Difference between revisions of "Talk:Sasquatch"
Sarna News
(WP:BM) |
|||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
:You'll have to first find out if you are dealing with a (OOC) retcon in the fashion of "newer publication trumps older publication", or if there are actually two canonical subvariants with the same ID code. Perhaps post a question in the "Masters of the Universe" section of the CBT forum, to get a qualified answer that is valid canon. Usually it's a case of retcon, but I think I recall at least one case of the latter kind (a Hermes variant IIRC). Anyways, what I do in such cases is to add a italiced section with a ":" prefix, explaining the OOC situation. As more and more such cases creep up I have been thinking about adding a "Retcon" section to the articles in question. Anyways, what is important is that the information is there, no matter how you put it into the article. | :You'll have to first find out if you are dealing with a (OOC) retcon in the fashion of "newer publication trumps older publication", or if there are actually two canonical subvariants with the same ID code. Perhaps post a question in the "Masters of the Universe" section of the CBT forum, to get a qualified answer that is valid canon. Usually it's a case of retcon, but I think I recall at least one case of the latter kind (a Hermes variant IIRC). Anyways, what I do in such cases is to add a italiced section with a ":" prefix, explaining the OOC situation. As more and more such cases creep up I have been thinking about adding a "Retcon" section to the articles in question. Anyways, what is important is that the information is there, no matter how you put it into the article. | ||
:As for references, you should put the sources you are citing into the References section, and where appropriate add reference footnotes. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 06:36, 31 January 2009 (PST) | :As for references, you should put the sources you are citing into the References section, and where appropriate add reference footnotes. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 06:36, 31 January 2009 (PST) | ||
| + | :I do think that we're dealing with a retcon here. Solaris: The Reaches is, afaik, copyrighted at 1993, whilst Technical Readout: 3055 Upgrade is copyrighted at 2005. [[User:Onisuzume|Onisuzume]] 10:46, 31 January 2009 (PST) | ||
Revision as of 14:46, 31 January 2009
|
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. |
|
SQS-TH-001 vs SQS-TH-001
I'm wondering how to treat, or even reference the original SQS-TH-001 from Solaris: The Reaches, which has noticeable differences (different weapons, same speed as TRO3055U SQS-TH-002). Adding a note under the 3055U version listing the differences? Cyc 06:14, 31 January 2009 (PST)
- You'll have to first find out if you are dealing with a (OOC) retcon in the fashion of "newer publication trumps older publication", or if there are actually two canonical subvariants with the same ID code. Perhaps post a question in the "Masters of the Universe" section of the CBT forum, to get a qualified answer that is valid canon. Usually it's a case of retcon, but I think I recall at least one case of the latter kind (a Hermes variant IIRC). Anyways, what I do in such cases is to add a italiced section with a ":" prefix, explaining the OOC situation. As more and more such cases creep up I have been thinking about adding a "Retcon" section to the articles in question. Anyways, what is important is that the information is there, no matter how you put it into the article.
- As for references, you should put the sources you are citing into the References section, and where appropriate add reference footnotes. Frabby 06:36, 31 January 2009 (PST)
- I do think that we're dealing with a retcon here. Solaris: The Reaches is, afaik, copyrighted at 1993, whilst Technical Readout: 3055 Upgrade is copyrighted at 2005. Onisuzume 10:46, 31 January 2009 (PST)