I removed the non-canon tag because the article doesn't appear to have that much speculative information. If anyone spots such information it would be best to simply remove it. I've already edited the article to identify some of the non-canon dates. Mustang19 10:49, 14 April 2008 (CDT)
Personally, I absolutely loathe having these non-canon dates in all the history sections. If I was in charge I'd remove them, but since I'm not I'll leave them. I would, however, like to put the non-canon tag back in, since they are non-canon. This is exactly the sort of thing that confuses people. Someone who simply has a 10 second glance at the timeline to look for a certain event won't see your non-canon disclaimer, and they'll think it's all canon. Snail 11:46, 14 April 2008 (CDT)
It doesn't matter who's in charge. This is a wiki, everyone contributes. In fact, I've never heard anyone call themselves the "boss" of FSWiki, even the admins- if you have an idea you're just as entitled to your opinion as anyone else. As for the dates, there's still a lot of useful canon reference info here, so a better option might be to say "the Trinity was found in the nebula around this date" instead of "the Trinity was found on this date". Since dates are never mentioned in mission briefings, we can only estimate, as for all we know command briefings could have taken place days before their following missions. Mustang19 14:17, 14 April 2008 (CDT)
Thing is, if I tried that then my opinion would be unimportant in comparison to say, Wanderer's, since I've only been contributing for a while. Anyway, what I'm saying is that you're putting the dates down as if they are fully canon - Without non-canon tags or gray text - When the dates are certainly not canon. After briefly skimming through, I haven't actually seen anything saying "The dates are not canon." This would bring someone who wouldn't know better to the conclusion that the information is all canon, when it is explicit fanon. This is a classic case of canon being obscured by fanon. Snail 15:49, 14 April 2008 (CDT)
It's a wiki, just change it, and if anyone doesn't like it they can revert it in a couple clicks. --Monitor 15:00, 15 April 2008 (CDT)
Amen to Monitor. Also, I added a note at the top regarding the dates, although it might not be obnoxious enough to get everyone's attention. From my experience it seems like people on the internet tend to miss anything that isn't allcaps size 36 font. Mustang19 09:47, 16 April 2008 (CDT)
Italicized ship names
Does anyone have any hard data or definite dates for any events in FS2? Galemp 22:02, 21 Nov 2005 (CET)
About recent formatting: I saw no point in keeping these entries (in italic) if those entries were already linked. Wanderer 22:37, 21 Nov 2005 (CET)
It is generally accepted that in texts such as these, ship names MUST be in italic. - TopAce 22:48, 21 Nov 2005 (CET)
You could have only posted that note in here and i would have fixed it... Now all the other links and stuff reverted as well. Wanderer 22:59, 21 Nov 2005 (CET)
I cannot post this comment everywhere... you can already find it on the HLP Wiki forum. I did post it there - TopAce 23:08, 21 Nov 2005 (CET)
Those are guidelines, and haven't been generally accepted yet. I personally think individual ships don't need to be Italicized. Also, we need to eliminate the dates herew. They're fanon at best, but look randomly guessed and don't fit with ingame information. Black Wolf 02:07, 22 Nov 2005 (CET)
All the wikipedia articles I have seen so far italicize ship names. So it IS generally accepted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Navy_ships
You can look into the History page of each to make sure I did not italicized all of them myself just to falsely support my point. You can also ask an HLP Admin to check my IP address so you could not say I simply did not register and did all the changes with my IP. The mere fact that you (personally) do not approve it is no valid reason to remove all italication. To further prove your arguments fallacious, get a Sci-fi book and look into it where ships are named. You will be surprised. The conclusion is that even if it is ME who wrote it does not unconditionally mean it is UNTRUE, despite what you would desire to believe.
If you still hesitate to believe me (why would you not? TopAce is always mentioning dumb things) you can ask an expert, consult reference books or anything.
My arguments are finished.- TopAce 19:34, 22 Nov 2005 (CET)
This article says the Iceni was built in only 14 months, starting two months after the rebellion was officially declared. The Iceni's canon database entry on the other side says the ship was built under Bosh and (afterwards?) captured by the NTF at the start of their rebellion, so there must be some error in this timeline as far as I can see. Where did you find these dates anyway? --RealZeratul 23:13, 20 July 2006 (BST)
SOC Operatives/NTF Saboteurs
This is crap. I am removing it. Whoever put it in can go suck on a lemon.Aardwolf 20:59, 25 March 2007 (CST) Never mind. I see it is already gone.