From Achilles to Zarkowsky (April 25, 2006)

[Bandit LOAF]

So, you love lists of ships but you don't like having to load a MS Word document? Well, fret no longer: the all new, version 2.0 annotated Ships List is now available in easy-to-view HTML format! You now no longer have any excuse for using the wrong class names for obscure Kilrathi battleships in your elaborate fan fiction chapters. The list includes a complete appendix of ship classes, citations for every single ship and over 50 footnotes -- it's as close to a professional history paper on Wing Commander starships as you're likely to ever see! You can read the new list here.


--
Original update published on April 25, 2006

 

[Magnum]

I have a comment. The "Iwo" and "Wake" are listed, but leaving the names like that grates my nerves. The CVE class is named after amphibious operations from WWII, as we know. The quote that is used the cite those ships is conversational in nature, so I don't exactly think it would be some massive leap away from canon to assume that the full names of those ships are "Iwo Jima" and "Wake Island."

 

[Bandit LOAF]

How would we ever know where to stop? Why the TCS Crete instead of the TCS Crete Island (or whatever it is in Greek)? I can't think of a reasonable test that would cover everything -- just look at our own history, the United States has had both a USS Wake and a USS Wake Island.

It seems better in a document like this to present the information as it's available rather than how we would (or in some cases would not) like to add complexity to it -- see the TCS Kobi.

 

[Magnum]

You have a point, but Crete is a bad example, since Crete is Crete. Wake and Wake Island I can see, but Iwo? That's a stretch.

Still, the difference between the Wake and Wake Island is important. The Wake was a small patrol boat commissioned in 1927, long before any combat occurred at Wake Island. The Wake Island (CVE-65) is, as you can tell, an escort carrier named after the appropriate battle. Given Forstchen's use of real WWII references, I think it would be a bad idea to ignore the similarity. As you say, I don't think there is a blanket test that can be applied to all situations like this either. However, I think the evidence in this particular case should be considered since the strict canon is only a colloquiallized, terse statement.

Point being, it's not clear cut, or we wouldn't be having this discussion. I also understand your reluctance to accept the full name without canon evidence. However, I would suggest including a footnote to the effect of the evidence I have presented here. Surely that wouldn't do any harm?