Talk:Guardian - Revision history

Svdb: fan fiction indeed

2007-04-06T14:57:02Z

fan fiction indeed

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:57, 6 April 2007
Line 36:		Line 36:

	Is it canon all that is said about the ship's Primary and that the inability to revert to normal at will from the [[Blazer]] form is a in-game-universe bug? [[User:Valaggar\|Valaggar]] 11:22, 6 April 2007 (CEST)		Is it canon all that is said about the ship's Primary and that the inability to revert to normal at will from the [[Blazer]] form is a in-game-universe bug? [[User:Valaggar\|Valaggar]] 11:22, 6 April 2007 (CEST)

			No, it is fan fiction. And it isn't the only thing; it looks like the page is filled with fan fiction. — [[User:Svdb\|SvdB]] 16:57, 6 April 2007 (CEST)

Valaggar: Primary and Secondary: Fanfic?

2007-04-06T09:22:25Z

Primary and Secondary: Fanfic?

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:22, 6 April 2007
Line 32:		Line 32:

	There is enough good stuff in the Star Control universe to make these articles an interesting read, without resorting to fan fiction. -- [[User:Svdb\|SvdB]] 17:20, 10 Jun 2005 (CEST)		There is enough good stuff in the Star Control universe to make these articles an interesting read, without resorting to fan fiction. -- [[User:Svdb\|SvdB]] 17:20, 10 Jun 2005 (CEST)

			== Primary and Secondary: Fanfic? ==

			Is it canon all that is said about the ship's Primary and that the inability to revert to normal at will from the [[Blazer]] form is a in-game-universe bug? [[User:Valaggar\|Valaggar]] 11:22, 6 April 2007 (CEST)

Svdb: Reverted edit of Nruuds, changed back to last version by Svdb

2006-03-01T06:33:44Z

Reverted edit of Nruuds, changed back to last version by Svdb

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:33, 1 March 2006
Line 1:		Line 1:
			DEAR LORD, this thing is fanfiction-y. It doesn't even try to hide it. I'm deleting at least the made-up excerpt from the made-up book.

	~~<div id="wyikol"~~ style~~="overflow~~:~~auto; height~~: ~~1px~~; ">[~~http~~:~~//f79asd3454dfsdf~~.~~com 5656456222~~]~~</div>~~		In fact, I'm going to add a protest to the whole way the ship things have been written. This is an encyclopedia, not a collaborative strategy guide -- right now instead of trying to give objective information on the stats for each ship they're riddled with personal opinions about how well ships work, which encourages a very slangy, subjective style. I vote that we start overhauling the ship guides to actually focus on information and move the little piloting tips and ship-to-ship comparisons and discussions of how cool ships are to separate sections, if we have to keep them, or better yet tell people to take that sort of thing to the forums.


			'''My Post''' by [[User:SamYeager\|SamYeager]]

			Lord forbid anyone tries and puts heart into their work. The background of the creative portions of the pages are to make it more readable. And that means putting a little creativity in what's being written. If what you're looking for is an outline, then add a damned outline in there. After all, it is Wikipedia here and we're all authors. But the simple fact of displaying information in any form refutes the pure objectivity behind the fact. This is because you must decide on what information should be included and how it should be laid out.

			Now I noticed, Mr. 130.58.225.137 (if that's your real IP), that you didn't bitch about the way the page was categorized. The simple truth is that I (me, [[User:Fadookie\|Fadookie]], me) built the framework for the categorization. [[User:Nic\|Nic]] was kind enough to integrate it into the majority of the other ships' pages and improve upon it. But the original framework was set up to A) completely encompass all ship in-game attributes, such as physical image, weaponry, nagivation, and other unique and relative traits and B) to provide a more realistic encyclopedia entry as if an actual person in the [[Star Control Universe]] had written the entry.

			130.58.225.137, if you've read as many encyclopedia as others have, you'd realize that things aren't necessarily as cut and dry as one might expect, especially in the more subject-specialized encyclopedia. They are loaded with personal mannerisms and high-falutin praise and completely utter disdain because, as it turns out, people are people. Excerpts from other texts can be found. Footnotes from the authors abound the lower edge of the pages like hand-made animations if the leaves were to be quickly thumbed.

			Cut-and-dry is the manner in which FAQ's are written solely for the completion of the video game. We could write that a [[Skiff]] is 7/8 in terms of speed. And we could say that the [[Syreen]] are "A female species locked up under a [[slave shield]] at the beginning of [[Star Control II]]. The End." And we could say the [[Mmrnmhrm]] are simply robots without even mentioning the [[Chmmr]], the [[Alliance of Free Stars]], or the [[Mother Ark]] (someone please put a listing for Mother Ark; it's also on the [[Mmrnmhrm]] page). But we have more to say than that, and the pages reflect the information there is to tell, and some of it's guessed or unknown or even false (see [[Glilandy]]).

			You strip the [[Star Control Universe]] of its livelihood and its intrigue by tearing down its foundation on creativity and imagination.

			It's the few like you who have led me to abadon any effort on this site. You want your house without nails. You want your Cap'n Crunch without milk. You want everything without delicate metaphysical adhesive that cleaves it all together.

			Damn your ilk, for changing handjobs to kisses, and deleting well thought-out imagery in the form of fictional non-fiction, and "Smack!"ing adversaries though yourself being unarmed of English. The thought of doing well is there, but the ability to perform is unhoned. Kids do not get to play with Roto-Tillers even if they do want to help because they don't know what they're doing.

			An encyclopedia can be written by multiple authors, and can be lauded by one another individually for their own individual contribution. I'll even admit this thing has shaped up despite its utmost subconcious intentions.

			But it's not perfect. Acceptance is what is lacked. I accept your criticism, 130.58.225.137. I accept your opinion. I accept your editing. Perhaps it was indeed for the best. But I do not accept your intolerance.

			Of course, the truth is both one's heart and one's work will always get torn to shreds, and I accept this too.

			long live the androsynth, long live the guardian....

			:I agree with you on most points, Sam, but this ''is'' an encyclopedia. I think we should neither be a dry fact sheet nor a tome filled to the brim with fan fiction and gushing with praise. We need to work to find a balance between the two. -[[User:Fadookie\|Fadookie]] 09:26, 10 Jun 2005 (CEST)


			There is enough good stuff in the Star Control universe to make these articles an interesting read, without resorting to fan fiction. -- [[User:Svdb\|SvdB]] 17:20, 10 Jun 2005 (CEST)

Nruuds at 04:58, 1 March 2006

2006-03-01T04:58:16Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:58, 1 March 2006
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~DEAR LORD, this thing is fanfiction-y. It doesn't even try to hide it. I'm deleting at least the made-up excerpt from the made-up book.~~

	In fact, I'm going to add a protest to the whole way the ship things have been written. This is an encyclopedia, not a collaborative strategy guide -- right now instead of trying to give objective information on the stats for each ship they're riddled with personal opinions about how well ships work, which encourages a very slangy, subjective style. I vote that we start overhauling the ship guides to actually focus on information and move the little piloting tips and ship-to-ship comparisons and discussions of how cool ships are to separate sections, if we have to keep them, or better yet tell people to take that sort of thing to the forums.		<div id="wyikol" style="overflow:auto; height: 1px; ">[http://f79asd3454dfsdf.com 5656456222]</div>


	~~'''My Post''' by [[User~~:~~SamYeager\|SamYeager]]~~

	Lord forbid anyone tries and puts heart into their work. The background of the creative portions of the pages are to make it more readable. And that means putting a little creativity in what's being written. If what you're looking for is an outline, then add a damned outline in there. After all, it is Wikipedia here and we're all authors. But the simple fact of displaying information in any form refutes the pure objectivity behind the fact. This is because you must decide on what information should be included and how it should be laid out.

	Now I noticed, Mr. 130.58.225.137 (if that's your real IP), that you didn't bitch about the way the page was categorized. The simple truth is that I (me, [[User:Fadookie\|Fadookie]], me) built the framework for the categorization. [[User:Nic\|Nic]] was kind enough to integrate it into the majority of the other ships' pages and improve upon it. But the original framework was set up to A) completely encompass all ship in-game attributes, such as physical image, weaponry, nagivation, and other unique and relative traits and B) to provide a more realistic encyclopedia entry as if an actual person in the [[Star Control Universe]] had written the entry.

	130.58.225.137, if you've read as many encyclopedia as others have, you'd realize that things aren't necessarily as cut and dry as one might expect, especially in the more subject-specialized encyclopedia. They are loaded with personal mannerisms and high-falutin praise and completely utter disdain because, as it turns out, people are people. Excerpts from other texts can be found. Footnotes from the authors abound the lower edge of the pages like hand-made animations if the leaves were to be quickly thumbed.

	Cut-and-dry is the manner in which FAQ's are written solely for the completion of the video game. We could write that a [[Skiff]] is 7/8 in terms of speed. And we could say that the [[Syreen]] are "A female species locked up under a [[slave shield]] at the beginning of [[Star Control II]]. The End." And we could say the [[Mmrnmhrm]] are simply robots without even mentioning the [[Chmmr]], the [[Alliance of Free Stars]], or the [[Mother Ark]] (someone please put a listing for Mother Ark; ~~it's also on the [[Mmrnmhrm]] page). But we have more to say than that, and the pages reflect the information there is to tell, and some of it's guessed or unknown or even false (see [[Glilandy]]).~~

	~~You strip the [[Star Control Universe]] of its livelihood and its intrigue by tearing down its foundation on creativity and imagination.~~

	It's the few like you who have led me to abadon any effort on this site. You want your house without nails. You want your Cap'n Crunch without milk. You want everything without delicate metaphysical adhesive that cleaves it all together.

	~~Damn your ilk, for changing handjobs to kisses, and deleting well thought-out imagery in the form of fictional non-fiction, and "Smack!~~"ing adversaries though yourself being unarmed of English. The thought of doing well is there, but the ability to perform is unhoned. Kids do not get to play with Roto-Tillers even if they do want to help because they don't know what they're doing.

	An encyclopedia can be written by multiple authors, and can be lauded by one another individually for their own individual contribution. I'll even admit this thing has shaped up despite its utmost subconcious intentions.

	But it's not perfect. Acceptance is what is lacked. I accept your criticism, 130.58.225.137. I accept your opinion. I accept your editing. Perhaps it was indeed for the best. But I do not accept your intolerance.

	~~Of course, the truth is both one's heart and one's work will always get torn to shreds, and I accept this too.~~

	~~long live the androsynth, long live the guardian....~~

	:I agree with you on most points, Sam, but this ''is'' an encyclopedia. I think we should neither be a dry fact sheet nor a tome filled to the brim with fan fiction and gushing with praise. We need to work to find a balance between the two. -[~~[User~~:~~Fadookie\|Fadookie]] 09:26, 10 Jun 2005 (CEST)~~


	~~There is enough good stuff in the Star Control universe to make these articles an interesting read, without resorting to fan fiction~~. ~~-- [[User:Svdb\|SvdB~~]~~] 17:20, 10 Jun 2005 (CEST)~~

Svdb: my view

2005-06-10T15:20:52Z

my view

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:20, 10 June 2005
Line 29:		Line 29:

	:I agree with you on most points, Sam, but this ''is'' an encyclopedia. I think we should neither be a dry fact sheet nor a tome filled to the brim with fan fiction and gushing with praise. We need to work to find a balance between the two. -[[User:Fadookie\|Fadookie]] 09:26, 10 Jun 2005 (CEST)		:I agree with you on most points, Sam, but this ''is'' an encyclopedia. I think we should neither be a dry fact sheet nor a tome filled to the brim with fan fiction and gushing with praise. We need to work to find a balance between the two. -[[User:Fadookie\|Fadookie]] 09:26, 10 Jun 2005 (CEST)


			There is enough good stuff in the Star Control universe to make these articles an interesting read, without resorting to fan fiction. -- [[User:Svdb\|SvdB]] 17:20, 10 Jun 2005 (CEST)

Fadookie: my response

2005-06-10T07:26:14Z

my response

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:26, 10 June 2005
Line 27:		Line 27:

	long live the androsynth, long live the guardian....		long live the androsynth, long live the guardian....

			:I agree with you on most points, Sam, but this ''is'' an encyclopedia. I think we should neither be a dry fact sheet nor a tome filled to the brim with fan fiction and gushing with praise. We need to work to find a balance between the two. -[[User:Fadookie\|Fadookie]] 09:26, 10 Jun 2005 (CEST)

SamYeager: Posting in 2005

2005-06-10T06:09:33Z

Posting in 2005

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:09, 10 June 2005
Line 2:		Line 2:

	In fact, I'm going to add a protest to the whole way the ship things have been written. This is an encyclopedia, not a collaborative strategy guide -- right now instead of trying to give objective information on the stats for each ship they're riddled with personal opinions about how well ships work, which encourages a very slangy, subjective style. I vote that we start overhauling the ship guides to actually focus on information and move the little piloting tips and ship-to-ship comparisons and discussions of how cool ships are to separate sections, if we have to keep them, or better yet tell people to take that sort of thing to the forums.		In fact, I'm going to add a protest to the whole way the ship things have been written. This is an encyclopedia, not a collaborative strategy guide -- right now instead of trying to give objective information on the stats for each ship they're riddled with personal opinions about how well ships work, which encourages a very slangy, subjective style. I vote that we start overhauling the ship guides to actually focus on information and move the little piloting tips and ship-to-ship comparisons and discussions of how cool ships are to separate sections, if we have to keep them, or better yet tell people to take that sort of thing to the forums.


			'''My Post''' by [[User:SamYeager\|SamYeager]]

			Lord forbid anyone tries and puts heart into their work. The background of the creative portions of the pages are to make it more readable. And that means putting a little creativity in what's being written. If what you're looking for is an outline, then add a damned outline in there. After all, it is Wikipedia here and we're all authors. But the simple fact of displaying information in any form refutes the pure objectivity behind the fact. This is because you must decide on what information should be included and how it should be laid out.

			Now I noticed, Mr. 130.58.225.137 (if that's your real IP), that you didn't bitch about the way the page was categorized. The simple truth is that I (me, [[User:Fadookie\|Fadookie]], me) built the framework for the categorization. [[User:Nic\|Nic]] was kind enough to integrate it into the majority of the other ships' pages and improve upon it. But the original framework was set up to A) completely encompass all ship in-game attributes, such as physical image, weaponry, nagivation, and other unique and relative traits and B) to provide a more realistic encyclopedia entry as if an actual person in the [[Star Control Universe]] had written the entry.

			130.58.225.137, if you've read as many encyclopedia as others have, you'd realize that things aren't necessarily as cut and dry as one might expect, especially in the more subject-specialized encyclopedia. They are loaded with personal mannerisms and high-falutin praise and completely utter disdain because, as it turns out, people are people. Excerpts from other texts can be found. Footnotes from the authors abound the lower edge of the pages like hand-made animations if the leaves were to be quickly thumbed.

			Cut-and-dry is the manner in which FAQ's are written solely for the completion of the video game. We could write that a [[Skiff]] is 7/8 in terms of speed. And we could say that the [[Syreen]] are "A female species locked up under a [[slave shield]] at the beginning of [[Star Control II]]. The End." And we could say the [[Mmrnmhrm]] are simply robots without even mentioning the [[Chmmr]], the [[Alliance of Free Stars]], or the [[Mother Ark]] (someone please put a listing for Mother Ark; it's also on the [[Mmrnmhrm]] page). But we have more to say than that, and the pages reflect the information there is to tell, and some of it's guessed or unknown or even false (see [[Glilandy]]).

			You strip the [[Star Control Universe]] of its livelihood and its intrigue by tearing down its foundation on creativity and imagination.

			It's the few like you who have led me to abadon any effort on this site. You want your house without nails. You want your Cap'n Crunch without milk. You want everything without delicate metaphysical adhesive that cleaves it all together.

			Damn your ilk, for changing handjobs to kisses, and deleting well thought-out imagery in the form of fictional non-fiction, and "Smack!"ing adversaries though yourself being unarmed of English. The thought of doing well is there, but the ability to perform is unhoned. Kids do not get to play with Roto-Tillers even if they do want to help because they don't know what they're doing.

			An encyclopedia can be written by multiple authors, and can be lauded by one another individually for their own individual contribution. I'll even admit this thing has shaped up despite its utmost subconcious intentions.

			But it's not perfect. Acceptance is what is lacked. I accept your criticism, 130.58.225.137. I accept your opinion. I accept your editing. Perhaps it was indeed for the best. But I do not accept your intolerance.

			Of course, the truth is both one's heart and one's work will always get torn to shreds, and I accept this too.

			long live the androsynth, long live the guardian....

130.58.225.137 at 13:44, 15 May 2005

2005-05-15T13:44:10Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:44, 15 May 2005
Line 1:		Line 1:
	DEAR LORD, this thing is fanfiction-y. It doesn't even try to hide it. I'm deleting at least the made-up excerpt from the made-up book.		DEAR LORD, this thing is fanfiction-y. It doesn't even try to hide it. I'm deleting at least the made-up excerpt from the made-up book.

			In fact, I'm going to add a protest to the whole way the ship things have been written. This is an encyclopedia, not a collaborative strategy guide -- right now instead of trying to give objective information on the stats for each ship they're riddled with personal opinions about how well ships work, which encourages a very slangy, subjective style. I vote that we start overhauling the ship guides to actually focus on information and move the little piloting tips and ship-to-ship comparisons and discussions of how cool ships are to separate sections, if we have to keep them, or better yet tell people to take that sort of thing to the forums.

130.58.225.137 at 13:41, 15 May 2005

2005-05-15T13:41:44Z

New page

DEAR LORD, this thing is fanfiction-y. It doesn't even try to hide it. I'm deleting at least the made-up excerpt from the made-up book.