[NGTM-1R]

I just spent about five minutes undoing what damage I could find from Trashman altering the ship statistics for the GTVA destroyers. I don't know why he did it or what purpose it was supposed to serve, and frankly at this point I don't care.

So far as I can tell he went in and willfully ignoring the canon (including the tech descriptions RIGHT THERE!) added some fighter complement numbers (without adding a definition on the page it links to no less). The Typhon,and Hapshepsut had theirs as 144, the Orion to 120, for which there is zero evidence whatsoever. The Typhon's canon complement is 30 wings. 30x4=120 as a rough estimate, since wing size is changeable. The Hapshepsut has zero canonical evidence of its fighter complement. The Orion is "more then two dozen", so 24x4=96 for a rough estimate of 96+.

If we could hand out some kind of warning for doing this kind of thing, particularly when it is so blantantly obvious that the writer was just making **** up, that would be good, because I do not want to end up cleaning up after people who make crap up and wiki-fy it.

[Goober5000]

Fine with me.  We could threaten a wiki ban if he keeps it up.

[Freespace Freak]

I don't think it's a good idea to mention the guys name in the public forums.  So, he messed up.  Just say you fixed up "a particular member's" damage, instead of naming the culprit publicly.  There's no need to publicly humiliate members.

[Goober5000]

TrashMan has a history of this kind of thing, though -- not in the wiki, but in the forums.  In the forums we can simply point out how he's wrong, but in the wiki it's more damaging.  He deserves to be called out on it.

For one-off offenses, I agree that fixing it silently may be a good strategy.  But TrashMan is a repeat offender.

[Flipside]

Maybe just make a general post stating that values have been altered to incorrect numbers in the Wiki, and that any further tampering without supporting information will result in a 'name and shame?'.

I only say this because there's a thread in Missions and Campaigns that's turned nasty enough already, been tempted t report it a couple of times, but it's probably best at the moment just to make it a general statement to avoid accusations of 'bias' or anything...

[TrashMan]

I just spent about five minutes undoing what damage I could find from Trashman altering the ship statistics for the GTVA destroyers. I don't know why he did it or what purpose it was supposed to serve, and frankly at this point I don't care.

So far as I can tell he went in and willfully ignoring the canon (including the tech descriptions RIGHT THERE!) added some fighter complement numbers (without adding a definition on the page it links to no less). The Typhon,and Hapshepsut had theirs as 144, the Orion to 120, for which there is zero evidence whatsoever. The Typhon's canon complement is 30 wings. 30x4=120 as a rough estimate, since wing size is changeable. The Hapshepsut has zero canonical evidence of its fighter complement. The Orion is "more then two dozen", so 24x4=96 for a rough estimate of 96+.

If we could hand out some kind of warning for doing this kind of thing, particularly when it is so blantantly obvious that the writer was just making **** up, that would be good, because I do not want to end up cleaning up after people who make crap up and wiki-fy it.

WFT are you talking about?

An Orion hold 10 squadrons (according to the Galatea command ani).

aS for the Typhon and Hatsephut, those were estimates (and I did write in the wiki that it was estimated) based on hte roles of ships compared to the terran counterparts.

In fact, since I wasn't sure on that matter,  I started a topic to discuss possible fightercapacity of said ships.

The beauty of a wiki is that it can be edited and any errors corrected (if they arise) , so don't get your panties in a twist... Geez.

[TrashMan]

TrashMan has a history of this kind of thing, though -- not in the wiki, but in the forums.  In the forums we can simply point out how he's wrong, but in the wiki it's more damaging.  He deserves to be called out on it.

For one-off offenses, I agree that fixing it silently may be a good strategy.  But TrashMan is a repeat offender.

History? Repeated offender?

Of what? Not agreeing with a few self-proclaimed FS gurus?

Hell, if I'm wrong about something, point it out, prove that I'm wrong and I'll be the first to apologize and go in the corner. In 99% of the "previous offenses"  there was no clear proof so.....

[Freespace Freak]

Ok, I'll just tiptoe out of here.. *gets fragged by random flam round*

[WMCoolmon]

Please don't make **** up and put it in the wiki. All it does is give the wiki a reputation of being an unreliable source of information.

[Mars]

Please don't make **** up and put it in the wiki. All it does is give the wiki a reputation of being an unreliable source of information.

Which I will add, we're all trying constantly to avoid

I don't think it's a good idea to mention the guys name in the public forums.  So, he messed up.  Just say you fixed up "a particular member's" damage, instead of naming the culprit publicly.  There's no need to publicly humiliate members.

He put it in a public wiki, and on the internet anything you do can and will be used against you.

WFT are you talking about?

An Orion hold 10 squadrons (according to the Galatea command ani).

aS for the Typhon and Hatsephut, those were estimates (and I did write in the wiki that it was estimated) based on hte roles of ships compared to the terran counterparts.

In fact, since I wasn't sure on that matter,  I started a topic to discuss possible fightercapacity of said ships.

The beauty of a wiki is that it can be edited and any errors corrected (if they arise) , so don't get your panties in a twist... Geez.

Yeah I agree about the Orion, 10 (squadrons - from the Galatea CbAni) X 12 (fighters per squadron - from the Colossus cutscene) = 120. However I think the Orion has a tech description that states its compliment.

I think the Typhon has a canon number of fighters... I don't have FS2 installed ATM, but it says pretty clearly in the FS2 tech description how many squadrons it has, and the Colossus cutscene has the fighters / squadron broken down quite clearly, there are ~12 fighters per squadron.

I love how you started the discussion on fighter compliments after this thread started.

The wiki can be edited and corrected, there's still no reason to put BS in it.

History? Repeated offender?

Of what? Not agreeing with a few self-proclaimed FS gurus?

Hell, if I'm wrong about something, point it out, prove that I'm wrong and I'll be the first to apologize and go in the corner. In 99% of the "previous offenses"  there was no clear proof so.....

No, repeat offender because you continually spout information as fact that has very shakey basis.

[Freespace Freak]

I'm confused.  Your chastising him for putting erroneous info on the wiki, then basically agreeing with what he put on there.

[Mars]

No, I'm not agreeing, I'm saying that I see his point, but there is a more direct source of information than doing the math, see my Vet comments for the Bastion:

The Orion only carries eight squadrons of fighters to the Hecates twelve, but has massively more firpower, arranged better on its hull. The GTD Bastion however, cannonically lists ten squadrons, it must be assumed that these are not full squadrons (twelve fighters per full squadron) or that the Bastion is not a typical Orion.

The Tech Description (which I belive spells it out but am not sure) is a more viable source of information than putting two seperate canon bits of information together.

And I'm saying there's no need to estimate the Typhon, and that estimates shouldn't really be anywhere but Vet Comments (like the estimates and assumptions in mine).

If it sounds like I'm chastizing, I didn't mean it... sorry.

[Goober5000]

Okay, I'm sorry TrashMan, I called you out before I had fully investigated your edit.  You must admit, however, that you should accept your share of the blame in this because of the "boy who cried wolf" syndrome.

Here is a previous discussion on fighter complements, which seems to establish the number of ships very specifically:
http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,27062.0.html

[TrashMan]

I think the Typhon has a canon number of fighters... I don't have FS2 installed ATM, but it says pretty clearly in the FS2 tech description how many squadrons it has, and the Colossus cutscene has the fighters / squadron broken down quite clearly, there are ~12 fighters per squadron.

tehy Typhon is stated to carry up to 30 wings -> 30x4 = 120 fighters.
My estimate on this one was wrong.
Why the hell was I so sure it has 12 squadrons?
Should have doublechecked....

I love how you started the discussion on fighter compliments after this thread started.

Actually it was before...I missed this thread.

Fighter complement thread started at 10:18:21

Posted here first on 10:22:09

History? Repeated offender?

Of what? Not agreeing with a few self-proclaimed FS gurus?

Hell, if I'm wrong about something, point it out, prove that I'm wrong and I'll be the first to apologize and go in the corner. In 99% of the "previous offenses"  there was no clear proof so.....

No, repeat offender because you continually spout information as fact that has very shakey basis.

A lot of stuff has a shaky basis... We are guessing a lot from cannon numbers. I can admit that I can very well be wrong (God knows I have been), but if my explanation of canon numbers holds water, and so does the other guys, you can't simply say I'm wrong.
There are situations where a problem can have more than one possible solution. the only beef I have is that most of those i debated with won't acknowledge this simple fact.

Okay, I'm sorry TrashMan, I called you out before I had fully investigated your edit.  You must admit, however, that you should accept your share of the blame in this because of the "boy who cried wolf" syndrome.

I ain't no angel, that's for sure (alltough I do come close )

EDIT - we could in the wiki for the orion that the fighter complement is 96-120 (?)
That should satisfy everyone.

[Mars]

Yeah, since there are two mostly canon numbers that might be the best choice, I say yay.

[Goober5000]

But 120 is verifiably "more than" two dozen wings, so what's the problem?

[WMCoolmon]

Footnotes, maybe?

[Freespace Freak]

I haven't read what Trashman put in, but as far as I can see, the only mistake he did was that he failed to put the word "approximately" before each of the figures for the numbers of fighters and bombers each ship houses. 

[Colonol Dekker]

Approximately or Estimated?

[TrashMan]

I put estimated for all destroyers... but I was well off on the Typhon number.