Talk:Napi Peak (Viridian)

The myth behind the Napi name.

http://www.thewildwest.org/native_american/society/Blackfoot.html

Euphoria Sending Jobbers to Vanguard
I think this is disputed - or at least there's some devil in the details. I'm going to remove the reference to this for the time being. Polny


 * I was XOing for Vanguard, and I don't remember them doing that. The only thing I remember hearing was not to shoot at the Euphoria ships that came in the final rounds. Add to that the fact that we struggled with jobber support the final two rounds anyway, and I think removing the comment is a good choice. --Fannon 08:51, 11 April 2006 (PDT)

Napi VIII to Napi IX
According to the Viridian_blockade_history, there is a gap when Jinx aquired Napi Peak from Collateral Damage in between CD successfully taking it from The_All-Consuming_Flame at Napi VIII on January 5, 2008 and Jinx successfuly defending it from Infernio De Los Diablos and Sea Wrath at Napi IX on March 15, 2008. Any information regardingthis discrepency would be appreciated.-- Haywoodx(t/c) 09:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Further strangeness, Napi VII and Napi VIII are fought by Jinx according to this page, but by All-Consuming Flame according to the blockade history. --Alfwyn 13:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I went through the age histry and Scupperer (who would know) originally put TA-CF as contenders for VII & VIII. It was in a later revision that User:Instantflash (who has a permaban from the wiki mind you) changed them to Jinx with no explanation.  I would say that Scupperer would know first hand and I'm going to change it to reflect as such.-- Haywoodx(t/c) 17:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I got some response in Viridian Parley answering partly your original question, seems there is a Napi blockade missing in the history. --Alfwyn 17:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I spoke with Ochubb, who was a part of CD at the time told me that CD opted not to defend against Jinx but couldnt recall when, only confirmed it was between Feb and March.-- Haywoodx(t/c) 20:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And then there is of course the problem of how to name the blockade. Finding all references to Napi blockades (to fix up renumbering) may be difficult. Napi VIIIb ? Napi VIII.2 ? --Alfwyn 20:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, the appropriate thing would be to slide it in and bump the subsequent numbers. If we could conirm a date for the real IX, renumbering shuldnt be that hard.  Just chasing them down on a few pages.-- Haywoodx(t/c) 20:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm finding it vaguely amusing that you're both making the same points I brought up six months ago. =) But yes, we'll keep the numbering consistent. I'm sure I can find a way to spot all the references, even if I just have to search for "Napi" and browse through them. I don't think the real date is overly important - we know it's some time between January 5th and March 15th. So just stick it in February with "|date=Unknown date in February". If someone comes along later who knows it, it's easy enough to fix. --Belthazar451 20:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, sounds good if we are reasonable sure we can find all the links. --Alfwyn 21:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes we did have this discussion in June but I neverfound out any more than we already knew then. I agree with the course of action to plug it in February somewhere and revise the numbers to reflect.  Meanwhile I'm gong to be revising and retabulating the win/loss table in my sandbox; seems someone has booched it and hasn't been using it for every blockade entry.-- Haywoodx(t/c) 21:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)