[Mars]

Exactly what the quiz states. The BP tables of these ships are totally different, the texturing is totally different, I believe the models have been tweaked (fact check please), and they are central to two major campaigns. I am in favor of a split.

[Droid803]

The models are identical from what I can tell.
Actually, why not just get rid of the non-BP one altogether as, well, its not really used anywhere at all...

Voted no, because its messy to have articles refering to almost the same thing, with the same name, and having to use disambiguation and whatnot.

There are better ways to handle this I think.

EDIT:
Ok, maybe just split the Raynor, and have it as Raynor_(old) or something, cause the only other appearance uses the old model. (non-htl and all)
That one can talk about the Raynor in CoW, as well as the Valhalla in ItHoV.

Where else is the Titan used?

EDIT2:
On second thought don't split it at all.
Look at the Akrotiri page, it covers the INFR1, PI, and ASW versions just fine.
Textures are totally different, tables are totally different, the models have been tweaked (and in one case completely re-done in HTL version), they are central to two major campaigns, and they all share the same page just fine!

Unless you want to split that one too. Have fun.

[Black Wolf]

No. BP have reskinned it - very well, no doubt, but in the end, that's all it is. The name of the ship has stayed the same, so it should all be on the same page. Think about people looking for info on this ship - it'll be easier if it's all on one page.

[NGTM-1R]

Absolutely not.

[Mars]

How very unequivocal of you. XD

I can however definitely see why.

[Qent]

Too many other ships that are really BP-only; like the ones that were "really" retextured, unlike the Raynor and the Titan. Best to be consistent with those.

[Fury]

http://www.hard-light.net/wiki/index.php/Akrotiri is a prime example how this should be handled. In fact, it might be worth setting a redirect to correct wiki page if same ship has different names in different mods. Common sense can be used though and different pages set up when one version is so different it could just as well be a different ship altogether. But when that is not the case, one wiki page per ship please.

[General Battuta]

it's just a reskin, do it like the ak

[Nyctaeus]

Why the Blue Planet versions of the models are in articles? They're not official autor's textures so they should be replaced by the correct ones. I've noticed the BP-related stuff is favoured then things from other mods etc.

And I don't know why BP's Titan has a separated article. This is just a reskin with other weapons and changed type of ship. PI's Akrotiri isn's super carrier as orginal Akrotiti is, and it's in main Akrotiri article.

[Mars]

Why the Blue Planet versions of the models are in articles? They're not official autor's textures so they should be replaced by the correct ones. I've noticed the BP-related stuff is favoured then things from other mods etc.

And I don't know why BP's Titan has a separated article. This is just a reskin with other weapons and changed type of ship. PI's Akrotiri isn's super carrier as orginal Akrotiti is, and it's in main Akrotiri article.

They are not separated, so save the indignation.


So the qualifications of separating an article depends on the model?
Also, what does that mean about the GTB Hydra?

[Mobius]

I agree wholeheartedly with Droid803 here. Take a look at the Akrotiri page, that article should serve as an example.

[Mars]

I acknowledge the validity of merging them. My primary question is, what is the crucial difference at which ship mods are different enough to split? I'd like to know for future reference.

[Droid803]

If they have different names, would be my say.
Cause that cuts down on confusion for people looking for it.

For example, if someone types in "gtd raynor" into the search bar, there shouldn't be like four results saying "GTD Raynor" and then having the searcher figure out which one they're really looking for. But if they have different names, like UEF Kentauroi and FTF Jackal, then you can know for certain whichever one they're searching for is the one they actually want.

If its a modification of a canon ship, then obviously it has to be in its own article, as we don't want to shove non-canon info into an article about a canon ship (that's just messy). But amongst non-canon sources, they're all equal so they all go on the same page.

[General Battuta]

Why the Blue Planet versions of the models are in articles? They're not official autor's textures so they should be replaced by the correct ones. I've noticed the BP-related stuff is favoured then things from other mods etc.

And I don't know why BP's Titan has a separated article. This is just a reskin with other weapons and changed type of ship. PI's Akrotiri isn's super carrier as orginal Akrotiti is, and it's in main Akrotiri article.

that's because people actually give a **** about and work on the BP stuff. if the same effort was put into the other mods they could get the same treatment, but wiki-ers aren't doing it

[Mobius]

Uhm, Droid, don't we have redirects? How are those different names a problem, if typing them can lead to the same page?

[Droid803]

yeah, we can redirect if there are different names, but we can't anti-redirect if we have the same name (that needs a disambiguation page and those "you might be looking for ...." at the top which makes stuff less straightforward.

I'm saying that its more OK to split if we have different names, less OK if we don't, cause it causes less confusion that way.


EDIT: as for categorizing, if it appears in Blue Planet, categorize it as a Blue Planet Ship. Being a Blue Planet Ship doesn't imply it exists exclusively in the BP universe, only that it appears in BP.

[TopAce]

yeah, we can redirect if there are different names, but we can't anti-redirect if we have the same name (that needs a disambiguation page and those "you might be looking for ...." at the top which makes stuff less straightforward.

I'm saying that its more OK to split if we have different names, less OK if we don't, cause it causes less confusion that way.


EDIT: as for categorizing, if it appears in Blue Planet, categorize it as a Blue Planet Ship. Being a Blue Planet Ship doesn't imply it exists exclusively in the BP universe, only that it appears in BP.

Agreed with this post completely. The ACa Akrotiri and the Vishnan Keeper are two different ships for two different purposes, different tables. That they have the same mesh doesn't count for much. The GTD Raynor, be it the original low-poly one or Dragon's updated version, it's just the GTD Raynor.

[Mobius]

I think we should go by meshes, not by names/purposes/whatever, or things would become confusing.

[General Battuta]

yeah, we can redirect if there are different names, but we can't anti-redirect if we have the same name (that needs a disambiguation page and those "you might be looking for ...." at the top which makes stuff less straightforward.

I'm saying that its more OK to split if we have different names, less OK if we don't, cause it causes less confusion that way.


EDIT: as for categorizing, if it appears in Blue Planet, categorize it as a Blue Planet Ship. Being a Blue Planet Ship doesn't imply it exists exclusively in the BP universe, only that it appears in BP.

Agreed with this post completely. The ACa Akrotiri and the Vishnan Keeper are two different ships for two different purposes, different tables. That they have the same mesh doesn't count for much. The GTD Raynor, be it the original low-poly one or Dragon's updated version, it's just the GTD Raynor.

qtf+agreement, we're not exactly running out of 1s and 0s and as long as all the pages using the same mesh under different names link to the same release, shouldn't be a problem to give them their own unique info

there is zero reason a model should be tied to its original fluff

[Qent]

What about that big Blue Planet banner at the top?