Difference between revisions of "Talk:GTB Hydra"

From FreeSpace Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
m (hmph)
m
 
Line 13: Line 13:
 
*I took the initiative and removed the category. - [[User:TopAce|TopAce]] 14:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 
*I took the initiative and removed the category. - [[User:TopAce|TopAce]] 14:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 
**Hmph. It's a user-made ship. I'd be up for removing it from the master list, but not the category. - [[User:Snail|Snail]] 15:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 
**Hmph. It's a user-made ship. I'd be up for removing it from the master list, but not the category. - [[User:Snail|Snail]] 15:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 +
***That is my standing as well! [[User:ktistai228|ktistai228]]

Latest revision as of 14:36, 24 December 2010

I think this article should be deleted or removed from the wiki ship list. It's just a canon model, with canon textures and a hacked table. This should not be added as a "User-Made Ship". This is my opinion. ktistai228 2:32 pm, GMT+2, 17 December 2010

  • Well, the Hydra is not canon. A table hack, which gives it a new name and different table data, is enough to justify the non-canon tag. Of course it doesn't fit hundred percent into the user-made category, but creating a separate category for it would be redundant. - TopAce 18:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Do we even need a wiki page for it? Anyone can open ships.tbl and, add 10 to all the secondary bank capacities, and add "UD-8 Kayser" to the allowed primary weapons list... It doesn't even have a retexture. Droid803 20:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Just remove everything but the class description and instead comment at the top that it's identical to the DH, but is compatible with Kaysers. --Monitor 22:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
      • The Wiki page is 100% justified. If you want to look it up, this article must be here. You may know without any reference how it's different from the Artemis D.H., but let's respect those that don't. - TopAce 22:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
        • Its use in Derelict is whatr justifies its inclusion. Black Wolf 02:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
          • IIRC the original Hydra from the first Derelict release was actually a reskin. Can anyone confirm this? - Snail 16:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
            • TopAce, I understand your point and I respect, but if we should add every Retexture as a separate ship it wouldn't be that good. The number of articles would just go up for no good reason. Without talking of table hacks! Yes, it is non-canon, but it does not belong to that list. As much you could add a link to it in the Artemis D.H. article, but even that is... The idea is we either should include all retextures and hacks, or we should get the Hydra out of there. Sorry, I may be wrong, but it's been a pain in my leg for quite some time. ktistai228 3:01 GMT+2, 23 December 2010
              • What about making this article redirect to the Artemis D.H., with some kind of note added to the top of the page (or a separate section)? - TopAce 13:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
                • That would be a very good idea, but I'm still for removing the entry from the User-made Ships list ktistai228 4:38 GMT +2, 23 December
                  • I'm against deleting this article. It's worthy of inclusion because it was featured in Derelict - A reskin or table hack on its own may not be noteworthy, but the Hydra is an exception because it was featured in a pretty notable campaign. Think of it that way. We don't need to include every table hack ever, just the ones that matter. Notability might be arbitrary, but I think we can agree that Derelict was (and continues to be) a notable campaign that is worthy of Wiki coverage. - Snail 19:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
                    • Snail, you misunderstood me. I do not want the article deleted, I do not want it linked to the User-made ships list. It does not belong there. ktistai228 22:11 GMT+2 23 December
  • I took the initiative and removed the category. - TopAce 14:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Hmph. It's a user-made ship. I'd be up for removing it from the master list, but not the category. - Snail 15:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)