STO Awakening.jpg

Template talk:Shiptypeinfo

From Star Trek Online Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

t5u stats on not upgradeable ships[edit source]

about the t5u stats on t5 ships. its nice that the template actually calcs t5u hull and shields automatically if not included in the given info. BUT: someone in the s31-ki channel just asked how upgrading a mirror ship works. and i was totaly confused, as i only knew you could upgrade the newer/post MU ship era blue LB ships. He told me wiki noted t5u stats for MU ships. i checked and noticed he is right. it does. simply as the t5u stats are automatically displayed regardless of wether the ship is upgradeable or not. technically i could probably fix this issue, but, im a) too lazy to read into the code and b) afraid i might break it as it might be rather complex.

tl;dr: someone please prevent the t5u stats from displaying if the ship isnt marked as upgradeable. maybe check that via a set upgrade cost/t5u console. --Iye007 (talk) 19:31, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Can you provide example pages? I will look into it tomorrow. --Emzi0767 (talk) 23:19, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Assault Cruiser Basically the shiptypeinfo template is setup to only check if its tier5 if so then add t5u stats that the OP mentioned. On a related note there was talk about making merging the fleet/t5 ships into one page since most of the information on both pages is similar. I'm sure in adding of a better t5u console setup and paid upgrade u seen work done previously. It was never fully implemented. Course, cryptic keeps them separate the admiralty system clearly makes the distinction. It is the easier route. Also on that note for something like shield numbers, which cryptic never uses, the only thing relevant to the ship is the shield modifier. The base depends on the shield so the numbers are pointless unlike the hull strength which base is directly tied to the ship like shield modifier, but its been there since the dawn of time so /shrug Rambling at this point. Asanad (talk) 00:21, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree that the shield number is complete BS, especially since it is irrelevant, as you replace the shields right away. In addition to that, I believe that having separate values for standard, fleet and upgraded numerics is a shitty idea as well. It makes the template messy, and nobody uses those properties anyway. --Emzi0767 (talk) 15:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
I removed all the unnecessary crap, thus cleaning up the template --Emzi0767 (talk) 16:10, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
I added a spacer after Consoles, so it is more aesthetically pleasing --Emzi0767 (talk) 14:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Uhm. i might be wrong here. but dont ships gain a increased shield mod/increased shield cap when t5u'ing or increasing in mastery? Or was it char lvl? been a while since i cared about that.... :) so wouldnt t5u-able ships need that still? --Iye007 (talk) 22:59, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, they don't. Fleet ships have 10% higher shield mod than their regular counterparts, but T5-U does not affect the said modifier. --Emzi0767 (talk) 23:21, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Category[edit source]

On playable ship articles, ship type is added as a category through this template. This works fine, but not in case of ships like Falchion Dreadnought Warbird where there are two ship type entries. In this case it adds [[Category:Warbird/Dreadnoughts]] instead of separating it into two categories: [[Category:Warbirds]] and [[Category:Dreadnoughts]]. I unsuccessfully played around #arraymaps, and I'm not able to get [[Category:{{{type}}}s]] for both ship types - best I got was one ship type in plural, and one was missing letter "s" at the end. Can someone help?.. as I have no idea what to do here. Thanks. --Damixon (talk) 03:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Straightening up Ship Abilities[edit source]

Ship abilities should have a standard order. Right now, they're all over the place, with carrier abilities over and under cruiser abilities, over and under science abilities, over and under cloak. About the only general rule is console abilities at the top and singularity at the bottom. Let's figure out a good order that includes everything in a nice fashion. Innate passive, innate active, Launch, Carrier Commands, Cruiser Commands, Subsystem, Sensors, Temporal Manip, Cloaks, Singularity, whatever else there is.

Also, maybe we could collapse Singularity abilities into a single tag for the infobox. It's cluttersome for every lategame Warbird to have 5 extra abilities listed when they're all the same. Like Carrier Commands and Subsystem Targetting, we could simply have one link on the infobox, and have the full expanded list in the main text window.

Also also, perhaps we should add a note for the Experimental Weapon slot? Either on the sub-line with cannons:yes, or under abilities? Arkhain (talk) 06:28, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I try to sort abilities under page's Ability section by alphabetical order, with console's ability at the top (and specialization seating at the bottom). We could apply the alphabetical order to this template too? I agree about the experimental weapon, it could be added under dual cannons. Should we add a similar note about having Secondary Deflector?
Speaking of singularity powers and subsystem targeting, the latter has the same number of powers with each tier unlike singularity, which has extra ability with each tier. --Damixon (talk) 13:41, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
I was thinking for Singularity, there'd be a single ability on the infobox, but on the main page there would be like,
"Romulan Warbirds come with built-in Singularity abilities. As a Tier 3 Warbird, the Mogai Heavy Warbird has access to the following Singularity abilities: Plasma Shock, Quantum Absorb, Warp Shadows".
That'd help tidy up the infobox for the vast majority of Rom ships. Right now we're using five lines (or ten, if it wraps) of infobox ability space to basically describe warbird tier. Singularity Abilities only really change four times, and at very clear intervals, so putting that in the main text box should be okay.
Experimental Weapon and Secondary Deflector would be perfect to add with cannons. These two slots are now more-or-less the same kind of ship type distinctions that Cannons used to be, back in the day. (Weirdly, this ability Ability: Secondary Deflector exists, but it's only on two out of the three original MMSVs.)
So, lining up the abilities, we have
* Console
* Innate active (Phaser Lance, Tac Mode, etc)
* Innate passive (Undine regen, etc)
* Specialization (Intel sensor, Inspiration, Innovaton, Temp Manip, Pilot)
* Cloak (Rom, Battle, normal)
* Carrier Commands and Launch (should be together)
* Cruiser Commands (various types)
* Sensor Analysis
* Subsystem Targeting
* Singularity
How do you envision alphabetical for this? Console top, alphabetical on the rest? Maybe the things that are type-specific like Carrier, Cruiser, Science Vessel, Warbird should be at the bottom and in a set order, while the rest can be alphabetical? Or just in the order above, alphabetical within each bullet point? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arkhain (talk · contr)
Yeah, I was thinking console top, alphabetical the rest, same order as in "Abilities" section in the article. But I'm ok with the alphabetical order within the bullet points you listed above. Related to singularity abilities, I'm ok with the current setup. But if we switch to only one ability, which icon and page would it link to? --Damixon (talk) 11:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


The main page has active and passive innate abilities usually listed with the console, like Phaser Lance, Improved Hull Regen, Siege Mode. I guess we'll stick with that?
I'd say that if we keep all five Singularity abilities separate, it might be a good idea to put it last too, as it's annoying to have that massive chunk in the middle. Especially between Sensor and Subsystem, poor Sci Birds.


* Console
* Innate Abilities (together with console?)
* Battle Cloak
* Cloak
* Cruiser Commands (together under C?)
* Launch + Carrier (together under L)
* Innate Abilities, up or down (separate?)
* Romulan Battle Cloak (maybe put this under Cloak either way?)
* Sensor Analysis
* Singularity (one or five)
* Subsystem Targeting
* Tactical Mode Dyson (or together with innate active?)
* Specialization (all types at bottom?)


We'd have to clean up Singularity Core abilities to be on the same level as, say, Carrier Commands, which should actually happen whether we collapse 5 or not. Singularity abilities are too intrinsic to just be thrown to a Categories redirect. I put a little mockup here as a starting point.
And as which one to pick, I'd say either the highest level ability available on the ship (Singularity Overcharge icon (Romulan).png overcharge for all the high-tier ships), or just Plasma Shockwave icon (Romulan).png plasma shockwave. Having the highest level ability would make it easy to see at-a-glance what the ship has, but it may be difficult to make a dynamic template there, or five separate templates. Plasma Shockwave is universal for all Warbirds and thus would be the single best choice, for a single choice. Arkhain (talk) 21:21, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Fixed up Singularity Core abilities. I'd like to try a test of the single Singularity on an ability-dense Warbird page. How do you add an icon to an ability? Arkhain (talk) 04:00, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
I moved an ability page you created from Singularity to Singularity Core abilities. Can you check any of the warbirds to see how it looks, it should have only one ability on the shiptypeinfo infobox. To add an icon, you have to name it same as the ability is called, with "icon (Romulan)" at the end for abilites to show on the RR ship page. Check this one: Singularity Core abilities icon (Romulan).png. --Damixon (talk) 22:03, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Cloaking Category[edit source]

I was working on the Cloak page and noticed the list was a little out of date. It would be easier to replace it with category links, ideally one automatically generated from this template. I was thinking "Category:#faction# ships with #cloaktype#s" so we have a nest of categories like "Category:Klingon ships with Enhanced Battle Cloaks" (maybe even "Category:#tier# #faction# ships with #cloaktype#").

I was thinking I'd have to add in a field for the cloak and change every ship but it looks like the abilities list might function in a way that it could pull the information for the category as it stands. However I can't quite well without some serious trial and error playing. Can anyone more familiar with this template take a look and see if it can? ThanksScientifictheory (talk) 17:20, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I somehow missed this. It would be easier to add category through {{Cloak}} template, instead of using this template. --Damixon (talk) 22:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Intro text[edit source]

There are ship articles that have second sentence like this: "This ship is available to Federation, Romulan Republic, and KDF players." Now, should I just add "...and Dominion", or we can change that to "available to all playable factions"? I plan to go through all cross-faction ships to change the shiptypeinfo "faction" parameter so I could also edit this. --Damixon (talk) 22:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I think standardizing the faction listing would be much preferred, considering this probably isn't going to be the last faction (or fraction w/e) SFC (talk) 22:50, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Ok, I'll just add "all playable factions" then. Alternative is to place template there, but this is simpler. Also, going to add hullmod for crossfaction ships while I'm making these adjustments. --Damixon (talk) 16:32, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

On ship types and mastery packages[edit source]

I just (mostly) finished a pass at every ship article on the wiki to change the type philosophy we were going with. Previously, the type field was filled to make sure the given ship shows up in the correct Template:playableshipsbytype tables, which lead to some ships having unseemly types like "Warbird/Warbird Science Vessel/Destroyer", however I came to realize that this was backwards. Since we can specify multiple types to appear in a given table, we therefore only need the type field to describe the exact type of ship. To that end, I've gone through and made a number of changes, mainly:

  • I got rid of the Carrier type. They'll be specified as Dreadnought Carrier, Engineering Carrier, Science Carrier, or Science Carrier Warbird. If we want a table of any ship with 2 hangars in the future that doesn't fall under those two categories, we can use hangar=2.
  • I got rid of the Support Vessel type, as KDF Science Vessels are variously called Science Vessels, Support Vessels, Research Vessels and so forth. They will all be Science Vessels now. This won't affect whether KDF Science Vessels have their own page, since we can still sort tables by faction with factioncode=K.
  • Previously, every Warbird had the Warbird type in addition to its specified type. This left us with an issue of being unable to filter Tactical-focused Warbirds from the other ones. Therefore I have kept Warbird specifically for Tactical-focused ones like the Malem, while all the others will just be their specific type, eg. Warbird Battle Cruiser. The Warbird page is now properly segmented.
  • I separated out Science Destroyers from Science vessels, and Science Destroyer Warbirds from Warbird Science Vessels.

So, here is a list of every type currently in use, and some notes about them:

The following ships are their own single instance and do not have their own types (yet):

  • Crossfield Science Spearhead as a Science Vessel
  • Kar'Fi Battle Carrier as a Science Carrier
  • Kolasi Siege Destroyers as a Destroyer

And finally, ships that currently actually deserve multiple types:

  • Aquarius: Escort/Raider
  • Kara: Warbird Battle Cruiser/Dreadnought Warbird
  • Ketha: Raptor/Destroyer
  • Fed/KDF Command Battlecruisers: Battle Cruiser/Flight-Deck Cruiser
  • RRF Command Battlecruisers: Warbird Battle Cruiser/Flight-Deck Cruiser
  • Vedcrid: Dreadnought Carrier/Engineering Carrier
  • Special as a secondary for ships with amenities

I wrote this out partly because I want to make sure that going forward we continue to view a ship's type as separate from its Starship Mastery package, as they do not always overlap. This is mainly due to all Science Vessels, Multi-Mission Science Vessels, Science Dreadnoughts and Science Destroyers all use the same package, though also some exceptions above and ones I've noted on Playable starship § Type notes. To that end there were some things I left alone, opposite my Support Vessel change, but feel free to let me know if you think they should be changed:

  • I think we should keep Raptor and Flight-Deck Raptor even though we don't strictly need those types... they could just as well be Escort and Escort Carrier but I think that should be left alone for reader expectations.
  • I left the Temporal Destroyers as Destroyer even though they are Escorts that have a Destroyer mastery package. Should they be Escort/Destroyer dual-type? The loadout difference is only a single device slot.
  • I am not entirely sure how to categorize the Multi-Mission Science Vessels. Right now they are all listed as Science Vessel or Warbird Science Vessel. Should they be changed to Multi-Mission Explorer and Multi-Mission Explorer Warbird, perhaps?

Thanks for taking the time to read all this, whoever does! DanPMK (talk) 18:18, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Small update due to ship type renames. DanPMK (talk) 14:26, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

new input: faction-restriction[edit source]

I was trying to get this to work via the existing "faction" input but it's ended up adding more to the template pagesize and making it more complicated with all the switches, so I'm just going to add a "faction-restriction" input for this template. By default the template will assume the most liberal standpoint: "faction=Federation" will mean every Federation-aligned captain, whether Fed or Romulan or Dominion can fly the ship, while you can put something for "faction-restriction" if it's restricted, namely:

  • Federation-only (for eg. the Veteran ships)
  • Klingon-only (ditto)
  • Romulan-only (ditto, and the Valkis etc.)
  • Dominion-only (ditto, Jem'Hadar Escort etc.)
  • Federation-most (Stuff that can be flown by Federation-aligned Dominion captains but not Romulans, like the Universe)
  • Klingon-most (ditto)
  • Dominion6 (for the ones requiring T6 Mastery)

while the default will just use the "faction" input and assume Federation, Klingon, Romulan or Dominion ships that can be flown by any Federation/Klingon-aligned captain, or Cross-Faction for everyone. DanPMK (talk) 15:40, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

@User:DanPMK we now have a problem with rank icons for Romulan ships rendered by {{Playableshipsbytype}}, e.g. see Dhelan Warbird, Ar'kif Tactical Warbird in Starship Requisition. At the same time, the rank icon is displayed correctly as a Romulan one by {{shiptypeinfo}} on the pages of these starships. This happens because {{shiptypeinfo}} is using {{{faction}}} to decide which icon to display, which happens to be "Romulan Republic", however, the value stored in the Special:CargoTables/Ships is instead {{#var:faction}} that for Warbirds contains the list of 4 major factions, causing {{Playableshipsbytype}} to fall back to attempt to display the Federation-specific icon. This is problematic, since firstly it is arguably not the most relevant faction to use for Warbird-type ships, which instead should be Romulan. Secondly, even if we uploaded e.g. "Subcommander Federation" icon for e.g. Dhelan Warbird as a quick fix, for ranks like Commander - it would continue display the Federation icon that is referring to wrong player level (as for Federation "Commander" refers to players 20-29 that actually are unable to fly e.g. Ar'kif Tactical Warbird, as it requires "Commander" in Romulan sense, referring to 30-39, since for Romulans 20-29 is called "Subcommander" instead). I think a solution would be to augment the cargo table with an extra column, something like "nativefaction" that would contain the raw value of {{{faction}}} used by {{shiptypeinfo}}, i.e. just "Romulan Republic" without any other factions in this case and can then be used by that template to unambiguously choose the correct rank icon. Trajos (talk) 17:43, 6 December 2019 (UTC)