[General Battuta]

That's a fine supposition, and one that I think most would agree with. I don't think anyone believes the Shivans really fire Harpoons.

But we have to keep in mind that all our ideas as to how things should be are pure fanwankery. Mobius' common assertion that the Mentu should have beams is something I agree with (it's explicitly stated in the tech entry). His assertion that the Hecate should be more heavily armed...isn't. Many fans interpret the Hecate as a C&C ship/carrier, one that shouldn't be bristling with BGreens.

Disagreements like this are why Mobius is wise to confine these things to a separate article.

[Mobius]

I would vote for Mobius on this one, though. For me, tech description > table entries. The table for me is nothing more than a list of "placeholders". I believe that the universe is different from what the game shows us, and that the game "simplifies" the universe so it is playable (and easier to create for the developers). Hence, the Shivans using Terran weapons.

That's exactly what I was trying to say. For the sake of storytelling, using text is (IMO) much more reliable than using table entries and/or other game-specific settings that have been created with balance in mind.

Writing a text (like a tech description) allows the creator of a sci-fi universe to describe the universe imagination dictates. Table entries are the result of that writing, but with certain touchups whose origin may be various.

That's why I had a couple of ideas:

1) Creation of a new category, named "Fan-made Articles" (or similar). Shivan theories and other articles that represent the point of view of 1 or more FS community members (but not the point of view of and/or the FreeSpace community as a whole) go to that category. The new category should be, IMO, a sub-category of "The games".

The Non-canon template, although useful, works (IMO) well only when it comes to ships, campaign-related articles and stuff like that. A contributor's description of the differences between table entries and tech descriptions should be defined with a specific template for fan-made articles.;

2) Creation of the following article, which may be expanded:

Table inconsistencies

{{fanmade article}}

Default table entries are considered a reliable source of canonical information, but there are several inconsistencies between those configurations, other canon sources (such as tech descriptions) and what can be considered plausible assumptions. Those differences may be justified by the need of balancing missions in the main FreeSpace 2 campaign, since modifying a table entry probably seemed much more convenient than changing weapon configurations in FRED. Changes made using FRED can be noticed in later appeareances of a given warship, like the Iceni - therefore, the "default" weapon configuration usually is the one that fits in the first appeareances.

==Notable examples==
===Ships===
====Performance of the [[GTB Artemis D.H.]]====
According to the tech description, the Artemis D.H. is faster and more maneuverable than the standard [[GTB Artemis]]. The table entries of those two bombers, however, are basically the same: the only noticeable difference is given by the different textures.

====Possible purpose of the [[GTCv Deimos]]====
According to the Deimos' tech description, the purpose of the corvette is replacing the cruiser classes [[GTC Fenris|Fenris]] and [[GTC Leviathan|Leviathan]] as the foundation of future Terran fleets. The [[GTC Aeolus|Aeolus]] is not mentioned at all because its production stopped early and only 24 warships of that class were produced, meaning that it's far more rare (not to mention the Aeolus cruisers sided with the [[Neo-Terran Front|NTF]] which have been lost during the rebellion) than Fenris and Leviathan cruisers. The tech description leads to assume that, unlike the Vasudans (who developed the [[GVC Mentu|Mentu]]), Terrans would no longer make use of cruisers in their fleets.

====Firepower of the [[GTD Orion]]====
It is widely known that, according to weapon configurations, the Orion class of destroyers is more heavily armed than the Hecate. The Orion's most powerful weapons, in fact, are 3 [[BGreen]] beams (compared to the sole beam of that kind mounted on the Hecate). One of them, however, is fired by a three-barelled turret which, theoretically, shouldn't be able to fire a beam of that magnitude.

====Hitpoints of the [[GTD Hecate]]====
The Hecate's number of hitpoints is the same as that of the Orion, 100,000. The Vasudan [[GVD Hatshepsut|Hatshepsut]], however, has 140,000 hitpoints (20,000 more hitpoints than its predecessor, the [[GVD Typhon|Typhon]]). According to the Hecate's table entry, however, the destroyer is more heavily armored than the Orion and therefore should have had a higher number of hitpoints (comparable, if not higher, to that of the Hatshepsut). It is unclear why the Hecate's hitpoints haven't been changed according to the warship's tech description - it's possible that altering the hitpoints may have made missions like [[Proving Grounds]] and [[Argonautica]] easier, so Volition decided to use the same hitpoints as the Orion without having to make substantial FRED changes to those missions.

====Firepower of the [[NTF Iceni]]====
The Iceni is armed with a total of 3 BGreen beam weapons, one of which is fired by a very small turret (which, in theory, shouldn't be able to fire a beam of that magnitude) that, giving the warship's symmetrical turret placements, should have been armed with [[Piranha|Piranhas]]. In [[Rebels & Renegades]], the Iceni uses its beam cannons to eliminate the Vasudan warships [[FreeSpace 2 Vasudan Ship Database#GVC Yaaru|Yaaru]] and [[FreeSpace 2 Vasudan Ship Database#GVCv Asar|Asar]] with ease, since no other [[Neo-Terran Front]] units in the area were capable of inflicting a comparable amount of damage to those warships. It's worth noting that the Iceni was armed with [[SGreen]] beams in [[Endgame]]: it has been assumed that the Iceni was quickly re-energizing its subspace drives to jump to the [[Nebula system|nebula]] and therefore had to divert part of the energy used by weapon systems to the subspace drive.

====Possible additional turrets of the [[GTSG Mjolnir]]====
According to the Mjolnir's tech description, the advanced sentry gun is armed with a variety of weapons that go well beyond the single anti-warship beam cannon seen in the game: according to the tech description, in fact, that Mjolnir is equipped with two anti-spacecraft beam cannons and three missile batteries. It's not known why all weapons other than the anti-warship beam are not in the table - the model file itself doesn't even have the required gun placements and submodels.

====Designation of the [[PVFR Ma'at]]====
Unlike any other old Vasudan asset that was in service at the time of the [[Great War]], the Ma'at kept the old "PVFR" designation. This did not happen to other ship and spacecraft classes, such as the [[GVF Seth]], the [[GVT Isis]] and the [[GVFr Satis]].

====Armament of the [[GVC Mentu]]====
Although no anti-warship beam cannons appear in the Mentu's table entry, its tech description clearly says that the cruiser has been designed for the specific purpose of using that new kind of weaponry.

===Weapons===
====Shivan armaments====
The Shivans' primary weapons are much weaker than their Terran/Vasudan counterparts, possibly for balance purposes. The fact that the Shivans use the same secondary weapons used by Terrans and Vasudans, however, is far harder to explain: there have been several unofficial attempts to provide the Shivans with specific secondaries (recent [[Media VP|Media VPs]], [[Inferno]], the "Shivans" mod), and we know for sure that they don't make use of Terran/Vasudan warheads in the FreeSpace universe. In the FreeSpace 2 intro cutscene, for example, a [[SF Manticore|Manticore]] fires a missile of obvious Shivan origin on a [[GTF Hercules|Hercules]].

====Vasudan turrets====
Without considering beam weapons, Vasudan ships don't have any specific turret types: they make use, in fact, of Terran weapons (such as the [[Terran Turret]] and the [[Terran Huge Turret]]). Both the [[GVG Anuket]] and the [[GVC Mentu]] have a turret equipped with the [[Subach HL-7]] instead of the Vasudans' legitimate counterpart of that primary weapon, the [[Mekhu HL-7]].

[[Category: Fan-made Articles]]

That's a fine supposition, and one that I think most would agree with. I don't think anyone believes the Shivans really fire Harpoons.

But we have to keep in mind that all our ideas as to how things should be are pure fanwankery. Mobius' common assertion that the Mentu should have beams is something I agree with (it's explicitly stated in the tech entry). His assertion that the Hecate should be more heavily armed...isn't. Many fans interpret the Hecate as a C&C ship/carrier, one that shouldn't be bristling with BGreens.

Disagreements like this are why Mobius is wise to confine these things to a separate article.

My assumptions on the Hecate are based on FreeSpace 2: Colossus, in which the Hecate was clearly supposed (if I remember well) to be more heavily armed and armored than the Orion. The "armored" part remained in FreeSpace 2, but it doesn't match the hitpoints seen in the table entry (both the Orion and the Hecate have 100,000 hitpoints, although the Hatshepsut has more hitpoints than the Typhon).

Also, seeing a three-barreled turret firing a BGreen is not that wise from a in-universe point of view.

[Snail]

The only problem I have with this whole problem is that Mobius is presenting his opinion as fact.

[Mobius]

Didn't you get the "Fan-made Articles" idea, plus the fact that the vast majority of the content I posted is based on canon? A fan's analysis of the game is not canon and is not necessarily shared by the rest of the community - yet still, it doesn't mean that the analysis itself should be banned. If a good template saying "The following article has been created by a member of the community and therefore does not represent the point of view of Volition, nor the point of view of the FreeSpace community as a whole" is used, why would you prevent someone from saying something that has more fundaments on canon than, let's say, Shivan theories?

It's funny how you pretend to say that about me even if I clearly state that my opinions (which aren't opinions, are the result of reading) should be marked with that kind of template. I'm not great at all at writing in English (fortunately), but I do understand it. Please read the tech descriptions and see if your assumptions on the matter are any different from mine. I hard believe you will disagree with me on the Mjolnir, Deimos, Artemis DH, Mentu and Ma'at affairs. Any member reading those tech descriptions would come out with the same (or, at least, very similar) conclusion.

[Snail]

Didn't you get the "Fan-made Articles" idea, plus the fact that the vast majority of the content I posted is based on canon?

It's funny how you pretend to say that about me even if I clearly state that my opinions (which aren't opinions, are the result of reading) should be marked with that kind of template.

There it is again.

You're trying to say that your deduction of canon is somehow the right deduction or something. You say it's not an opinion and a "result of reading" or deduction. That's not what they are. They are your opinions. Nothing more.

[Mobius]

Can you please read those tech descriptions instead of falling into the classic "You wrote it, ergo it's wrong"? You may be able to come out with long and detailled statements on how my opinions are not the opinions of the FreeSpace community as a whole, but I see stuff in the Wiki which is the direct consequence of reading.

Also, you're behaving as if I'm taking this personally and/or I want to be credited for that - I don't care about credit, I simply want the Wiki to be expanded with that kind of information. Table inconsistencies aren't covered while node map inconsistencies are - may I know why?

About the Wiki - who came out with the "Pseudo-canon", "Apocriphal", etc. etc. definitions of jump nodes that don't appear in the main map? Why no one is complaining about those definitions, which obviously aren't a " product"?

Wait a second - maybe you're refusing to accept the existence of the Mentu affair, just to mention an example? Because, from what I read, it's pretty much what you're trying to say. Saying "Oh, the Mentu's table entry shows no beam weapons even if the tech description says that the cruiser is armed with that kind of weapons" is not an opinion. Explaining why no turrets are armed with anti-warship beam weapons is an opinion.

[Snail]

Okay, I give up.


Alright, I actually do agree with your observations about the tech descriptions contrasting game mechanics, and TBH I don't really care about what your deduce from this. What you deduce doesn't matter half at all to me, all I really want is for this to be presented as just one man's opinion. The {{fanmade article}} template is pretty good for that I guess so I'll STFU.

[Mobius]

Amen to that...


EDIT:
P.S.
No conclusions are needed. Saying that some table entries don't match their respective tech description has no influence on anything - my point is that those inconsistencies need to be enlisted somewhere, just like the node map inconsistencies. 

[Snail]

Amen to that...

Yeah, sorry for getting up your ass on this one...

[Mobius]

No problem...

[Zacam]

As long as someone (any one) does not try to take the FSU to task to correct these "inconsistencies", the information is sound and valid.

But I do have to wonder: Why does it HAVE to posted? I mean, seriously.

Yes, it's a wiki. Yes, those do contain information. But how is this information in any way relevant?

Personally, I also think that it would not be necessary to lay out the entry as a fan-made article, as it is representing factual information.

[General Battuta]

It should be presented in the same way that the old Volition Watch articles on the Wiki are, I think. Those are pretty good.

I like the idea of an article analyzing these differences. I'll polish up the quirks in Mobius' writing style as I've done for some of his past articles, but he does some decent analysis.

[Mobius]

As long as someone (any one) does not try to take the FSU to task to correct these "inconsistencies", the information is sound and valid.

But I do have to wonder: Why does it HAVE to posted? I mean, seriously.

Yes, it's a wiki. Yes, those do contain information. But how is this information in any way relevant?

All info related to the FreeSpace universe should be added to the Wiki, IMO. Articles don't necessarily have to be useful. The starmap inconsistencies are not useful, but they're on the Wiki.

Personally, I also think that it would not be necessary to lay out the entry as a fan-made article, as it is representing factual information.

If the ideas aren't widely accepted, they should be considered "fanmade articles". That definition is, IMO, a good compromise between canon sources and analysis of canon sources - although some of my assumptions on the Hecate and Iceni are not "facts" (we know nothing about the energy reactors of those ships to determine their true firepower), stuff like the Mentu affair is not open to any debates, IMO.

I'd like to end my comment by saying that it's nearly impossible to see what the community thinks about a certain subject. Both here and on the Wiki, I see 4-5 people partecipating to a discussion until someone says "No one agrees with you" or something like that. It should rather be "Out of the very limited number of members that partecipated to this discussion, no one agrees with you" or similar.

Seriously, how can <10 people determine what's widely accepted by the community and what's not? Sadly, however, it's how threads and Wiki talk pages work - you have a limited number of people who may be sentencing a potentially valid idea to death and/or considering valid a potentially pointless idea. Although voting is a democratic solution, it's still not a perfect system.

It should be presented in the same way that the old Volition Watch articles on the Wiki are, I think. Those are pretty good.

I like the idea of an article analyzing these differences. I'll polish up the quirks in Mobius' writing style as I've done for some of his past articles, but he does some decent analysis.

Thanks. The reason why I haven't done that already is simple: my Wiki account has been recently temp-blocked due to my comment on the edit of a person who decided to play Sisiphus with me even if he could have posted here to make his point of view public. 

[General Battuta]

I know it was blocked, and I agree with the decision to block it.

However, I look forward to this contribution.

[Mobius]

Well, blocking a contributor's account does not help the Wiki (unless we're discussing spambots here).

[Snail]

Well, blocking a contributor's account does not help the Wiki (unless we're discussing spambots here).

The lesson here is don't f*ck with Goober. Or simply, don't piss off admins or powerful doods.

[Mobius]

I don't care. If I consider someone's edit a semi-act of vandalism, I'm likely to make it public if the person is an admin.

[General Battuta]

It wasn't vandalism. Furthermore, calling it vandalism was basically trolling.

As nice as it would be if everyone was judged based on some kind of mathematical contribution matrix, the way you act matters, and your personal history influences the way people treat you. Be polite and respectful, especially to those who put in a ton of effort to keep this place running.

[Snail]

I don't care. If I consider someone's edit a semi-act of vandalism, I'm likely to make it public if the person is an admin.

Only fight battles you can win.

[Mongoose]

As amazing as it feels, I actually agree with several of the points that Mobius makes in that pseudo-article.  Things like the Artemis D.H.'s lack of upgraded stats, the Mentu's lack of beam cannons, the Mjolnir's lack of additional small-caliber turrets, and the Iceni's ever-changing and strangely asymmetric loadout are the sort of inconsistencies that tend to jump out at you. (I'm not so much in agreement over things like the Shivans' duplication of Terran secondaries or the Orion turret.)  I do think these sorts of little factoids are worth mentioning somewhere in the wiki, even in the sort of article that Mobius is proposing, though I would advise against excising as much personal opinion and/or "interpretation from source material" as possible.  And as I stated previously, I'd fundamentally reject any assertion that "the game" and "the universe" are two separate quantities being written up, since that's purely a matter of personal opinion and interpretation.

As far as the overall question as to whether table stats or tech room descriptions should be given greater canonical presence, my personal feeling is that it all depends on the particular situation.  For instance, the Artemis D.H. being explicitly listed as a special-ops bomber with enhanced capabilities yet playing like a reskinned Artemis would have me come down on the side of the tech description, since having it play identical to the original would serve no purpose at all from a development perspective; if I had to guess outright, I'd say that someone just forgot to tweak its table stats before the game was released.  In contrast, for something like the Orion's assignment of a BGreen to that three-barreled turret, I'd come down squarely on the side of the tables despite the visual oddity, since the Orion's powerful anti-capship armaments are the backbone of its presence and effectiveness in FS2.  Overall, like NGTM-1R mentioned, the FS universe exists solely for the purposes of gameplay, so when there's any doubt, I think one should try to err on the side of what we actually see in-mission.