Talk:Eve Online/Archive 13

Reference BoB by name?
I see someone (who has not been involved in this discussion) decided to specifically refrence BoB in this section, Normally, I would have removed that, but given the intensive discussion on the whole subject, I thought I'd ask first. I don't feel that a specific reference to BoB is appropiate here. The reference seems more like an attack than an encyclopedia article. Mdlutz (talk) 16:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm of mixed feelings about that. On one hand, it looks like more BoB bashing (as you state).  On the other hand, I can't see any reason to really get rid of it.  If anything, it's being more specific and, in my opinion, more encyclopedic that way.  Example: Is it more encyclopedic to say that a country invaded Kuwait in the early 90s or to say that Iraq invaded Kuwait in the early 90s?  I'd like others' input. TheCommodore7 (talk) 19:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You know, I think the fact that BoB was involved is important to the significance of the event. If this had been an alliance of 20 people all in empire space, the scandal would have been a relative non-event. Why this event was major for for the EvE community is that a major alliance that was absolutely dominant at the time and the effect it had on the war they were involved in and public perception of that alliance.--Wootonius (talk) 20:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * For the record, I started playing EVE about a month ago, long after this scandal happened, and I have absolutly no ties to any of the major alliances. I consider myself neutral. My feelings is this: This article has absolutly no references to any other major alliances, or players.  It does not describe rises and falls of power of corps and alliances.  Other than a discription of the in-game political system, it gives no information regarding the in-game people and culture.  If a Corp or alliance put their name in this article in a positive way, we would likely revert it. This particular section describes scandal and controversy on the part of CCP's employees and developers, not the players. So Why do we reference the Alliance by name, but not the developer, when I can cite plenty of sources for his name?  I don't feel a reference to an in-game entity is appropiate here.  It just starts a precedent for corps and alliances to include themselves in this article.  I see we do mention GHSC, but we do not mention their targetMdlutz (talk) 20:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * To continue on in that line of thought, Lutz, it doesn't look like the Guiding Hand link will stay much longer. It looks headed for deletion. TheCommodore7 (talk) 21:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * BoB is the largest alliance in the game and a very old one at that. So it's WP:N.  The developers name would also be WP:N. The target of GHSC should probably be mentioned. Alatari (talk) 23:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:N does not apply in this case. We are not talking about the notability of an article, we are talking about the appropiateness of refering to in-game characters and corporations, and alliances in this article.  WP:N would apply if someone made an article about BoB. Mdlutz (talk) 18:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I think if the New York times sees fit to at least mention BoB when describing this, they are worth citing in this particular section. I understand that the NYT is not an encyclopedia and is bound by a different set of guidelines, but it is a US publication of note and specific mention in an article about EvE there would denote siginificance of at least mentioning BoB by name.--Wootonius (talk) 20:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

How Many Ships and Ship Classes Will Trinity Add?
I just watched EVE TV's recording of Oveur's talk at the Fanfest and got confused by Oveur saying that 5 ship classes will be introduced with Trinity. I thought that it will be the four that we've already got in the article: cruisers (Heavy Interdictors), frigates (Electronic Attack Ships) and two sets of battleships (Black Ops, designed for covert operations and Marauders, designed for long-range deployment). However at 11m 39s on the video Oveur gives an overview of 5 classes - the fifth being freighters, namely Jump Freighters.

A few days before the Fanfest CCP Fendahl posted a blog post in which he said that "Trinity introduces four new classes of Tech II combat ships." Did I misread the emphasis of this sentence? Maybe it's supposed to be like "four new classes of Tech II combat ships" (which doesn't say anything about the number of non-combat ships). Am I missing something obvious? I've got the feeling that I do. How many ship classes does Trinity add?

Aexus 23:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I just watched that video and I think Oveur mentions Marauder Battleships twice. I think there are only 20 new ships (5 new classes of ships with 4 ships in each class) --Wootonius (talk) 23:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The article said that 4 classes will be added with Trinity. I've now added the fifth class (Jump Freighters) and linked the paragraph to the appropriate source. Aexus (talk) 16:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Guiding Hand Social Club
Was linked in this page today and since I knew it would eventually be nominated for deletion I got the ball rolling: Articles for deletion/Guiding Hand Social Club. It might be notable to keep; my opinion is already posted. What are your opinions? Alatari (talk) 06:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * They're notable for a single heist out of thousands in the game's history; not worth a section--at most a single-sentence mention. — Da rk •S hik ari [T] 06:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Post your opinion on the deletion link. Alatari (talk) 07:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Band of Brothers
From the article: On February 9, 2007, one EVE Online developer was found guilty of providing his in-game corporation, Band of Brothers, with six blueprints.. Isn't Band of Brothers an alliance, not a corporation? Arthena(talk) 17:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You're right. Feel free to Be Bold and change it.TheCommodore7 (talk) 17:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Requested semi-protection
I have requested semi-protection for this article. Apparently the last time the article was semi-protected it hasn't motivated the anomymous user(s) to register an account and paticipate in the discussion. Let's see how it develops this time. -- Aexus (talk) 13:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Two words: Thank God. Vandalism every frickin day gets mildly annoying.TheCommodore7 (talk) 16:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

DMacks just semi-protected the article - indefinetely as it seems. -- Aexus (talk) 21:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)