Abyssal raid to the Natsuki fleet kitchen - mission completed.

So he have multiples of the same ship girls?

It might be from another base

oberstleutnant said:

So he have multiples of the same ship girls?

Seems like Hatsushimo and Jintsuu which Abyssals dropped to his base isn't actually his, but from another base.

WANNFH said:

Seems like Hatsushimo and Jintsuu which Abyssals dropped to his base isn't actually his, but from another base.

Sounds plausible

Heavy Cruiser princess just called Ooyodo "flat-chest-glasses girl".

DTWesker said:

Heavy Cruiser princess just called Ooyodo "flat-chest-glasses girl".

Well, it's not like she's completely wrong with that statement, if you look for Yodo chest in the seasonal CG.

Special operation, as Ooyodo said. The plot (if there is one) thickens ...

Apparently, Ooyodo is more pissed at CA Hime about table manners than being insulted.

elite heavy cruiser > by-the-book admin light cruiser

Also, the force is kinda overkill on the Abyssal side in terms of escorts since a carrier and two battleships joined the fray.

AdventZero said:

Apparently, Ooyodo is more pissed at CA Hime about table manners than being insulted.

Cuz manners maketh woman.

Heh, at least he rewarded them with a free meal for their efforts. I know there is a precedent for one unit to return enemy wounded to their own forces for treatment.

who is yoko 001?

S-Rank victory for the Abyss

IndomieRasaRendang said:

who is yoko 001?

Maybe it is name of some base that he makeup that name.

IndomieRasaRendang said:

who is yoko 001?

Maybe something like Yokosuka TTKBot #001?

@OOZ662, I thought we weren't supposed to use parent-child relationships for anything other than "variants of a single image", as you put it on post #2970323. Has the site staff's stance on this changed since then?

MarqFJA87 said:

Has the site staff's stance on this changed since then?

No.

OOZ662 said:

No.

... So how come this post hasn't had the relationship removed as promptly as the one that I had done for that older post?

MarqFJA87 said:

... So how come this post hasn't had the relationship removed as promptly as the one that I had done for that older post?

Because there's no real point to making a pool for two posts and it would just clutter the pools to high heaven? At the same time, they are still related to each other A directly follows and is connected to B in terms of narrative.

MarqFJA87 said:

... So how come this post hasn't had the relationship removed as promptly as the one that I had done for that older post?

Because you didn't do it and I was on mobile and have since been busy with other things.

OOZ662 said:

Because you didn't do it and I was on mobile and have since been busy with other things.

I was actually wondering why no staff member in general did so, not you specifically. I just pinged you simply because you were the first to come to my mind when the question came to me, because you were the one who pointed it out and (presumably) reverted my relevant edit.

These are obvious continuations, so they really need to be either childed or pooled. Child posts are also used for continuations instead of pools, so long as they are less than 4 images in a series.

In fact, everything to do with this admiral and the base's plot arc is clearly a series, and should have been a pool for over a year, now. (Including the "Looking for Oscar" and "Interviewing the Base", which would just be chapters within the larger pool.)

NWSiaCB said:

These are obvious continuations, so they really need to be either childed or pooled. Child posts are also used for continuations instead of pools, so long as they are less than 4 images in a series.

It's a bit strange that the Pools wiki claims you can parent a maximum of 2 "series" posts and tells the reader to see the Post Relationships wiki for clarification when it only contains "don't use post relationships for pages of a series." I'm curious where the former decision came from as well.

So... There is miscommunication/misunderstanding within the staff afoot here?

OOZ662 said:

It's a bit strange that the Pools wiki claims you can parent a maximum of 2 "series" posts and tells the reader to see the Post Relationships wiki for clarification when it only contains "don't use post relationships for pages of a series." I'm curious where the former decision came from as well.

I remember the rule being that you should only create series pools when there are four posts in a series for a several years, but I can't find the exact place it was written off the top of my head.

The general purpose of that rule was that there are quite a few "before and after" series of two or three images that are clearly related, but that it bloats the pools directory (whose names you need to search, and where the same authors can create tons of titleless mini-series) to let every small chain of related images be its own distinct pool. Take, for instance, this three-part set.

In any event, this story is clearly a very large continuous story that should definitely be a pool, and started out as a chain of pools, but stopped being put into pools merely because Aoba stopped being the framing device of the conversations, even though the story certainly didn't stop.