Talk:GTVA Colossus - Revision history

MatthTheGeek: /* Subjective comments about Terran/Vasudan elements */

2012-08-30T08:22:30Z

Subjective comments about Terran/Vasudan elements

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:22, 30 August 2012
Line 59:		Line 59:
	==Subjective comments about Terran/Vasudan elements==		==Subjective comments about Terran/Vasudan elements==

	The Colossus has plenty of overtly Vasudan influences in its appearances. To imply that the Colossus is "clearly" a mostly Terran design is rather odd. On top of a huge portion of the hull having distinctly Vasudan coloring/material/shape/style, there are a lot of curves present in the design and aesthetic that Vasudan designs are known for. And seeing as the project itself was proposed by the Vasudan emperor, it'd be rather odd for the ship to be a mostly Terran design.		The Colossus has plenty of overtly Vasudan influences in its appearances. To imply that the Colossus is "clearly" a mostly Terran design is rather odd. On top of a huge portion of the hull having distinctly Vasudan coloring/material/shape/style, there are a lot of curves present in the design and aesthetic that Vasudan designs are known for. And seeing as the project itself was proposed by the Vasudan emperor, it'd be rather odd for the ship to be a mostly Terran design. --[[User:SaltyWaffles\|SaltyWaffles]]


			"a huge portion of the hull having distinctly Vasudan coloring/material/shape/style" wut. All the tiles used on the Colie are Terran tiles. On top of that, the Colie exhibits Terran engine glows and Terran beams. There may be some zod-ish implied curves, but actually less than on ships like the Hecate or the Deimos. Whatever actual Zod features exist of the Colie are well-hidden and/or internal. --[[User:MatthTheGeek\|MatthTheGeek]]

SaltyWaffles at 03:23, 30 August 2012

2012-08-30T03:23:17Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:23, 30 August 2012
Line 56:		Line 56:
	== Veteran Comments Policy ==		== Veteran Comments Policy ==
	[[Veteran comments policy\|Shortened.]] :P -- [[User:Androgeos Exeunt\|<font color="#9966CC">Androgeos</font>]] [[User_talk:Androgeos_Exeunt\|<font color="#40826D">Exeunt</font>]] 08:18, 12 March 2011 (UTC)		[[Veteran comments policy\|Shortened.]] :P -- [[User:Androgeos Exeunt\|<font color="#9966CC">Androgeos</font>]] [[User_talk:Androgeos_Exeunt\|<font color="#40826D">Exeunt</font>]] 08:18, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

			==Subjective comments about Terran/Vasudan elements==

			The Colossus has plenty of overtly Vasudan influences in its appearances. To imply that the Colossus is "clearly" a mostly Terran design is rather odd. On top of a huge portion of the hull having distinctly Vasudan coloring/material/shape/style, there are a lot of curves present in the design and aesthetic that Vasudan designs are known for. And seeing as the project itself was proposed by the Vasudan emperor, it'd be rather odd for the ship to be a mostly Terran design.

Androgeos Exeunt: Aaaaaand ... you were going somewhere with this?

2011-03-12T08:18:58Z

Aaaaaand ... you were going somewhere with this?

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:18, 12 March 2011
Line 55:		Line 55:

	== Veteran Comments Policy ==		== Veteran Comments Policy ==
			[[Veteran comments policy\|Shortened.]] :P -- [[User:Androgeos Exeunt\|<font color="#9966CC">Androgeos</font>]] [[User_talk:Androgeos_Exeunt\|<font color="#40826D">Exeunt</font>]] 08:18, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
	~~Early in 2008, the FreeSpace Wiki community came to the consensus that many of its~~ Veteran ~~Comments sections had devolved into blogs~~. Veteran Comments were originally intended to provide useful information about various ships that wasn't apparent from their table statistics. From now on, contributors are asked to maintain a certain level of quality in their Comments.

	~~[http~~:~~//www.hard~~-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,25506.140.html A Wiki forums discussion] has come to some conclusions. Here are a few examples of what information a ''useful'' Veteran Comment might include, although this list is far from all-~~inclusive:~~

	~~'''All articles:'''~~
	* Notes for FREDders (the [[~~SB Nephilim~~\|~~Nephilim~~]] ~~doesn't carry bombs in its default loadout, certain bombers carry Phoenixes but the~~ [[~~good-secondary-time~~]] ~~SEXP must be used to enable them to fire)~~
	* Info on special gun placements and which banks correspond to which guns (Ursa's top-right gun, which is uselessly inaccurate versus anything small)
	* Warnings about any problems with the ship (Tauret can't really use Kaysers due to energy constraints)
	* Weaknesses (the weapons systems on the Erinyes and Athena are extremely exposed. Think 95% hull and no weapons working)
	* Any interesting facts that have not been pointed out elsewhere

	~~'''Capship articles~~:~~'''~~
	* Blind spots (in front and ever so slightly above a Moloch, ~~only a single blob turret can reach you)~~
	* Special issues (~~the Azrael is effectively impossible to disable due to the engine placement~~)

	~~'''What a Veteran Comment should ''not'' contain:'''~~
	*Blog-like descriptions that point out strengths/weaknesses under rare circumstances.
	*Speculation about how powerful the given ship would be if its default armament weren't what it is. (An Arcadia could be more powerful if it had beams, but it doesn't!)
	*Speculation about the motives behind a given ship or weapon (Why did the NTF use Prometheus R cannons instead of Kaysers? Why was the Valkyrie decommissioned?)
	*Mission-specific comments (This ship is very useful in this mission under these circumstances). Comments like these are to be made in the relevant article. (Use the Trebuchets like this in [[Bearbaiting]])
	*Highly subjective and debatable statements like ''extremely weak'' or ''totally useless''.
	*Vulgarities like ''a piece of crap''.
	*Redundancy with comments already made; if a particular facet of tactics, weapons, or facts about a ship has already been pointed out, don't repeat it.

	The thrust of the Veteran Comments reform movement is, ''' '' do not treat Veteran Comments like Myspace. Verified and useful information is valued; highly subjective and useless comments are not. '' ''' Veteran comments are not treated as forum posts by one user—other contributors are allowed to edit the comments for accuracy, clarity of expression, or grammar. Accordingly, please don't sign your Veteran Comments.

	Through all this, remember that this policy is not meant to discourage helpful contributors. '''Be bold''', as they say on Wikipedia. If you're not sure of something, start a discussion on the Talk Page. If you are fairly certain of it, edit the article accordingly. Thanks to the Wiki architecture, errors can be corrected or removed later.

Monitor: /* Veteran Comments Policy */ new section

2011-03-12T03:03:53Z

Veteran Comments Policy: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:03, 12 March 2011
Line 53:		Line 53:

	My message is - keep the Veteran Comments useful, comprehensive and coherent. --- [[User:Mobius\|Mobius]]		My message is - keep the Veteran Comments useful, comprehensive and coherent. --- [[User:Mobius\|Mobius]]

			== Veteran Comments Policy ==

			Early in 2008, the FreeSpace Wiki community came to the consensus that many of its Veteran Comments sections had devolved into blogs. Veteran Comments were originally intended to provide useful information about various ships that wasn't apparent from their table statistics. From now on, contributors are asked to maintain a certain level of quality in their Comments.

			[http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,25506.140.html A Wiki forums discussion] has come to some conclusions. Here are a few examples of what information a ''useful'' Veteran Comment might include, although this list is far from all-inclusive:

			'''All articles:'''
			* Notes for FREDders (the [[SB Nephilim\|Nephilim]] doesn't carry bombs in its default loadout, certain bombers carry Phoenixes but the [[good-secondary-time]] SEXP must be used to enable them to fire)
			* Info on special gun placements and which banks correspond to which guns (Ursa's top-right gun, which is uselessly inaccurate versus anything small)
			* Warnings about any problems with the ship (Tauret can't really use Kaysers due to energy constraints)
			* Weaknesses (the weapons systems on the Erinyes and Athena are extremely exposed. Think 95% hull and no weapons working)
			* Any interesting facts that have not been pointed out elsewhere

			'''Capship articles:'''
			* Blind spots (in front and ever so slightly above a Moloch, only a single blob turret can reach you)
			* Special issues (the Azrael is effectively impossible to disable due to the engine placement)

			'''What a Veteran Comment should ''not'' contain:'''
			*Blog-like descriptions that point out strengths/weaknesses under rare circumstances.
			*Speculation about how powerful the given ship would be if its default armament weren't what it is. (An Arcadia could be more powerful if it had beams, but it doesn't!)
			*Speculation about the motives behind a given ship or weapon (Why did the NTF use Prometheus R cannons instead of Kaysers? Why was the Valkyrie decommissioned?)
			*Mission-specific comments (This ship is very useful in this mission under these circumstances). Comments like these are to be made in the relevant article. (Use the Trebuchets like this in [[Bearbaiting]])
			*Highly subjective and debatable statements like ''extremely weak'' or ''totally useless''.
			*Vulgarities like ''a piece of crap''.
			*Redundancy with comments already made; if a particular facet of tactics, weapons, or facts about a ship has already been pointed out, don't repeat it.

			The thrust of the Veteran Comments reform movement is, ''' '' do not treat Veteran Comments like Myspace. Verified and useful information is valued; highly subjective and useless comments are not. '' ''' Veteran comments are not treated as forum posts by one user—other contributors are allowed to edit the comments for accuracy, clarity of expression, or grammar. Accordingly, please don't sign your Veteran Comments.

			Through all this, remember that this policy is not meant to discourage helpful contributors. '''Be bold''', as they say on Wikipedia. If you're not sure of something, start a discussion on the Talk Page. If you are fairly certain of it, edit the article accordingly. Thanks to the Wiki architecture, errors can be corrected or removed later.

Mobius: New section about the idiotic comments I found in the main article

2009-04-03T20:47:44Z

New section about the idiotic comments I found in the main article

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:47, 3 April 2009
Line 45:		Line 45:
	Why not just classify it as a Colossus Class ship? Isn't that what they do for the first ships of its kind? All following ships would be Colossus Class Ships?		Why not just classify it as a Colossus Class ship? Isn't that what they do for the first ships of its kind? All following ships would be Colossus Class Ships?
	*We haven't been discussing the class's name, but its ship type. Those are two different things. - [[User:TopAce\|TopAce]] 07:27, 7 February 2009 (CST)		*We haven't been discussing the class's name, but its ship type. Those are two different things. - [[User:TopAce\|TopAce]] 07:27, 7 February 2009 (CST)

			==Weird, extremely weird "Veteran Comments"==

			I removed several idiotic comments and tried to replace them with more coherent one. They surely were the most weird comments of the entire Wiki.

			Strangely enough, there's a tendence in throwing in the results of FRED experiments even if we all know that the outcome of a battle depends on several parameters other than relative ship placement. Also, certain comments give for sure that replacing all anti-warship beams with [[BFGreen\|BFGreens]] should be a standard change. Have those guys ever cared about the messages sent by the ''Colossus'' in [[High Noon]]? Are they aware of what reactor overloads are capable of causing?

			My message is - keep the Veteran Comments useful, comprehensive and coherent. --- [[User:Mobius\|Mobius]]

TopAce: /* Semantics */

2009-02-07T13:27:15Z

Semantics

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:27, 7 February 2009
Line 44:		Line 44:
	::[http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,58564.0.html Here's a link to the thread.] As for whether you guys want to follow it or not... -- [[User:Androgeos Exeunt\|Androgeos Exeunt]] 02:48, 23 December 2008 (CST)		::[http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,58564.0.html Here's a link to the thread.] As for whether you guys want to follow it or not... -- [[User:Androgeos Exeunt\|Androgeos Exeunt]] 02:48, 23 December 2008 (CST)
	Why not just classify it as a Colossus Class ship? Isn't that what they do for the first ships of its kind? All following ships would be Colossus Class Ships?		Why not just classify it as a Colossus Class ship? Isn't that what they do for the first ships of its kind? All following ships would be Colossus Class Ships?
			*We haven't been discussing the class's name, but its ship type. Those are two different things. - [[User:TopAce\|TopAce]] 07:27, 7 February 2009 (CST)

Jkalltheway: /* Semantics */

2009-02-07T08:46:56Z

Semantics

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:46, 7 February 2009
Line 43:		Line 43:
	:I think I'll do a poll on HLP and see what the rest of the community thinks. Most votes wins. -- [[User:Androgeos Exeunt\|Androgeos Exeunt]] 20:22, 22 December 2008 (CST)		:I think I'll do a poll on HLP and see what the rest of the community thinks. Most votes wins. -- [[User:Androgeos Exeunt\|Androgeos Exeunt]] 20:22, 22 December 2008 (CST)
	::[http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,58564.0.html Here's a link to the thread.] As for whether you guys want to follow it or not... -- [[User:Androgeos Exeunt\|Androgeos Exeunt]] 02:48, 23 December 2008 (CST)		::[http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,58564.0.html Here's a link to the thread.] As for whether you guys want to follow it or not... -- [[User:Androgeos Exeunt\|Androgeos Exeunt]] 02:48, 23 December 2008 (CST)
			Why not just classify it as a Colossus Class ship? Isn't that what they do for the first ships of its kind? All following ships would be Colossus Class Ships?

Androgeos Exeunt: /* Semantics */ Update...

2008-12-23T08:48:08Z

Semantics: Update...

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:48, 23 December 2008
Line 42:		Line 42:

	:I think I'll do a poll on HLP and see what the rest of the community thinks. Most votes wins. -- [[User:Androgeos Exeunt\|Androgeos Exeunt]] 20:22, 22 December 2008 (CST)		:I think I'll do a poll on HLP and see what the rest of the community thinks. Most votes wins. -- [[User:Androgeos Exeunt\|Androgeos Exeunt]] 20:22, 22 December 2008 (CST)
			::[http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,58564.0.html Here's a link to the thread.] As for whether you guys want to follow it or not... -- [[User:Androgeos Exeunt\|Androgeos Exeunt]] 02:48, 23 December 2008 (CST)

Androgeos Exeunt: /* Semantics */ A suggestion...

2008-12-23T02:22:39Z

Semantics: A suggestion...

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:22, 23 December 2008
Line 40:		Line 40:

	I was fine with it at juggernaut, to be honest, but apparently the notion that that's what the Colossus is offends some members. Change it to whatever you like; I'm done babying one field in the table. -- [[User:BlueFlames\|BlueFlames]] 16:55, 22 December 2008 (CST)		I was fine with it at juggernaut, to be honest, but apparently the notion that that's what the Colossus is offends some members. Change it to whatever you like; I'm done babying one field in the table. -- [[User:BlueFlames\|BlueFlames]] 16:55, 22 December 2008 (CST)

			:I think I'll do a poll on HLP and see what the rest of the community thinks. Most votes wins. -- [[User:Androgeos Exeunt\|Androgeos Exeunt]] 20:22, 22 December 2008 (CST)

BlueFlames: /* Semantics */

2008-12-22T22:55:05Z

Semantics

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:55, 22 December 2008
Line 38:		Line 38:

	::::I'm fine with it. Perhaps it would be a bit better to attach a "non-canon" note to it to make its canonicity status explicit. Yes, that's a change I'm going to do. Revert if there's a problem with it. - [[User:TopAce\|TopAce]] 09:00, 22 December 2008 (CST)		::::I'm fine with it. Perhaps it would be a bit better to attach a "non-canon" note to it to make its canonicity status explicit. Yes, that's a change I'm going to do. Revert if there's a problem with it. - [[User:TopAce\|TopAce]] 09:00, 22 December 2008 (CST)

			I was fine with it at juggernaut, to be honest, but apparently the notion that that's what the Colossus is offends some members. Change it to whatever you like; I'm done babying one field in the table. -- [[User:BlueFlames\|BlueFlames]] 16:55, 22 December 2008 (CST)