Recently it has come to my attention, that many articles that one would think are ship classes, use Template:Ship series instead of Template:Starship class. I think that that template:ship series should no longer be used, and template:starship class should be the default.
Why the change in benificial
I have looked at the templates side by side, and the only difference there is is that Ship series includes a "models" field instead of a "model" field for listing the models of the ship. I think that Template:Ship series is redundant, and that what now goes in the models feild could just go in the model field. The reason why changing to just template:starship class is that the class template offers far more infobox information that can be added. For example, the Executor-class Star Dreadnought and Venator-class Star Destroyer both are primarly referred to as a singular class in the lore, and so each have a known length and armament. However, the lengths and armament for the ships are not displayed in the infobox due to the limitations of template:ship series.
Implementation notes
For example, in Executor-class Star Dreadnought uses template:ship series and the "models" field has Executor I-class Star Dreadnought and Executor II-class Star Dreadnought. If we transitioned to template:starship class, the two subclasses could be put in the "model" field, similar to the infobox of the Providence-class Dreadnought, or the Gozanti-class cruiser. In addition I did a quick DPL query and found that only 50 articles use template:ship series, a very manageble number. -ThrawnChiss7 (talk) 22:40, 10 November 2022 (UTC)