Online article with a redirect to the main Eve Online article. A Man In Black, if you feel the need to do that I suggest you do it the right way. You can...

... suggest to merge this article into the Eve Online article. Read WP:MERGE for instructions.
... suggest this article to be deleted. Read WP:AFD for instructions.
... discuss the matter on this very Talk page and seek a consensus with other editors.

There may be more ways to deal with this article. However, replacing its content with a redirect rule without gaining a consensus one way or the other is not the way to go. I consider it vandalism. I ask you to not do that again.
-- Aexus (talk) 13:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Let's stop faffing around about process, and talk about content.

What content in this article do you consider not a game guide? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I've read it - and it's a games guide - if we cannot argue on either merging of any (and I don't think it exists) content or a direct, this should be sent to AFD. --Allemandtando (talk) 18:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I listed it on AfD in March, unfortunately the discussion ended in a no-consensus trainwreck amidst a number of keep votes from well-known "vote keep on everything" editors, and such ludicrous arguments as "deleting this article would ruin a lot of people's live". I don't see any policy-based keep votes there. --Stormie (talk) 22:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's not worry about the AFDs. Let's focus on the article now and the potential for merging content somewhere appropriate. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

This whole re-direct was a little sudden. At the very least if you're doing to suddenly re-direct it to the main article, add the info that was here to it?

Although the main reason that this page is here in the first place is because the main EVE article was getting very long because of all the info. TheChrisD ^{Rants•Edits} 12:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

To be honest - that suggests that the article needs to be cleaned up - not folk off non-notable content when the original becomes "full". --Allemandtando (talk) 12:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a lot of notable content in the main article. In order to reduce the size of the main article slightly, several other articles were created to house most of the information. This article and Expansions of Eve Online are two prime examples.

I've also gone and changed this from a redirect to a merge suggestion, as well as adding this discussion to the Eve Online talk page (direct link to the discussion, Aexus (talk)). May I suggest we continue this discussion there? TheChrisD ^{Rants•Edits} 13:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Not again...

Not again with replacing the entire article with a redirect... The amount of people that opposed it last time... TheChrisD ^{Rants•Edits} 12:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

So, where's the referenced content that should be upmerged? Where's any properly referenced content at all?

Try recreating this page using only sources that aren't eve-online.com or EVE fansites. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 12:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Why shouldn't we use sources that come from the official website itself (which is now on the eveonline.com domain)? Official sources are the best kind there is! TheChrisD ^{Rants•Edits} 13:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Not for establishing that this is a separate subject worth devoting an entire article to. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess it comes down to how wikipedia culture defines "excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject". The manufacturers of the game (CCP) are affiliated because they are the authors. The fans of the game are only marginally affiliated with the production of the game. They are in no way owners of the material and their sites are produced independently.

To play the devil's advocate on your side: you want only sources that mention Eve Ships from sources such as gaming magazines, newspapers, encyclopedias, thesis from academia, etc.? Alatari (talk) 20:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Sources and their acceptablility

Here is a list of alternate sourcing and argue wether they are acceptable:

ezinearticles.com/?id=1026756 - ezine

bad source blacklisted by Wikipedia Alatari (talk) 20:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

blogspot blog

Blogs are not acceptable sources. Alatari (talk) 20:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

interesting source. - Sales of Eve virtual ships for real money.

They sell virtualships for real world cash and they are against the EULA of CCP who actively try to stamp them out with no success. They are interested in making cash off of players but don't play the game. For example the Rattlesnake is worth about $140 in real world cash. If the item has real world values equivalent to a cell phone does that increase it's notability? Alatari (talk) 20:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

IGN - source for help with thousands of games.

Gamespot - covers computer games worldwide.

Gamespy - Gamespy covers thousands of games. Their details on Eve ships.

massively - MMO game news.

stratics - MMO daily news.

reviews - reviews and possible mention of the ships.

real world ships - the ships are making a real world incarnations in plastic and metal models.

Example of the Tempest model (does not require readers to log in to an Eve account). -- Aexus (talk) 08:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Alatari (talk) 20:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Spaceship image

I was curious why the eve online ship image (that large image that shows all of the ships) was removed, brought back, replaced with a more recent one, reverted back to the old one, and then again deleted. and has been for several months now?

Hi, 164.58.65.7. You find the answer in archive 1 and in the History. The most recent deletion occured on May 6, 2008. The edit history shows that Maxim deleted the image for violating Wikipedia's non-free content criteria, or NFCC for short. ImageRemovalBot then correctly deleted the link from this article. That could've been fixed for example by providing a link to the permission to use the image - just like Image:Eve Online - pod in space (Trinity Premium graphics).jpg and other Eve-related images have it. You see the link to the appropriate ticket in the Open-source Ticket Request System there. The ship comparison chart violating a Wiki policy, however, wasn't actually the main catch.

Alatari and Xenigma suggested as early as May and June 2007, respectively, that the image was outdated. I agree with them that we need a chart showing all ships, including all battlecruisers and the other missing ships like the Abaddon and Hyperion to name just a few. Either that or leave it out as inaccurate.

As long as we can't provide an accurate chart I, too, think that it's best to just leave it out.
-- Aexus (talk) 11:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Ship characteristics

One characteristic missed. It is ship mass. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.246.97.3 (talk) 09:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The list is an excerpt. Apart from mass, characteristics such as volume, scan resolution, ladar sensor strength and plasma propulsion strength are also not in the list. The introduction talks about characteristics that "include this-and-that", as in, include but not limited to.
-- Aexus (talk) 12:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Paring

This article badly needs to be pared down, per WP:NOTGUIDE and needs reliable sources if it is going to stay. Frankly, I'd nominate it for deletion again, but I don't know what the procedure is after a no consensus. TallNapoleon (talk) 10:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Paring...let's not

This is a rather excellent article that distils all the sometimes hard-to-find items on the EVE-online website - if you look really hard then you'll find it (hence: verifiable). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stauner (talk • contribs) 00:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Cutting down

I've just had to revert User:A Man In Black's edits which essentially nuked the page. I think that while the entire article doesn't need removing, it could help by cutting down on the details in each section. The first course of action would be to remove the lists of ship names per type. It's probably best just to describe in brief what each ship is, what it does and general uses for it, rather than adding lots of fan-based information that wouldn't be all too useful for people who probably use this article to see if the game is worth getting into. TheChrisD ^{Rants•Edits} 18:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The first course of action would be to find reliable sources that aren't EVE fansites or CCP sites that support these factual claims.

While we're doing that, why do we need to list every single object of a certain type that appears in a game? Lists of such objects are deleted all the time, and with good reason: they're game guides. Take this for example:

Designed specifically for anti-frigate warfare destroyers typically mount eight small weapons. Destroyers gain bonuses both to range (50%) and tracking speed, making them adept at eliminating small, agile targets, yet are penalized by a rate of fire reduction (25%) rendering them incapable of dealing significant damage to larger ships. Also, destroyers lack the CPU or power output to fit eight of the most powerful weapons in their size category.

Although destroyers excel at their intended purpose of taking out frigates, they fare very poorly against cruisers and battleships, as their defenses are simply too weak to survive engagements with larger ships. Their armor and shield capabilities barely exceed those of a frigate, yet their signature radius is almost on the level of a cruiser, so they are targeted and hit by larger-sized weaponry more easily.

One type of destroyer exists for each major faction.

One single sentence isn't game guide (the last one), and even that's marginal. All of it is like this. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 18:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I AFd'ed this article a couple of months ago; it was closed with no consensus. Maybe it's time to nominate again. TallNapoleon (talk) 19:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Nah. There's some salvagable content, I think. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 19:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

That could be moved to the EVE Online page. Also, people, STOP EDIT WARRING. TallNapoleon (talk) 22:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I do agree on the basis that some of the ship descriptions are very wordy and quite long indeed, when all that is really needed is a brief synopsis of the ship type. We don't need the additional details like, in the dessie's instance, their lack of CPU, their eight turret points, but negative bonus and other similar stuff. Give me some time and I'll cut down the details when I have the time later today. TheChrisD ^{Rants•Edits} 09:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Note that this article is substantially identical to a similar one on an EVE wiki. Frankly, I think that without notability external to the game this article is a walking violation of WP:GUIDE--even if I do love my Cormorant.

I actually copy and pasted this article (well, the old version) word for word during the edit warring to a number of EvE wikis) so that the information (it was a great article) would be kept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.147.130 (talk) 20:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, that is essentially the point. The old article as it was, was perfect for EVE wikis, but not here. Hence why we are now cutting down the article at every opportunity. TheChrisD ^{Rants•Edits} 09:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Not really, as it's not really detailed enough for EvE Wikis. If this article was not constantly pared down to nothing and threated with deletion, I wouldn't have copied it over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.147.130 (talk) 16:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOTGUIDE

Voorg see WP:NOTGUIDE. They may be of interest to players, but they are essentially trivia. I again maintain this article should be merged in some greatly reduced form into the main article for EVE Online, as the topic lacks external real world notability. TallNapoleon (talk) 22:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Honestly I don't see how the unique ships are much of a guide. The descriptions are short. If the descriptions of these unique ships were ten pages long then I'd agree with you, but they are not.

The article is here, and the unique ships have been a part of this article for as long as I can remember. If the topic lacks any real world notability then we might as well just delete it, but as long as it's here, the unique ships should be a part of it.

Voogru (talk) 01:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The fact that they have been part of the article for a long time is not an argument for keeping them. I still maintain that we should delete this article entirely, and simply point people to EVE Wiki's article on ships as an external link. However as long as this article is going to stay, it needs to be concise and accessible to general readership. The unique ships are trivia--they hardly ever see the light of space (unless you're Tyrrax Thorrk) and are not important to understanding the game's topic. All that needs saying is that a number of special-issue unique ships exist that are very, very rare and valuable. TallNapoleon (talk) 01:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

One can argue the same about capital ships, they are not as common as all of the other ships in the game, theres a lot of them, but the chances of a player ever owning a mothership or titan are pretty slim. I think as long as this article is here, the unique ships deserve a mention. You seem to be in favor of deleting everything it seems. 74.225.66.183 (talk) 02:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)