Difference between revisions of "Talk:Parliamentary Vasudan Empire"
From FreeSpace Wiki
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
==Canonicity of Ambassadors== | ==Canonicity of Ambassadors== | ||
| − | Somebody cite a freaking source, please? | + | Somebody cite a freaking source, please? [[User:Ngtm1r|Ngtm1r]] 13:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:34, 9 December 2009
Contents
Canonicity of Statements
"The capital of the PVE was Vasuda Prime until it was devastated by SD Lucifer in 2335. Afterwards, the capital was moved to Aldebaran."
Source? - Snail 11:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- AFAIK, the capital of the GTVA Vasudans is still Vasuda Prime, so it seems unlikely... Ngtm1r 00:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- It's one of those obscure bits of community trivia, like the naming of the GTD Legion. One of the Volition employees apparently said so, as related by Zarathud in his review for The Destiny of Peace. The problem is that the only places where Volition employees commented regularly were the VBB and the FDL, both of which are no longer online. - Goober5000 14:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Previous Speculative Section
The speculative section is also contradictory to canon in several places. I will nuke it if nobody objects. - Snail 06:00, 18 July 2008 (CDT)
- Is it a TVWP-specific edit or a random "I think this happened" edit? If it's the former, it should be stated that "This section is based on the Terran-Vasudan War Project." Otherwise nuke it. The GTA article also has a similar section, perhaps that should be revised to deleted, too. - TopAce 06:06, 18 July 2008 (CDT)
Non-Canon Info: This is a Social Experiment
- I have added a large chunk of non-canon information to the article, which I have clearly made up. However it is clearly marked. Do you find this acceptable? (note that the addition follows non-canon guidelines strictly) - Snail 20:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- It's interesting. I'd suggest to add two sections, "Canon" and "Non-canon"(or "Description" and "Non-canon") to emphasize the fact that the current parts of the page should be separated. Other than that, good job - it'd be nice to have several non-canon parts for each campaign showing original aspects of the PVE. Needless to say that TVWP's part will probably be the longest one. --- Mobius
- TBH I agreed with Wanderer's idea of creating a subpage for non-canon stuff. Would add a lot of clarity to the Wiki. Not only that, but it'd be a place to add even more non-canon data without being obstructive. In that way we could have a whole load of non-canon subpages which could become a repository for all user-made campaigns - Without distracting from the canon info (which was my main annoyance about the issue). - Snail 21:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- It may work as long as either versions are properly linked throughout the Wiki. --- Mobius
- TBH I agreed with Wanderer's idea of creating a subpage for non-canon stuff. Would add a lot of clarity to the Wiki. Not only that, but it'd be a place to add even more non-canon data without being obstructive. In that way we could have a whole load of non-canon subpages which could become a repository for all user-made campaigns - Without distracting from the canon info (which was my main annoyance about the issue). - Snail 21:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- It's interesting. I'd suggest to add two sections, "Canon" and "Non-canon"(or "Description" and "Non-canon") to emphasize the fact that the current parts of the page should be separated. Other than that, good job - it'd be nice to have several non-canon parts for each campaign showing original aspects of the PVE. Needless to say that TVWP's part will probably be the longest one. --- Mobius
Canonicity of Ambassadors
Somebody cite a freaking source, please? Ngtm1r 13:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
