More actions
mNo edit summary |
m getting rid of red link |
||
| (11 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
What's with the lower case stuff? It looks really awkward. --[[User:BklynBruzer|BklynBruzer]] 21:33, 9 May 2007 (CDT) | What's with the lower case stuff? It looks really awkward. --[[User:BklynBruzer|BklynBruzer]] 21:33, 9 May 2007 (CDT) | ||
:It's the [[BW:SAC|standard]] though. I don't think it looks ''that'' bad. Btw, it's not necessary to revert right away in case of such a disagreement. Just bringing up on the talk page first is enough. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 01:04, 10 May 2007 (CDT) | :It's the [[BW:SAC|standard]] though. I don't think it looks ''that'' bad. Btw, it's not necessary to revert right away in case of such a disagreement. Just bringing up on the talk page first is enough. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 01:04, 10 May 2007 (CDT) | ||
::Its not in the middle of a sentance though it's in its own little sentance between the | signs. If I were to talk about a <u>b</u>attlestar then fair enough. <u>B</u>attlestar however begins with a capital because it is the starting word. --[[User:Mercifull|Mercifull]] <sup>([[User talk:Mercifull|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Mercifull|Contribs]])</sup> 03:21, 10 May 2007 (CDT) | |||
:::Yeah, I see that point. This is one of those things were I could go either way. Neither is entirely wrong IMO. It's not really a full sentence though, which is why I prefer lower case personally --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 03:35, 10 May 2007 (CDT) | |||
:I do personally believe that Battlestar is a proper name, I don't consider it on par with something like "destroyer" etc, for multiple reasons. I agree that it looks odd lower-cased as well. Bradley Thompson responded to this question at [[Battlestar Wiki:Official Communiques/Archive6#Battlestar or battlestar? (Basestar or basestar, et cetera)]]. The Wiki's MoS does state not to capitalise ([[BW:SAC#Ships]]). [[User:Matthew|Matthew]] 04:17, 10 May 2007 (CDT) | |||
::I think we gotta make an exception in this case. Otherwise the works Galactica and Pegusas would be the only clue. [[User:Shane|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]])</sup> 07:02, 10 May 2007 (CDT) | |||
== Physically-seen ships only? == | |||
Despite the coolness of their recent discovery (a Battlestar Wiki exclusive!), I removed the two new battlestars from the list, as we don't have Solaria, or Triton or Atlantia there either, and it just musses up the template. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 15:31, 14 May 2007 (CDT) | |||
: Maybe we should make a template for "mentioned-only" ships? Or simply create a list of ships, a la [[List of Vipers]]? -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]]</sup> 16:22, 14 May 2007 (CDT) | |||
:: I love template, but that's too much. ;-) If we ''really'' think or more information about the mentioned only stuff comes about then I say template it up. [[User:Shane|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]])</sup> 06:11, 15 May 2007 (CDT) | |||
::I concur with Shane. The categories work fine, and the [[Battlestar]] super-disambig is pretty good (if I do say so myself) for this idea as well. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 10:34, 15 May 2007 (CDT) | |||
Latest revision as of 03:59, 13 October 2007
What's with the lower case stuff? It looks really awkward. --BklynBruzer 21:33, 9 May 2007 (CDT)
- It's the standard though. I don't think it looks that bad. Btw, it's not necessary to revert right away in case of such a disagreement. Just bringing up on the talk page first is enough. --Serenity 01:04, 10 May 2007 (CDT)
- Its not in the middle of a sentance though it's in its own little sentance between the | signs. If I were to talk about a battlestar then fair enough. Battlestar however begins with a capital because it is the starting word. --Mercifull (Talk/Contribs) 03:21, 10 May 2007 (CDT)
- Yeah, I see that point. This is one of those things were I could go either way. Neither is entirely wrong IMO. It's not really a full sentence though, which is why I prefer lower case personally --Serenity 03:35, 10 May 2007 (CDT)
- Its not in the middle of a sentance though it's in its own little sentance between the | signs. If I were to talk about a battlestar then fair enough. Battlestar however begins with a capital because it is the starting word. --Mercifull (Talk/Contribs) 03:21, 10 May 2007 (CDT)
- I do personally believe that Battlestar is a proper name, I don't consider it on par with something like "destroyer" etc, for multiple reasons. I agree that it looks odd lower-cased as well. Bradley Thompson responded to this question at Battlestar Wiki:Official Communiques/Archive6#Battlestar or battlestar? (Basestar or basestar, et cetera). The Wiki's MoS does state not to capitalise (BW:SAC#Ships). Matthew 04:17, 10 May 2007 (CDT)
Physically-seen ships only?
Despite the coolness of their recent discovery (a Battlestar Wiki exclusive!), I removed the two new battlestars from the list, as we don't have Solaria, or Triton or Atlantia there either, and it just musses up the template. --Spencerian 15:31, 14 May 2007 (CDT)
- Maybe we should make a template for "mentioned-only" ships? Or simply create a list of ships, a la List of Vipers? -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 16:22, 14 May 2007 (CDT)
- I love template, but that's too much. ;-) If we really think or more information about the mentioned only stuff comes about then I say template it up. Shane (T - C - E) 06:11, 15 May 2007 (CDT)
- I concur with Shane. The categories work fine, and the Battlestar super-disambig is pretty good (if I do say so myself) for this idea as well. --Spencerian 10:34, 15 May 2007 (CDT)