Talk:HapSec
History
This faction actually went through an interesting history. It was founded as HapSec in fall of 2000, though we eventually renamed it to Loronar Security or LorSec in spring 2001 and sold it to Haden Roderery. Later it was affiliated with the FF, then later yet again it was StormOne Security (or just Storm Security) affiliated with 12 Colonies, before finally becoming The Damned and dissolving about two-three years ago. How do we handle these transitions in the article? Do we create a new article for each name change? --Alex Tylger 18:54, 26 February 2011 (GMT)
- I'd think a new article as each has a new, unique history. Just like German has different articles on The Holy Roman Empire, North German Confederation, German Reich, Weimar Republic, Third Reich, and modern Germany. T12C should be similar, as it went from The 12 Colonies to Chiss Ascendancy, to what is now the Triumvirate Coalition. While I know some groups like pretending certain histories don't exist, they DO exist and should be remembered. Weylin vi Cron 20:52, 26 February 2011 (GMT)
- I'm with Wey - when it takes on a new name, it assumes a new identity. It's the only way to deal with the practice of faction shell trading (as seems to have happened with HapSec/StormSec/TD), otherwise we'll have the Chiss Ascendancy becoming the Triumvirate Coalition as Wey mentioned (which is what happened in the DB, but is patently false ICly). The approach I've taken is that the date of formation in Darkness has bugger all to do with IC date of creation. If Faction B claims continuity from Faction A, it can be done in their respective pages (e.g. Faction B arose from the remnants of Faction A / Faction A was bought out and become Faction B). Orphaea Imperium 02:47, 27 February 2011 (GMT)
- We could possible do a succession template of sorts (similar to positions held by individuals, dominant sector government etc) relating to names in order to track such renames where apprioriate. --Alex Tylger 02:55, 27 February 2011 (GMT)
- Trouble is determining where's 'appropriate'. It wouldn't really be appropriate to have a succession template for HapSec -> LoroSec -> StormSec -> TD, given they've never claimed continuity from any of the others, would it? Like I said, I think the best place to mention such things is in the content of the pages, should it be ICly appropriate to draw attention to it. Orphaea Imperium 04:30, 27 February 2011 (GMT)
- The HapSec-LorSec rename happened while I owned it at least. Not sure what the latter owners did/thought. --Alex Tylger 04:33, 27 February 2011 (GMT)
- Trouble is determining where's 'appropriate'. It wouldn't really be appropriate to have a succession template for HapSec -> LoroSec -> StormSec -> TD, given they've never claimed continuity from any of the others, would it? Like I said, I think the best place to mention such things is in the content of the pages, should it be ICly appropriate to draw attention to it. Orphaea Imperium 04:30, 27 February 2011 (GMT)
- We could possible do a succession template of sorts (similar to positions held by individuals, dominant sector government etc) relating to names in order to track such renames where apprioriate. --Alex Tylger 02:55, 27 February 2011 (GMT)
- I'm with Wey - when it takes on a new name, it assumes a new identity. It's the only way to deal with the practice of faction shell trading (as seems to have happened with HapSec/StormSec/TD), otherwise we'll have the Chiss Ascendancy becoming the Triumvirate Coalition as Wey mentioned (which is what happened in the DB, but is patently false ICly). The approach I've taken is that the date of formation in Darkness has bugger all to do with IC date of creation. If Faction B claims continuity from Faction A, it can be done in their respective pages (e.g. Faction B arose from the remnants of Faction A / Faction A was bought out and become Faction B). Orphaea Imperium 02:47, 27 February 2011 (GMT)
