Editing Talk:Executive officer/Archive 1
Discussion page of Executive officer/Archive 1
More actions
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision | Your text | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
:ECM has nothing whatsoever to do to with this. You might think of [[ECO]], but that actually has some substance. I can see a general position article, but then there are so many trivial mini-articles about pointless things (like listing every single Raptor or Viper that was merely mentioned in chatter), that this one hardly matters. Instead of a new article, this one could maybe be merged with [[Senior Staff of Galactica]], which already has position histories. However, this article has a history for ''Pegasus'' which includes some relevant notes about Lee Adama and Renner, whereas the other one would only be about ''Galactica''. What would make more sense to me is a "position" category to link these articles about the staff a bit. -- [[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 16:45, 17 March 2008 (CDT) | :ECM has nothing whatsoever to do to with this. You might think of [[ECO]], but that actually has some substance. I can see a general position article, but then there are so many trivial mini-articles about pointless things (like listing every single Raptor or Viper that was merely mentioned in chatter), that this one hardly matters. Instead of a new article, this one could maybe be merged with [[Senior Staff of Galactica]], which already has position histories. However, this article has a history for ''Pegasus'' which includes some relevant notes about Lee Adama and Renner, whereas the other one would only be about ''Galactica''. What would make more sense to me is a "position" category to link these articles about the staff a bit. -- [[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 16:45, 17 March 2008 (CDT) | ||
::Yep, ECO was what I meant. Too little coffee. Maybe the shortest ones should be centralized and others lumped for simplicity, since the Chief Petty Officer, Communuications Officer, Tactical Officer and others aren't rank dependent? I guess it's probably not of great significance, but I tend to concise articles as well as text where possible. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 12:10, 18 March 2008 (CDT) | ::Yep, ECO was what I meant. Too little coffee. Maybe the shortest ones should be centralized and others lumped for simplicity, since the Chief Petty Officer, Communuications Officer, Tactical Officer and others aren't rank dependent? I guess it's probably not of great significance, but I tend to concise articles as well as text where possible. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 12:10, 18 March 2008 (CDT) | ||