|
|
| Line 14: |
Line 14: |
|
| |
|
| I made that comment when I noticed that nothing was being changed, but instead added on to the page. These changes occurred after Sarin's comments, and since those comments seem to be ignored, I think it's necessary to point them out again. --[[User:Halcyon|Halcyon]] 22:51, 19 October 2007 (MDT) | | I made that comment when I noticed that nothing was being changed, but instead added on to the page. These changes occurred after Sarin's comments, and since those comments seem to be ignored, I think it's necessary to point them out again. --[[User:Halcyon|Halcyon]] 22:51, 19 October 2007 (MDT) |
| | |
| | No, actually, it's not. Again, we can read. Thanks for stopping by. -Bloodfyre |
Revision as of 04:54, 20 October 2007
In the GJW fiction, this vessel was destroyed. While Tarentum has a Belarus cruiser, technically it should be a completely different ship. A new name/page would be needed --Halcyon 19:50, 18 October 2007 (MDT)
New ship, redesignated Acheron. It happens, you know. Sometimes navies like a specific name and will keep the name alive, see: USS Enterprise, USS Baltimore, HMS Victory, HMS Exeter, La Redoutable. - Oberst 09:16, 19 October 2007 (MDT)
That's fine. But as the ship "history" still makes it seem like the previous version, it was a safe bet to assume this was the same vessel as well --Halcyon 09:20, 19 October 2007 (MDT)
It pretty much is. Since Raken fucked up and blew it up, we're effectively retconning it back. - Oberst 09:26, 19 October 2007 (MDT)
Different ship, same name. Got it. The history can easily say "this ship was christened the Archeron in memory of" and then you can give the history. No big deal. However, you are not retconning it. This ship was destroyed, just like every other clan had ships destroyed. You guys are not special and can create new ships just like everyone else. --Sarin 16:28, 19 October 2007 (MDT)
Guys, this is either the original that was destroyed, or a brand new one that was named in honour of the previously destroyed vessel. Please choose one. As Sarin already stating, there is no "ret-conning". You can create a separate page for the "new" one, while keeping this page for historical purposes --Halcyon 20:14, 19 October 2007 (MDT)
Yeah, thanks. We don't need you re-stating what Sarin said. We can read his statements just fine, thanks. -Bloodfyre
I made that comment when I noticed that nothing was being changed, but instead added on to the page. These changes occurred after Sarin's comments, and since those comments seem to be ignored, I think it's necessary to point them out again. --Halcyon 22:51, 19 October 2007 (MDT)
No, actually, it's not. Again, we can read. Thanks for stopping by. -Bloodfyre