Talk:Hollander
Sarna News
|
This article is within the scope of the Project BattleMechs, a collaborative effort to improve BattleTechWiki's coverage of BattleMechs. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
|
Hollander II[edit]
In the Blitzkrieg article the Holly II has its own link (which is fair enough, lots of 'II' 'mechs have their own articles when they have their own weights such as the Hermes series) but it directs here where the Hollander II is treated as a variation. Consensus needs to be reached as to whether the Holly and Holly II are the same 'mech. For my vote (that no one cares about because I'm just a number...) the Hollander II needs to be split off as a new article. But in the event that that does not happen the Blitzkrieg article needs a link culled. --80.3.187.201 16:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed. Judging by all precedents, with a different tonnage, the Hollander II is not a mere variant but a different design/chassis, and needs its own article (cf. Hermes/Hermes II or the IIC evolutions). Frabby 19:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Also agreed, but the reason why it is this way is because Hollander II only exists as a single paragraph on the TRO:3055U entry for the original Hollander where most of the others have full separate entries. Cyc 20:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- It still should exist as separate unit. Amount of text doesn't really matter. It's still enough info to make up an article. The Colorful Project 12:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- To add one more point to the discussion though: It just occurred to me that our reasoning here means the downgraded 70 or 75 ton Stalker variants would have to be counted as separate designs from the Stalker, too. (If they are still canonical. The beta MUL omitted them, I posted the omission in the input thread and we'll have to see what the final result is.) Frabby 16:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Well, first of all the wiki needs to point it out, cause as far as I see - it isn't even noted. (mind be wrong though) Secondly - it ain't that obvious, cause there's a difference between having a Mech under different sub-version number, and having a Mech named "Hollander II" ;) it's more like Phoenix Hawk vs Phoenix Hawk IIC. But yea, I kinda agree that Stalkers as a Heavy-class Mechs should have different article.— The preceding unsigned comment was posted by The Colorful Project (talk • contribs) on 16 October 2010.
- To add one more point to the discussion though: It just occurred to me that our reasoning here means the downgraded 70 or 75 ton Stalker variants would have to be counted as separate designs from the Stalker, too. (If they are still canonical. The beta MUL omitted them, I posted the omission in the input thread and we'll have to see what the final result is.) Frabby 16:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- It still should exist as separate unit. Amount of text doesn't really matter. It's still enough info to make up an article. The Colorful Project 12:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Also agreed, but the reason why it is this way is because Hollander II only exists as a single paragraph on the TRO:3055U entry for the original Hollander where most of the others have full separate entries. Cyc 20:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Image[edit]
I uploaded a new version of the Hollander image from TRO:3055 Upgrade as I think it is much nicer looking. Cropped and background removed. Old version is available for revert - if there is a reason to do so, go ahead but please let me know why on my talk page so I don't make the same mistake twice. --Iueras 19:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
- Never mind, I feel silly now. Reverted to old image since the 3055u version is in the gallery. Doh. --Iueras 19:33, 6 August 2011 (UTC)