Toggle menu
Toggle personal menu
Not logged in
Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits.

Talk:Black market (organization)/Archive 1: Difference between revisions

Discussion page of Black market (organization)/Archive 1
Kraetos (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Kraetos (talk | contribs)
mNo edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
I'm kind of iffy on having this as it's own article, because it's more of a going-on than an organization, but then again there's ''kind of'' and organization, so I guess we should keep it, ering on the side of caution.--[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 21:09, 28 January 2006 (EST)
I'm kind of iffy on having this as it's own article, because it's more of a going-on than an organization, but then again there's ''kind of'' and organization, so I guess we should keep it, ering on the side of caution.--[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 21:09, 28 January 2006 (EST)
:Given that it has a head and a central hub, I think its safe to say that this is an organization. One thing I did have a problem with, however, while writing the article, is the fact that I had to use an episode as a time reference. Is either a) that okay? or b) can someone think of a logical way to reword it? --[[User:BMS|BMS]] 21:14, 28 January 2006 (EST)
:Given that it has a head and a central hub, I think its safe to say that this is an organization. One thing I did have a problem with, however, while writing the article, I had to use an episode as a time reference. Is either a) that okay? or b) can someone think of a logical way to reword it? --[[User:BMS|BMS]] 21:14, 28 January 2006 (EST)

Revision as of 02:16, 29 January 2006

I'm kind of iffy on having this as it's own article, because it's more of a going-on than an organization, but then again there's kind of and organization, so I guess we should keep it, ering on the side of caution.--Ricimer 21:09, 28 January 2006 (EST)

Given that it has a head and a central hub, I think its safe to say that this is an organization. One thing I did have a problem with, however, while writing the article, I had to use an episode as a time reference. Is either a) that okay? or b) can someone think of a logical way to reword it? --BMS 21:14, 28 January 2006 (EST)