I've got a full plate right now and someone else should probably take it! ^^
I had asked Wes in the past if the format I used on this article ((In regard to the Titles with "None to date" under them)) was valid and he said it was. They are divisions that exist, I feel they should be there instead of my adding them when I need them just for prostriety sake.I'm looking over the article, and what jumps to my eyes is its sparsity. It's a bunch of titles with whole lots of nothing significant, with the relevant bit - existing creation - hidden through there.
I figure the "None yet" headings are meant to be filled eventually, but I'd heartilly recommend improving the actual ytreader value of the article by removing most of the blank entries and only keep those with items actually in there. Nothing stops you from keeping the original organization/wiki-code in a .txt file so that you can easily expand on it later and retain your original organization.
Also, you might want to fix that red link.
Considering that this was previously approved twice already, I'm just going to pop it back to the approved section unless there's any objection.
I strongly suggest to Edto however, that he simplifies the article
Though these are problems, they are all relatively minor ones and not grounds for unapproval...
[...]
As for the business template, it's not mandatory.
I said in my response to Fred, that I had asked Wes about the Category format of my submission. Originally, it was going to be Red-linked articles that I planned on building with "In Research" or "In Development" depending on their level or readiness.
He said that I could not have the red links, but as long as I had /something/ ((Eg: the "None to Date")) under each title bar, that I was okay. Over time it will be filled out, but these are things that the company has divisions for, and while the divisions may not be fleshed out with all the tech, they are there and working if not on-screen then off-screen. As I get more tech articles written they will get filled out.
As for the fabricators, in the Spoiler of that same thread, it shows a chat log of Gunhand telling me exactly the terms of the Nepleslian removal of support. I was allowed to maintain the power armour schematics, the Fabricators, and the agricultural equipment. The IC explination of this was "They just copied it" so, yes, the first paragraph is still correct. The company started when the got the technology to fabricate materials. They still have that technology.
As for everything else, they have been changed. The date, and the word spelling.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?