Difference between revisions of "Talk:HMS Goliath"
(history vs books) |
|||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
That seems fair enough. I did feel bad about mentioning it when I saw how much effort had been put into some of the articles. Thanks for keeping it in mind in future though. [[User:Andrew|Andrew]] 15:19, 27 June 2008 (PDT) | That seems fair enough. I did feel bad about mentioning it when I saw how much effort had been put into some of the articles. Thanks for keeping it in mind in future though. [[User:Andrew|Andrew]] 15:19, 27 June 2008 (PDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | I was on another wiki the other day and pages that provided information but were mostly from an external source were flagged as such (ie: copied from Wikipedia). So for articles like this one that deal mostly with historical 'support information' we could mark them with a banner or put them in a support category. That way it would be easier to tell which information is from the books and which is from the real world. A small banner with text like "This article is mostly based on historical fact." --[[User:Mooir|Mooir]] 10:15, 12 July 2008 (PDT) | ||
Latest revision as of 17:15, 12 July 2008
I'm a bit concerned about some of this stuff on this page, and the other HMS pages. A lot of it seems to be based on the real history. Will this is probably ok, for stuff like dimensions and so on, there's no way to tell if any of it will be accurate for things like the end fate of a ship.
Take this one for example, it's mentioned here as part of the Danish blockade, which we can't know for certain took place. Nelson mentioned it as a possibility at the abolition society gathering, but as Nelson was in our timeline dead at this point I think it's pretty clear how up in the air this all is.
I'd personally prefer it if all details that pertain to the real history were removed except where there is explicit reference in the books to the event taking place. I'm pretty sure for example that no real ships were captured by a fire breathing dragon, yet I expect the French lost quite a few like this to Ishkirka.Andrew 06:24, 26 June 2008 (PDT)
I get your point, but that would mean an awful lot of deleting and the articles would be left in a pitiful state. I think we should delete only if we're sure that the two timelines diverge at a certain point. But I'm going to remember this discussion when writing new articles. Natli 12:18, 27 June 2008 (PDT)
That seems fair enough. I did feel bad about mentioning it when I saw how much effort had been put into some of the articles. Thanks for keeping it in mind in future though. Andrew 15:19, 27 June 2008 (PDT)
I was on another wiki the other day and pages that provided information but were mostly from an external source were flagged as such (ie: copied from Wikipedia). So for articles like this one that deal mostly with historical 'support information' we could mark them with a banner or put them in a support category. That way it would be easier to tell which information is from the books and which is from the real world. A small banner with text like "This article is mostly based on historical fact." --Mooir 10:15, 12 July 2008 (PDT)
