Talk:Banshee (UBW): Difference between revisions
m (Talk:Banshee II moved to Talk:Banshee (UBW): Because the II is fandom...) |
Aeronautico (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
- Dund | - Dund | ||
So be it. I'll stop putting that stuff in future entries. And in my defense, I did not slap on "II", or at least, I am not the first to do so. It was labeled as a Banshee II in the CIC's Encyclopedia. I am not lying about that. Besides, I merely was differentiating this model from the original Banshee from Armada. (And yes, I am aware that the CIC's data has its flaws, I know its not 100% accurate) | |||
Another thing: All you really have to say is "don't do this for that reason" if you want me to omit needless details. I'll take all the constructive criticism you guys have. | |||
-Aeronautico | |||
Revision as of 22:41, 8 February 2010
Why is this called the Banshee II?
I've renamed it because nowhere does it call this ship "II." Don't just add a II because there is a the WCArmada Banshee.
And once again this article is full of "well we don't know what it did during X" Stop doing that. You don't need to address the fact we have no info. Just state what we know. Seriously, this is getting old.
- Dund
So be it. I'll stop putting that stuff in future entries. And in my defense, I did not slap on "II", or at least, I am not the first to do so. It was labeled as a Banshee II in the CIC's Encyclopedia. I am not lying about that. Besides, I merely was differentiating this model from the original Banshee from Armada. (And yes, I am aware that the CIC's data has its flaws, I know its not 100% accurate)
Another thing: All you really have to say is "don't do this for that reason" if you want me to omit needless details. I'll take all the constructive criticism you guys have.
-Aeronautico
