Talk:Banshee (UBW): Difference between revisions

The Terran Knowledge Bank
Jump to: navigation, search
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
Line 13: Line 13:
-Aeronautico
-Aeronautico


Sounds like you boys are havin fun :)


I have told you repeatedly to omit things. Check half the discussion pages. I'm not going out of the way to be harsh, but I'm having to repeat myself a whole lot.
I have told you repeatedly to omit things. Check half the discussion pages. I'm not going out of the way to be harsh, but I'm having to repeat myself a whole lot. Just like Joe Friday says in Dragnet "Just the facts..."


- Dund
- Dund

Latest revision as of 16:53, 9 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, not lying. 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)

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


I have told you repeatedly to omit things. Check half the discussion pages. I'm not going out of the way to be harsh, but I'm having to repeat myself a whole lot. Just like Joe Friday says in Dragnet "Just the facts..."

- Dund