Difference between revisions of "Talk:Band of Brothers (Player alliance)"

Revision as of 06:06, 14 February 2009

Military Campaigns

I think that events like the MAX Campaign should be moved to their own articles, where they can remain fairly impartial. Particularly where the events are subjective and opinions come from multiple sources. --FireFoxx80 18:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I do think that alliance conflicts should be noted in their pages, but I agree with the partiality portion. Cal Hydar 19:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that a summary of the alliance conflict should be given, and then covered in greater detail in specific campaign pages. At present, the campaign history is incomplete and confused. Sandy Brown 07:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Correcting Links

Please do correct links, I added the correct links for Triumvirate. (Player alliance) and GOODFELLAS (Player alliance) --KayTwoEx 22:24, 13 December 2008 (CET/UTC+1)

Is there some particular reason the link to "Greater BoB Community" (in the introduction) is literally to "Greater_BoB_Community" and not to "GBC" as the follow-up acronym is? It looks like an error, so I'm correcting it, but if it was that way on purpose, please explain. MailDeadDrop 17:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Autolinking

I spent some time ridding this article of redundant links (after cleaning it up), but upon resubmittal, I found that most of the redundant (and just plain wrong) wikilinks returned. This seems to be not only default behaviour, but instead forced.

While the autolinking might make it possible to write a better integrated article, the way it works - in my opinion - does more harm than good.

Compare the current revision to the draft, with most redundant/irrelevant wikilinks stripped.

Logo

There was no logo available, so I have replaced the ugly wikicode that was showing with the default alliance logo. Daquaris 11:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Removal of section

Could the admin who checks this page for the current edit please remove the entire War History section. I copied the rewrite from a sandbox I had setup, and accidentally included the top section of the page. Sandy Brown 08:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Writing style of this and possibly other alliance pages

I noticed last edit on this topic was to change more Role playing styled description of history into more game machical. It's true that BoB at the time had more SP than Goonies, but maybe trying to keep the facts there and using better wording would be nicer.

Example edit from history below:

When BOB attacked, Goonswarm collapsed under their superior tactics and ships. BOB stripped their region bare. Goonswarm fell back to S-U where BOB camped them down until they crawled back East to find sanctuary.

Became:

When BOB attacked, Goonswarm were beaten back by their higher SP players in expensive T2 ships. This was effective due to the relative youth of most of the players in Goonswarm as at the time T2 snipers could not be countered easily with T1 ships. Goonswarm fell back to S-U where BOB camped them down until they moved back East to wait out the BOB attack in their NPC stations.

I think maybe the edit should be:

When BOB attacked, Goonswarm were beaten back by their more skilled players in expensive T2 ships. This was effective due to the relative youth of most of the pilots Goonswarm didn't poses the training to pilot ships that could counter this tactic. Goonswarm fell back to S-U where BOB held controll of space until they moved back East to wait out the BOB attack in their NPC stations.

The small differences are using pilot instead of player and actual wording instead of acronymes.

--Bashar Miles 18:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Bob is dead

Someone could indicate it as such :)--Jason Edwards 02:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

funny as it may be to have the whole article in past tense, let's at least give it a few days, man. I'm thinking the article should be locked for a couple of weeks -Stitcher 13:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Someone should make a separate article on the event causing BoB to be dissolved. Verx Interis 00:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with both.. making it writen in past tense and making whole different topic of the latest developments as it's stilla topic at hand and hasn't been writen totally yet. --Bashar Miles 16:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)