Talk:GTD Legion

Unsure

Someone with the FS2 reference bible should look at the cutscene script and see what this destroyer is called. I have a copy lying around on my hard drive, I think, I just can't find it on my PC or on the Net. Mustang19

I'm not even sure if there is an FS2 ref bible. People call it the Legion because of a certain interview with [V] staff. [V] staff confirmed that it was not the Galatea. Someone asked if it was the Legion, and [V] staff said "Call it that if you want." So there's no real certainty about the Legion, unless you take that vague answer. - Snail

Altered it to fit with the story as it was told by Eishmto, feel free to change it back or fix further; working from memory. - ngtm1r

Fixed the grammar, but the substance of the story remains the same. I just wish we had some Volition Watch article or something to link to. Doesn't anyone remember when and where this meeting with V took place, and isn't there some kind of transcript? Mustang19

Non-canon material on 'canon' articles

Setting aside the issue of where 'Legion' comes from anyway: cool, look, a mod note on a canon article! Can I go add a Blue Planet box on the Carthage? (I don't think this is a good idea or a good precedent to set.) General Battuta 15:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• Wait, the BP Carthage already has an article here. - TopAce 16:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
  • You're right, it does, but I'm just worried about articles that mix canon material with non-canon stuff, even if clearly marked. For example, it'd be pretty irritating for every single FreeSpace 2 beam weapon to have a Blue Planet tech description in a red box. Or, in this example, for the GTD Carthage's entry in the FS2 ship list to have the Blue Planet entry included in a non-canon box. Maybe I'm jumping at shadows? General Battuta 22:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
    • I'm with Battuta on separating canon and non-canon material. Apart from being a little distracting, it also encourages the behaviour of people like ITA Master (among others) who decide to go and add their non-canon stuff to canon pages. I also think we should seriously consider completely redoing articles like Terran-Vasudan War which are almost entirely made up of non-canon stuff, despite ostensibly covering a 'canon' subject. N.B. I remember having a hilariously awesome flamewar with Mobius over this very topic a while back. Good times. :) - Snail 02:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
• Battuta: Well, the BP Carthage entry is quite informative, clearly separated from canon, so it's fine. However, what information is gained from adding BP tech descriptions for beams? I remember reading some story background in them, but apart from that, some technical talk. If you want them on the Wiki, I suggest creating a separate Blue Planet tech descriptions article. Snail: I don't have time to read the T-V War discussion history - here or at HLP - so apologies if I say something already said: canon and non-canon are clearly separated, and the means of separation (colors) is explained in clear English at the top, so personally I have no problem with that. If you want, I have no objections to trimming down the current article to canon info only, as long as you move Eisthmo's timeline to a separate article, for the sake of the preserving that information. Note, however, that the canon article will be very short. - TopAce 05:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree that the BP Carthage article is fine, and I agree that adding the BP tech descriptions to the beam articles would add very little. I think you misunderstand, though - I'm not saying I want them on the Wiki as part of the canon articles, I'm saying that they should be kept in separate articles. Similarly, I don't think the Legion entry should mix canon and ST:R material. There should be a separate Legion (ST:R) article. Otherwise we'll end up with situations like the Colossus page describing every silly campaign where the GTVA builds 40 more of them and they're all covered in BFReds.General Battuta 12:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)