Talk:GTF Loki - Revision history

Monitor at 02:13, 3 April 2008

2008-04-03T02:13:35Z

TopAce at 20:07, 1 April 2008

2008-04-01T20:07:51Z

Monitor at 16:52, 1 April 2008

2008-04-01T16:52:11Z

Monitor at 16:51, 1 April 2008

2008-04-01T16:51:32Z

TopAce: signed

2008-03-31T17:45:16Z

signed

TopAce at 17:44, 31 March 2008

2008-03-31T17:44:59Z

Monitor at 03:54, 29 March 2008

2008-03-29T03:54:23Z

Mustang19 at 13:34, 28 March 2008

2008-03-28T13:34:58Z

Monitor: Are these intros + / -

2008-03-28T02:56:34Z

Are these intros + / -

New page

Are ship intros a good / bad thing. I've noticed many of them are horribly written --[[User:Monitor|Monitor]] 20:56, 27 March 2008 (CST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:13, 3 April 2008
Line 14:		Line 14:

	*There are two problems I can see with that paragraph without looking up anything: 1) the Fenris being the predecessor of the Leviathan 2) the Fenris being as efficient as an Aten. The others sound ok to me. - [[User:TopAce\|TopAce]] 14:07, 1 April 2008 (CST)		*There are two problems I can see with that paragraph without looking up anything: 1) the Fenris being the predecessor of the Leviathan 2) the Fenris being as efficient as an Aten. The others sound ok to me. - [[User:TopAce\|TopAce]] 14:07, 1 April 2008 (CST)
		+
		+	Then do as you see fit --[[User:Monitor\|Monitor]] 20:13, 2 April 2008 (CST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:07, 1 April 2008
Line 12:		Line 12:

	This obviously goes against canon sources several times. Yours were good; feel free to revert them.--[[User:Monitor\|Monitor]] 10:52, 1 April 2008 (CST)		This obviously goes against canon sources several times. Yours were good; feel free to revert them.--[[User:Monitor\|Monitor]] 10:52, 1 April 2008 (CST)
		+
		+	*There are two problems I can see with that paragraph without looking up anything: 1) the Fenris being the predecessor of the Leviathan 2) the Fenris being as efficient as an Aten. The others sound ok to me. - [[User:TopAce\|TopAce]] 14:07, 1 April 2008 (CST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:52, 1 April 2008
Line 11:		Line 11:
	'''GTC ''Fenris''''' cruisers were the predecessors of the [[GTC Leviathan\|GTC ''Leviathan'']]-class of cruisers and were primarily used during the [[14-Year War]] and the [[Great War]]. However, many were equipped with beam technology and saw engagement during the [[Second Shivan Incursion]]. Fenris cruisers equal the [[GVC Aten\|GVC ''Aten'']] in terms of efficiency; however, the Aten was not equipped with modern beam and flak technology after the Great War's conclusion. The GTC ''Orff'' and the [[NTC Trinity\|NTC ''Trinity'']] were two notable Fenris cruisers."		'''GTC ''Fenris''''' cruisers were the predecessors of the [[GTC Leviathan\|GTC ''Leviathan'']]-class of cruisers and were primarily used during the [[14-Year War]] and the [[Great War]]. However, many were equipped with beam technology and saw engagement during the [[Second Shivan Incursion]]. Fenris cruisers equal the [[GVC Aten\|GVC ''Aten'']] in terms of efficiency; however, the Aten was not equipped with modern beam and flak technology after the Great War's conclusion. The GTC ''Orff'' and the [[NTC Trinity\|NTC ''Trinity'']] were two notable Fenris cruisers."

−	This obviously goes against canon sources several times. Yours were good; feel free to revert them.	+	This obviously goes against canon sources several times. Yours were good; feel free to revert them.--[[User:Monitor\|Monitor]] 10:52, 1 April 2008 (CST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:51, 1 April 2008
Line 6:		Line 6:

	I wrote many introductory paragraphs. They are very useful to give a quick summary about the ship in question. This is the way every sensible wiki does it: a quick intro that gives the most useful and general information and the rest is about details. Are they horribly written and not factual enough? Your versions are more subjective than mine were, and horribly written? You know, I know the difference between "it's" and "its," which is like second grade, elementary school. - [[User:TopAce\|TopAce]] 11:45, 31 March 2008 (CST)		I wrote many introductory paragraphs. They are very useful to give a quick summary about the ship in question. This is the way every sensible wiki does it: a quick intro that gives the most useful and general information and the rest is about details. Are they horribly written and not factual enough? Your versions are more subjective than mine were, and horribly written? You know, I know the difference between "it's" and "its," which is like second grade, elementary school. - [[User:TopAce\|TopAce]] 11:45, 31 March 2008 (CST)
		+
		+	I'm sorry, I gave them all pretty much equal treatment. I was speaking of intros such as the original one for the Fenris " -
		+
		+	'''GTC ''Fenris''''' cruisers were the predecessors of the [[GTC Leviathan\|GTC ''Leviathan'']]-class of cruisers and were primarily used during the [[14-Year War]] and the [[Great War]]. However, many were equipped with beam technology and saw engagement during the [[Second Shivan Incursion]]. Fenris cruisers equal the [[GVC Aten\|GVC ''Aten'']] in terms of efficiency; however, the Aten was not equipped with modern beam and flak technology after the Great War's conclusion. The GTC ''Orff'' and the [[NTC Trinity\|NTC ''Trinity'']] were two notable Fenris cruisers."
		+
		+	This obviously goes against canon sources several times. Yours were good; feel free to revert them.

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:45, 31 March 2008
Line 5:		Line 5:
	I think they might be useful as a digested form of the rest of the article. The danger is that they become too much like the Veteran Comments section. Indisputable information would obviously be pertinent. --[[User:Monitor\|Monitor]] 21:54, 28 March 2008 (CST)		I think they might be useful as a digested form of the rest of the article. The danger is that they become too much like the Veteran Comments section. Indisputable information would obviously be pertinent. --[[User:Monitor\|Monitor]] 21:54, 28 March 2008 (CST)

−	I wrote many introductory paragraphs. They are very useful to give a quick summary about the ship in question. This is the way every sensible wiki does it: a quick intro that gives the most useful and general information and the rest is about details. Are they horribly written and not factual enough? Your versions are more subjective than mine were, and horribly written? You know, I know the difference between "it's" and "its," which is like second grade, elementary school.	+	I wrote many introductory paragraphs. They are very useful to give a quick summary about the ship in question. This is the way every sensible wiki does it: a quick intro that gives the most useful and general information and the rest is about details. Are they horribly written and not factual enough? Your versions are more subjective than mine were, and horribly written? You know, I know the difference between "it's" and "its," which is like second grade, elementary school. - [[User:TopAce\|TopAce]] 11:45, 31 March 2008 (CST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:44, 31 March 2008
Line 4:		Line 4:

	I think they might be useful as a digested form of the rest of the article. The danger is that they become too much like the Veteran Comments section. Indisputable information would obviously be pertinent. --[[User:Monitor\|Monitor]] 21:54, 28 March 2008 (CST)		I think they might be useful as a digested form of the rest of the article. The danger is that they become too much like the Veteran Comments section. Indisputable information would obviously be pertinent. --[[User:Monitor\|Monitor]] 21:54, 28 March 2008 (CST)
		+
		+	I wrote many introductory paragraphs. They are very useful to give a quick summary about the ship in question. This is the way every sensible wiki does it: a quick intro that gives the most useful and general information and the rest is about details. Are they horribly written and not factual enough? Your versions are more subjective than mine were, and horribly written? You know, I know the difference between "it's" and "its," which is like second grade, elementary school.

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:54, 29 March 2008
Line 2:		Line 2:

	I agree. Almost all of them are ''both'' ungrammatical and present no useful information that isn't given elsewhere. I just don't care about it enough to remove them, although I'd support anyone who actually went through our zillion ship articles and removed or at least fixed the intros. [[User:Mustang19\|Mustang19]] 07:34, 28 March 2008 (CST)		I agree. Almost all of them are ''both'' ungrammatical and present no useful information that isn't given elsewhere. I just don't care about it enough to remove them, although I'd support anyone who actually went through our zillion ship articles and removed or at least fixed the intros. [[User:Mustang19\|Mustang19]] 07:34, 28 March 2008 (CST)
		+
		+	I think they might be useful as a digested form of the rest of the article. The danger is that they become too much like the Veteran Comments section. Indisputable information would obviously be pertinent. --[[User:Monitor\|Monitor]] 21:54, 28 March 2008 (CST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:34, 28 March 2008
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Are ship intros a good / bad thing. I've noticed many of them are horribly written --[[User:Monitor\|Monitor]] 20:56, 27 March 2008 (CST)		Are ship intros a good / bad thing. I've noticed many of them are horribly written --[[User:Monitor\|Monitor]] 20:56, 27 March 2008 (CST)
		+
		+	I agree. Almost all of them are ''both'' ungrammatical and present no useful information that isn't given elsewhere. I just don't care about it enough to remove them, although I'd support anyone who actually went through our zillion ship articles and removed or at least fixed the intros. [[User:Mustang19\|Mustang19]] 07:34, 28 March 2008 (CST)