Difference between revisions of "Talk:FreeSpace 2 Terran Ship Database"
From FreeSpace Wiki
BlueFlames (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
Why is the ''Argo'' flagged as having an invalid name? I'll grant that it seems unlikely, but it is possible that ''Argo'' is the first ship of the class, still in operation during the main FS2 campaign. Unless the transport was canonically destroyed earlier than Argonautica or supposed to be somewhere else during that mission, it may not necessarily be an invalid name. (Though, I will grant it's not terribly creative.) -- [[User:BlueFlames|BlueFlames]] 16:14, 15 August 2008 (CDT) | Why is the ''Argo'' flagged as having an invalid name? I'll grant that it seems unlikely, but it is possible that ''Argo'' is the first ship of the class, still in operation during the main FS2 campaign. Unless the transport was canonically destroyed earlier than Argonautica or supposed to be somewhere else during that mission, it may not necessarily be an invalid name. (Though, I will grant it's not terribly creative.) -- [[User:BlueFlames|BlueFlames]] 16:14, 15 August 2008 (CDT) | ||
| − | From what we've seen of the GTVA's (admittedly haphazard) naming scheme, it seems reasonably possible that the codename of the class may not in fact be related to any of its' members actual names, even the first. This isn't totally unreasonable by real-world standards, though I'm hard-pressed to think of a real-world example that totally broke the link between class designation and the ships themselves; closest I can come up with is the British tendancy to give classes a thematic link based on the first letter of their names. The only name-ships of their class we've seen in FreeSpace have been completely unique (so far as the GTVA knew at the time, this was true of the Sathanas and Ravana too). [[User:Ngtm1r|Ngtm1r]] 17:12, 15 August 2008 (CDT) | + | :From what we've seen of the GTVA's (admittedly haphazard) naming scheme, it seems reasonably possible that the codename of the class may not in fact be related to any of its' members actual names, even the first. This isn't totally unreasonable by real-world standards, though I'm hard-pressed to think of a real-world example that totally broke the link between class designation and the ships themselves; closest I can come up with is the British tendancy to give classes a thematic link based on the first letter of their names. The only name-ships of their class we've seen in FreeSpace have been completely unique (so far as the GTVA knew at the time, this was true of the Sathanas and Ravana too). [[User:Ngtm1r|Ngtm1r]] 17:12, 15 August 2008 (CDT) |
| + | |||
| + | ::That's true that FreeSpace ship naming conventions don't always follow their real-life equivilants, but that's all the more reason that ''Argo'' '''could''', in fact, be a valid ship name, since it doesn't even have to be the first of the class. Sure, GTT ''Argo 36'' is lazy FRED'ing, and I'm willing to call that an invalid ship name, since the only canon ships with numeric designations were nav bouys and the later Sathanas juggernauts, but while GTT ''Argo'' isn't creative, I wouldn't call it invalid. I'm going to pull the flag off, for now, until a stronger argument can be made against the name. -- [[User:BlueFlames|BlueFlames]] 20:56, 27 August 2008 (CDT) | ||
Latest revision as of 01:56, 28 August 2008
GTT Argo Name Validity
Why is the Argo flagged as having an invalid name? I'll grant that it seems unlikely, but it is possible that Argo is the first ship of the class, still in operation during the main FS2 campaign. Unless the transport was canonically destroyed earlier than Argonautica or supposed to be somewhere else during that mission, it may not necessarily be an invalid name. (Though, I will grant it's not terribly creative.) -- BlueFlames 16:14, 15 August 2008 (CDT)
- From what we've seen of the GTVA's (admittedly haphazard) naming scheme, it seems reasonably possible that the codename of the class may not in fact be related to any of its' members actual names, even the first. This isn't totally unreasonable by real-world standards, though I'm hard-pressed to think of a real-world example that totally broke the link between class designation and the ships themselves; closest I can come up with is the British tendancy to give classes a thematic link based on the first letter of their names. The only name-ships of their class we've seen in FreeSpace have been completely unique (so far as the GTVA knew at the time, this was true of the Sathanas and Ravana too). Ngtm1r 17:12, 15 August 2008 (CDT)
- That's true that FreeSpace ship naming conventions don't always follow their real-life equivilants, but that's all the more reason that Argo could, in fact, be a valid ship name, since it doesn't even have to be the first of the class. Sure, GTT Argo 36 is lazy FRED'ing, and I'm willing to call that an invalid ship name, since the only canon ships with numeric designations were nav bouys and the later Sathanas juggernauts, but while GTT Argo isn't creative, I wouldn't call it invalid. I'm going to pull the flag off, for now, until a stronger argument can be made against the name. -- BlueFlames 20:56, 27 August 2008 (CDT)
