Is The Ii Necessary?


11-10-2007 04:56:40

Just wondering, due to the death of the original Dark Prophet, which some may attribute to the old superstition about never renaming a ship after it's name has been commissioned, is it really necessary to add II after the name? Name's of ships have been reused for centuries in all sorts of navies, without resorting to numbering them. For example the British Navy has had ten ships all named Enterprise/Enterprize, and not a single one has a number after their names... it's just silly. Keeping ship names in a Fleet is very important, but numbering them is just plain weird. Most navies throughout the world have had names that are considered unretireable, that the navy is honourbound to keep in service at all times... just a thought.

Get rid of the number :P


11-10-2007 06:48:37

Yes, it is necessary. It tells us we had another one before, which proves the history of the ship. If we just put in "Dark Prophet", people will think this is our 1st DP, and not our 2nd.


11-10-2007 07:02:23

lol, God knows I'm all for remembering the history of the ship... after all, it's MY ship (Yea, thats right, I'm still claiming ownership over this one... just cause you jerks blew up my first one). But seriously, you can write history up in sections without resorting to a silly name.

Kaine Mandaala

11-10-2007 09:31:13

If you need an example of different ships with the same name plus a number from Star Wars directly - Boba Fett's Slave I and Slave II.


11-10-2007 11:19:35

I understand where you are coming from Yacks, but from the standpoint of writing up histories for our fleet, it would be hard for someone in the future to distinguish between the VSD DP and the BHC Dark Prophet.

They would reaad it as "The Drk Prophet was then destroyed by overwhelming firepower from the Yuuzhan Vong fleet. Laer on, the Dark Prophet helped the Clan dominate the Brotherhood once more."

The I and the II only serve to distingiush which ship is which for those who will come later on, and have had no clue wht has gone on before thier time. God only knows its already hard enough to figure that out by our texts alone...


11-10-2007 13:11:04

If people are concerned about not confusing readers in the future then I would suggest that the histories of the ships just be written in a way that isn't...confusing. Yes, this may require making explicit distinctions between the ships from time to time, but who cares?

If the ships are actually a show of respect and honor to Yacks and his personal desire is that the numbers not be there, then that desire should be respected and carried out. If we really don't care about his personal wishes about a ship that is seemingly named in his honor, then we are free to do whatever.

Just my thoughts.

Andan Taldrya Marshall

11-10-2007 23:23:48

The simple answer to keeping the two ships separate in various writings is to use the initials for the ship's class -- VSD Dark Prophet and BHC Dark Prophet. When wiki-ing make sure that the links include the ship type in addition to the name.

As for numbers vs no numbers, the ship is named for Yacks so I feel that we should respect his wish.


12-10-2007 03:52:39

LOL... It's not a wish per se, I just think it's a bit silly to have a II at the end of the name... like if you look at Slave I and II as an example... well they're not really capital ships. Fighter names (which a firespray is) are generally more of a nickname given to the ships by their pilots, not an actual name, whereas Capital Ship Names are actually registered in Fleet lists and such.

It's not really THAT big a deal... I just find the fact that it's Dark Prophet II... well to be honest it reminds me of Snowball 1 and Snowball 2 from the Simpsons. Obviously I'll agree with whatever the powers that be say... but based off Star Warsy stuff, usually you see stuff like II added to Improvements on actual classes of ships... like ISD Mk I, and ISD Mk II... and since the name is being kept, but being transfered to a completely different class of ship... Destroyer to Heavy Cruiser in this case, I just don't think it fits.... and like I said, it just seems silly :P

Tarax Kor

13-10-2007 03:08:40

The fact that it's named AFTER the original, and that it's not the same class/type as the original...would lead me to believe why the 'II' was added. It's basically following the old one when it comes to names stuff.