Talk:Long War Table - Revision history

Thels: Clarified I meant the Long War index table, and not the Hangar page itself.

2015-07-03T10:50:41Z

Clarified I meant the Long War index table, and not the Hangar page itself.

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:50, 3 July 2015
Line 4:		Line 4:
	::There is no separate page for Transport. Skyranger is just mentioned on the Hangar page, which I think is fine. As for the entry on the main page, IMO both Interceptors and Transport should be deleted as they just link within a page, which is generally wrong for main page entries (no other entry links within a page). [[User:Riw\|Riw]] ([[User talk:Riw\|talk]]) 08:44, 2 July 2015 (EDT)		::There is no separate page for Transport. Skyranger is just mentioned on the Hangar page, which I think is fine. As for the entry on the main page, IMO both Interceptors and Transport should be deleted as they just link within a page, which is generally wrong for main page entries (no other entry links within a page). [[User:Riw\|Riw]] ([[User talk:Riw\|talk]]) 08:44, 2 July 2015 (EDT)

	::I did not want to undo the change by ‎Ushiwakamaru completely, as I felt that would be rude without placing his input somewhere. As Long War information is irrelevant in vanilla XCOM, I transposed it to the Long War section for the user. Perhaps the addition to the table was impulsive. However, in terms of aesthetic uniformity, vanilla XCOM table does not have Interceptor or Transport entries, so I agree with Riw that deletion of both entries would be prudent.--[[User:DracoGriffin\|DracoGriffin]] ([[User talk:DracoGriffin\|talk]]) 14:25, 2 July 2015 (EDT)		::::I did not want to undo the change by ‎Ushiwakamaru completely, as I felt that would be rude without placing his input somewhere. As Long War information is irrelevant in vanilla XCOM, I transposed it to the Long War section for the user. Perhaps the addition to the table was impulsive. However, in terms of aesthetic uniformity, vanilla XCOM table does not have Interceptor or Transport entries, so I agree with Riw that deletion of both entries would be prudent.--[[User:DracoGriffin\|DracoGriffin]] ([[User talk:DracoGriffin\|talk]]) 14:25, 2 July 2015 (EDT)

			::::::Oh, I agree we should definitely keep the information about the Skyranger on the Hangar page. I just don't feel like it warrants it's own unique entry on the Long War index table, which would only cause it to get bloated. It's not a facility, after all, and as Riw said, it's not it's own page. Since we seem in agreement, I'm removing both entries from the Long War index table. [[User:Thels\|Thels]] ([[User talk:Thels\|talk]]) 06:50, 3 July 2015 (EDT)

DracoGriffin: /* Transport entry */ - Agree with Riw

2015-07-02T18:25:43Z

Transport entry: - Agree with Riw

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:25, 2 July 2015
Line 3:		Line 3:

	::There is no separate page for Transport. Skyranger is just mentioned on the Hangar page, which I think is fine. As for the entry on the main page, IMO both Interceptors and Transport should be deleted as they just link within a page, which is generally wrong for main page entries (no other entry links within a page). [[User:Riw\|Riw]] ([[User talk:Riw\|talk]]) 08:44, 2 July 2015 (EDT)		::There is no separate page for Transport. Skyranger is just mentioned on the Hangar page, which I think is fine. As for the entry on the main page, IMO both Interceptors and Transport should be deleted as they just link within a page, which is generally wrong for main page entries (no other entry links within a page). [[User:Riw\|Riw]] ([[User talk:Riw\|talk]]) 08:44, 2 July 2015 (EDT)

			::I did not want to undo the change by ‎Ushiwakamaru completely, as I felt that would be rude without placing his input somewhere. As Long War information is irrelevant in vanilla XCOM, I transposed it to the Long War section for the user. Perhaps the addition to the table was impulsive. However, in terms of aesthetic uniformity, vanilla XCOM table does not have Interceptor or Transport entries, so I agree with Riw that deletion of both entries would be prudent.--[[User:DracoGriffin\|DracoGriffin]] ([[User talk:DracoGriffin\|talk]]) 14:25, 2 July 2015 (EDT)

Riw at 12:44, 2 July 2015

2015-07-02T12:44:27Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:44, 2 July 2015
Line 1:		Line 1:
	==Transport entry==		==Transport entry==
	Is the Transport entry really necessary? There's really not a reason to be transparent with the 90s version, as the 90s version actually allowed you to build transports, had different tiers, had possibility of them getting attacked, etc... In XCOM:EU/EW/LW, it's just one ship that can't be damaged, destroyed or rebuilt, and taxes a constant 20 credits per month. It doesn't seem to me like that warrants it's own page. [[User:Thels\|Thels]] ([[User talk:Thels\|talk]]) 04:45, 2 July 2015 (EDT)		Is the Transport entry really necessary? There's really not a reason to be transparent with the 90s version, as the 90s version actually allowed you to build transports, had different tiers, had possibility of them getting attacked, etc... In XCOM:EU/EW/LW, it's just one ship that can't be damaged, destroyed or rebuilt, and taxes a constant 20 credits per month. It doesn't seem to me like that warrants it's own page. [[User:Thels\|Thels]] ([[User talk:Thels\|talk]]) 04:45, 2 July 2015 (EDT)

			::There is no separate page for Transport. Skyranger is just mentioned on the Hangar page, which I think is fine. As for the entry on the main page, IMO both Interceptors and Transport should be deleted as they just link within a page, which is generally wrong for main page entries (no other entry links within a page). [[User:Riw\|Riw]] ([[User talk:Riw\|talk]]) 08:44, 2 July 2015 (EDT)

Thels: Opened discussion about Transports getting their own entry.

2015-07-02T08:45:27Z

Opened discussion about Transports getting their own entry.

New page

==Transport entry==
Is the Transport entry really necessary? There's really not a reason to be transparent with the 90s version, as the 90s version actually allowed you to build transports, had different tiers, had possibility of them getting attacked, etc... In XCOM:EU/EW/LW, it's just one ship that can't be damaged, destroyed or rebuilt, and taxes a constant 20 credits per month. It doesn't seem to me like that warrants it's own page. [[User:Thels|Thels]] ([[User talk:Thels|talk]]) 04:45, 2 July 2015 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:50, 3 July 2015
Line 4:		Line 4:
	::There is no separate page for Transport. Skyranger is just mentioned on the Hangar page, which I think is fine. As for the entry on the main page, IMO both Interceptors and Transport should be deleted as they just link within a page, which is generally wrong for main page entries (no other entry links within a page). [[User:Riw\|Riw]] ([[User talk:Riw\|talk]]) 08:44, 2 July 2015 (EDT)		::There is no separate page for Transport. Skyranger is just mentioned on the Hangar page, which I think is fine. As for the entry on the main page, IMO both Interceptors and Transport should be deleted as they just link within a page, which is generally wrong for main page entries (no other entry links within a page). [[User:Riw\|Riw]] ([[User talk:Riw\|talk]]) 08:44, 2 July 2015 (EDT)

	::I did not want to undo the change by ‎Ushiwakamaru completely, as I felt that would be rude without placing his input somewhere. As Long War information is irrelevant in vanilla XCOM, I transposed it to the Long War section for the user. Perhaps the addition to the table was impulsive. However, in terms of aesthetic uniformity, vanilla XCOM table does not have Interceptor or Transport entries, so I agree with Riw that deletion of both entries would be prudent.--[[User:DracoGriffin\|DracoGriffin]] ([[User talk:DracoGriffin\|talk]]) 14:25, 2 July 2015 (EDT)		::::I did not want to undo the change by ‎Ushiwakamaru completely, as I felt that would be rude without placing his input somewhere. As Long War information is irrelevant in vanilla XCOM, I transposed it to the Long War section for the user. Perhaps the addition to the table was impulsive. However, in terms of aesthetic uniformity, vanilla XCOM table does not have Interceptor or Transport entries, so I agree with Riw that deletion of both entries would be prudent.--[[User:DracoGriffin\|DracoGriffin]] ([[User talk:DracoGriffin\|talk]]) 14:25, 2 July 2015 (EDT)

			::::::Oh, I agree we should definitely keep the information about the Skyranger on the Hangar page. I just don't feel like it warrants it's own unique entry on the Long War index table, which would only cause it to get bloated. It's not a facility, after all, and as Riw said, it's not it's own page. Since we seem in agreement, I'm removing both entries from the Long War index table. [[User:Thels\|Thels]] ([[User talk:Thels\|talk]]) 06:50, 3 July 2015 (EDT)