Sources talk:RDM Twenty-Something Questions For 3/9/07: Difference between revisions
Discussion page of Sources:RDM Twenty-Something Questions For 3/9/07
More actions
No edit summary |
Steelviper (talk | contribs) →Typos: + thought |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
:I think we should correct them, but then have a link at the bottom of the page to the original thread with a note saying that all typos and punctuation has been fixed for easy reading? Either that or they should be preserved exactly as written. --[[User:Mercifull|Mercifull]] <sup>([[User talk:Mercifull|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Mercifull|Contribs]])</sup> 08:53, 9 March 2007 (CST) | :I think we should correct them, but then have a link at the bottom of the page to the original thread with a note saying that all typos and punctuation has been fixed for easy reading? Either that or they should be preserved exactly as written. --[[User:Mercifull|Mercifull]] <sup>([[User talk:Mercifull|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Mercifull|Contribs]])</sup> 08:53, 9 March 2007 (CST) | ||
:I realize that the article is a direct copy/quote, but as long as the meaning isn't changed, I don't see the harm in correcting them. Or we could place a "(sic)" behind them. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 08:56, 9 March 2007 (CST) | :I realize that the article is a direct copy/quote, but as long as the meaning isn't changed, I don't see the harm in correcting them. Or we could place a "(sic)" behind them. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 08:56, 9 March 2007 (CST) | ||
::Let's put a note saying it's been fixed and linkified, since the original version also didn't have the links. Unless the links are distracting/ugly. Then we could just fix the typos. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 08:58, 9 March 2007 (CST) | |||
Revision as of 14:58, 9 March 2007
Good information but the page is a mess. Could this be tidied up somehow? --Mercifull (Talk/Contribs) 07:48, 9 March 2007 (CST)
- Working on it (obviously). Any suggestions appreciated. I'm thinking about pulling all the Ron's at the end of his responses, since we've established (through the bold) who is talking. --Steelviper 07:54, 9 March 2007 (CST)
- Should I keep adding the article links (like a podcast) or just yank them? --Steelviper 08:12, 9 March 2007 (CST)
Typos
Should we leave (obvious) typos intact, or correct them? I left them exactly as is, but noticed Serenity touching it up. --Steelviper 08:40, 9 March 2007 (CST)
- I think we should correct them, but then have a link at the bottom of the page to the original thread with a note saying that all typos and punctuation has been fixed for easy reading? Either that or they should be preserved exactly as written. --Mercifull (Talk/Contribs) 08:53, 9 March 2007 (CST)
- I realize that the article is a direct copy/quote, but as long as the meaning isn't changed, I don't see the harm in correcting them. Or we could place a "(sic)" behind them. --Serenity 08:56, 9 March 2007 (CST)
- Let's put a note saying it's been fixed and linkified, since the original version also didn't have the links. Unless the links are distracting/ugly. Then we could just fix the typos. --Steelviper 08:58, 9 March 2007 (CST)