Editing Talk:Mars Day/Archive 1
Discussion page of Mars Day/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 3: | Line 3: | ||
::Hermes Class battlestar is pure fanon --[[User:Mercifull|Mercifull]] <sup>([[User talk:Mercifull|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Mercifull|Contribs]])</sup> 12:21, 9 October 2006 (CDT) | ::Hermes Class battlestar is pure fanon --[[User:Mercifull|Mercifull]] <sup>([[User talk:Mercifull|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Mercifull|Contribs]])</sup> 12:21, 9 October 2006 (CDT) | ||
:::I think Alpha was trying to contrast the name rather than suggest a fanon class. I added the relevant part back in. Yeah, I've noted that Roman issue in "Jupiter" as well. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 12:25, 9 October 2006 (CDT) | :::I think Alpha was trying to contrast the name rather than suggest a fanon class. I added the relevant part back in. Yeah, I've noted that Roman issue in "Jupiter" as well. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 12:25, 9 October 2006 (CDT) | ||
Why is there "holiday" in parenthesis after the article title? There's nothing else to disambiguate this from. --[[User: | Why is there "holiday" in parenthesis after the article title? There's nothing else to disambiguate this from. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 18:10, 9 October 2006 (CDT) | ||
: Good question. Judging from Mercifull's reasoning, he felt that it should be disambiguated as [[Colonial Day (holiday)]] was. Honestly, I think it should be moved back, since no disambiguation is necessary. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]]</sup> 19:07, 9 October 2006 (CDT) | : Good question. Judging from Mercifull's reasoning, he felt that it should be disambiguated as [[Colonial Day (holiday)]] was. Honestly, I think it should be moved back, since no disambiguation is necessary. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]]</sup> 19:07, 9 October 2006 (CDT) | ||
::Marsday could also be Tuesday, for in French the word for Tuesday is Mardi, and its roots are Roman. | ::Marsday could also be Tuesday, for in French the word for Tuesday is Mardi, and its roots are Roman. | ||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
::::::My addition of "First mentioned in" to the Occupation reference was reverted. I can understand the need for concision, but I think it's useful to make such distinctions to spare people clicking through only to find that it was only a mention, and not a major plot point. (C.f., "Colonial Day".) Is this a style issue? --[[User:PrePressChris|PrePressChris]] 20:29, 14 October 2006 (CDT) | ::::::My addition of "First mentioned in" to the Occupation reference was reverted. I can understand the need for concision, but I think it's useful to make such distinctions to spare people clicking through only to find that it was only a mention, and not a major plot point. (C.f., "Colonial Day".) Is this a style issue? --[[User:PrePressChris|PrePressChris]] 20:29, 14 October 2006 (CDT) | ||
:::::::([[Occupation]]) and (first mentioned in [[Occupation]]) are the same; the second is needlessly verbose. If it's mentioned again, then the citation would look something like this ("[[Occupation]]", "Some Other Episode"). That's how I look at it, and that's how we've always done it here. The style for this is at the [[BW:SC|Standards and Conventions]] page, although it's not explicitly spelled out there. Of course, should the entry ever grow beyond its current form then we could always add something in the notes of when it was first mentioned, or some such. Would anyone else like to chime in? :-) -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]]</sup> 20:40, 14 October 2006 (CDT) | :::::::([[Occupation]]) and (first mentioned in [[Occupation]]) are the same; the second is needlessly verbose. If it's mentioned again, then the citation would look something like this ("[[Occupation]]", "Some Other Episode"). That's how I look at it, and that's how we've always done it here. The style for this is at the [[BW:SC|Standards and Conventions]] page, although it's not explicitly spelled out there. Of course, should the entry ever grow beyond its current form then we could always add something in the notes of when it was first mentioned, or some such. Would anyone else like to chime in? :-) -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]]</sup> 20:40, 14 October 2006 (CDT) | ||