Talk:MC30c frigate

Wait, isn't this fanon? Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It's from the Forces of Corruption expansion pack for Empire at War. One of the developers named it here, although the name is all that's currently known about it. -- I need a name 20:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for that. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 20:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Theres already a Mon Calamari Frigate article. Are they not the same thing or something? Lord Zack 16:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think they're meant to be different. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 20:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Concept Design
Awesome. Simply awesome! That MC30 frigate it based on a old ROTJ concept for Mon Cal cruisers. I love how the designers used a old concept for the frigate. I need to see if I can find a link to the concept art that it is based on. AdmiralNick22 00:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you have a picture for the concept art? Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 00:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yup. Found it. http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/books/art/mcsketch1.jpg AdmiralNick22 00:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. But hopefully it's not that big... ;) Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 00:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I hope it is Neb-B sized, and not Assault frigate sized. I rather like the idea of it being smaller than the MC40 light cruisers. Maybe somewhere around 300-350 meters in length. AdmiralNick22 00:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That would seem good. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 00:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * OMGOMGOMGOMG They chose the BEST discarded ROTJ Mon Cal concept art, too! 8D VT-16 12:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Btw. where did you get that picture? VT-16 13:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The design doesn't look very Mon Callish to me, tough. Shouldn't this info be in a BtS section or something? --BaldFett 13:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The pic is off the Technical Commentaries website by Dr. Saxton. It looks like a cross between the a Mon Cal design and something from Gallofree. Either way I like it! :-) AdmiralNick22 13:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I meant the profile picture from the game itself. I knew about the concept art, that's why I was so happy to see them using it as a basis. :D VT-16 13:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The screenshot is from here. --  I need a name  ( Complain here ) [[Image:Sithempire2.png|20px]] 13:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks! And I agree on the Gallofree look, that's the first thing I thought of when I saw it. The artist probably wanted to show a connection between the ESB transports and the ROTJ cruisers, but they ultimately went in another direction. VT-16 13:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I actually always wished that Gallofree built some warships before it tanked. Hell, the Munificent-class star frigate looks very Gallofree-esque as well. AdmiralNick22 13:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe Gallofree helped design the MC30. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 14:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm now going to change the concept art picture because, although similar, there's a near-identical design elsewhere in the sketches. This one was close, but the other one was exactly the same, with armor plates surrounding the command tower and more exposed infrastructure. VT-16 15:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, then. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 15:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Whoops, a little grammatical error, there. "now" instead of "not". VT-16 15:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't even see that. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 18:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Awesome, I didn't even know about this ship until I was looking at the IGN preview. Very nice touch. Too bad about the game tho.Vymer 10:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 11:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * They can't all be like the Homeworld 2 SW mod. ;) VT-16 21:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * But still, what did you mean, Vymer? Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 22:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry forgot about this page- I'm in between my old and new PC at the moment so I've been very distracted. I was unimpressed by the demo and the full game was bought by my brother and returned by him the very next day. I may end up getting it, but only when it's cheaper. It could've been a lot cooler. The ground combat really let it down.Vymer 06:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 11:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Room for a and b articles?
Since this frigate is specified MC30c, can we make stubs for MC30a and b frigates as well? Knowing the Mon Cals and their naming schemes in the early part of the GCW (MC80a and b). I'm asking this beforehand because last time I made article stubs (Eta-3 and Eta-4 interceptor), they got deleted. :( VT-16 20:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Since it's been half a month and no one's said anything, I'm making stubs for them. :) VT-16 08:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * How is that anything but speculation? --Imp 09:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's a good idea. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 12:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. Since there is a 'c' model, there must also be an 'a' and a 'b' model,like the MC80 series. Whether built, mass-produced or just designed. And where were these comments when I asked for opinions last month? VT-16 14:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * My computer's hard drive crashed, so that's why I didn't respond sooner. Anyway, there doesn't necessarily have to be a MC30a or MC30b. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 01:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, the Wookieepedia already has too many articles based on speculation. I vote against the idea. AdmiralNick22 01:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * They should probably be VfD'd now. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 01:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No they shouldn't. If the Mon Calamari builds a frigate and designates it 'c', there must be an 'a' and a 'b', even if neither of these were ever built. That's how productions work, especially with ships and planes. Many fighters in the US never reached more than a prototype stage, that's why there's a jump between F-18 and F-22. If 'c' exists, something must already occupy the 'a' and 'b' slot, otherwise it would be like the MC40a model or the MC80a and MC80B. VT-16 08:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Except we don't know if the Mon Calamari name ships the same way we do. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 12:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * My sentiments exactly. By that logic we should start creating articles for hypothetical Mon Cal ships like a MC70, MC60, MC50, etc. The Wookieepedia should only have articles that are confirmed, not speculation. AdmiralNick22 20:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Here's a possibly compromise . . . move this to MC30, and then note that only one model, the MC30c, has been attested. jSarek 21:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's a good idea. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 23:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm with Jack on this one. Mentioning ships that have never been referenced in the EU or movies is a bad choice. As I said above, following that logic we might as well create multiple "MC" designations. AdmiralNick22 00:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I say we have the MC30a and MC30b articles deleted. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 00:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Those really need to be deleted. As I have said in other discussions/debates, those types of articles degrade the overall quality of the Wookieepedia, not improve it. :-( AdmiralNick22 00:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Some are needed, but not those. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 00:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, this is a big enough general issue, flowing into other areas like planets and moons (e.g. Yavin 9), that we may want to take it to the Consensus Track. jSarek 00:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Planets and moons: Maybe. Ship class: No. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 01:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * we might as well create multiple "MC" designations
 * No we should not. There is a precedence for alphabetical designations and I followed it, after waiting half a month to avoid this exact situation. Don't come whining afterwards. VT-16 12:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I wasn't here when you first suggested it, so this was the only time I could "come whining afterwards". In any case, the MC30a and MC30b do not exist&mdash;right now, they are fanon and must be deleted. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 12:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Why? What evidence do you have? If there is a MC30c there must be an a and a b, whether designed and abandoned or actually made. That's the way they name their ships in this era. And it's been standing here for weeks, you weren't gone for weeks at a time. VT-16 12:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No, but posters like me who have little spare time cannot work on the Wookieepedia for more than a few precious moments here or there. Hence why I did not see this right away. The fact remains that nowhere in the EU or movies is a MC30a or b mentioned. Hence it has no place on the Wookieepedia. AdmiralNick22 14:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)