Talk:Ship class table: Difference between revisions
MarkMcDoogle (talk | contribs) m responce to Lemming re: transports |
Chocolateer (talk | contribs) |
||
| (6 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
Well, I would not consider their primary purpose as a transport, but, there are cargo variants that Guild has made and they should be listed with the transports. They are good for "Special Deliveries" and such, or someone who wants the look while still having some cargo capacity, mind you not much. --[[User:MarkMcDoogle|Mark McDoogle]] 13:33, 21 Mar 2005 (CST) | Well, I would not consider their primary purpose as a transport, but, there are cargo variants that Guild has made and they should be listed with the transports. They are good for "Special Deliveries" and such, or someone who wants the look while still having some cargo capacity, mind you not much. --[[User:MarkMcDoogle|Mark McDoogle]] 13:33, 21 Mar 2005 (CST) | ||
---- | |||
I've added a suggestion to delete this page to the [[Editors:main|Main Editors Page]]. See that page for discussion. | |||
== Why the inneficient and outdated layout? == | |||
Why can't we just put all ships under the same table? The categories are broken anyway. Honestly, since when has a prometheus's main purpose been a bomber?!? Sure that's what the game info says, but let's be honest here. | |||
{{br}} | |||
{{br}}Permission requested to remove outdated ship categories... | |||
I'd say NO, the wiki is not for putting personal preferences, it's a place to put facts. Fact is that the ship catagories come straight from the game, so they should be listed as such. Any use other then there intended is personal preference. Of course this is just MY opinion. --[[User:MarkMcDoogle|Mark McDoogle]] 23:19, 7 February 2006 (EST) | |||
== Hopelessly Out of Date == | |||
This is badly out of date. Again. Any volunteers to fix it? --[[User:Roguelazer|Roguelazer]] 03:23, 7 April 2007 (EDT) | |||
<br> | |||
Yeah, Dude. I volunteer. <br> | |||
I have checked about 25% of the ships. I updated Warthog III, IV and M.E. and Hornet III. <br> | |||
BTW, if you want a more upto-date page, check out the ''other'' Ships page (general ships by model type): [[General ships table|here]]. <br> | |||
-- The Dude abides. [[User:Foo Fighter|Foo Fighter]] 11:35, 11 May 2007 (EDT) | |||
<br> | |||
There are so many errors here that it's not worth taking the effort to fix. I fixed all entries in the [[General ships table|General ships table]] --[[User:Chocolateer|Chocolateer]] 13:49, 21 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 13:49, 21 January 2012
Why do you put obvius assault ships in with the "transports" and transports in the "Fighters", I don't understand what you are doing Miharu?? --Mark McDoogle 12:05, 18 Mar 2005 (CST)
And in referrance to your conversation in IRC, I have no recelection of any conversation regarding that page, and if you read at the bottom of the edit windows, it says quite clear "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then don't submit it here." so quit getting your panties in a ruffle!! --Mark McDoogle 12:09, 18 Mar 2005 (CST)
Ok, What is the difference between a "fighter" and an "Attack/Assault Craft"?? Not much if anything. So why create a second section for it. Then on top of that you have included a "cargo" variant in witht the assault crafts!!! That is completely wrong, whether or not the variant acts like an attack vessel it is categorized as a "cargo" ship so why mix it in with a bunch of overweight "fighters"???? --Mark McDoogle 12:23, 21 Mar 2005 (CST)
Since when is a centurion, vulture, or valkyrie a transport ship? --Lemming
Well, I would not consider their primary purpose as a transport, but, there are cargo variants that Guild has made and they should be listed with the transports. They are good for "Special Deliveries" and such, or someone who wants the look while still having some cargo capacity, mind you not much. --Mark McDoogle 13:33, 21 Mar 2005 (CST)
I've added a suggestion to delete this page to the Main Editors Page. See that page for discussion.
Why the inneficient and outdated layout?
Why can't we just put all ships under the same table? The categories are broken anyway. Honestly, since when has a prometheus's main purpose been a bomber?!? Sure that's what the game info says, but let's be honest here.
Permission requested to remove outdated ship categories...
I'd say NO, the wiki is not for putting personal preferences, it's a place to put facts. Fact is that the ship catagories come straight from the game, so they should be listed as such. Any use other then there intended is personal preference. Of course this is just MY opinion. --Mark McDoogle 23:19, 7 February 2006 (EST)
Hopelessly Out of Date
This is badly out of date. Again. Any volunteers to fix it? --Roguelazer 03:23, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
Yeah, Dude. I volunteer.
I have checked about 25% of the ships. I updated Warthog III, IV and M.E. and Hornet III.
BTW, if you want a more upto-date page, check out the other Ships page (general ships by model type): here.
-- The Dude abides. Foo Fighter 11:35, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
There are so many errors here that it's not worth taking the effort to fix. I fixed all entries in the General ships table --Chocolateer 13:49, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
