Help talk:Contents: Difference between revisions
(New page: We need to update this to be more useful in the future.) |
No edit summary |
||
| (7 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Rewrote most of the page, based on what was already there. Always room for improvement, of course. - Wedge | |||
Why the persecution of Confed? It's a term used throughout the series both in speech and text. Otherwise everything else looks good. --[[User:Dundradal|Dundradal]] 22:15, 2 September 2010 (CDT) | |||
Uh, that point has been in force for a while now...? It's mainly stemming from the rule that we are supposed to be official researchers or some such, writing archival and historical documents, not news journals and publications which may be less formal and rigid... but if you want to drop that idea, I can't say no, can I? But I'm just confused, if you don't like that idea, why only raise it now? - Wedge | |||
Because I had never equated Confed as an informal term and the notion never crossed my mind. Confed is used in official documents contained within canon sources. So I bring it up now because I never put it into that category and was surprised to see it there. --[[User:Dundradal|Dundradal]] 14:35, 3 September 2010 (CDT) | |||
It was in that original list I sent to you, so I thought you were okay with it. Anyway, it seems to me that the authors were probably also writing in an informal tone, but if it's in the literature now, I suppose we're stuck with it. Point removed. I don't like it, but I wasn't 'persecuting' it. - Wedge | |||
Latest revision as of 16:38, 4 September 2010
Rewrote most of the page, based on what was already there. Always room for improvement, of course. - Wedge
Why the persecution of Confed? It's a term used throughout the series both in speech and text. Otherwise everything else looks good. --Dundradal 22:15, 2 September 2010 (CDT)
Uh, that point has been in force for a while now...? It's mainly stemming from the rule that we are supposed to be official researchers or some such, writing archival and historical documents, not news journals and publications which may be less formal and rigid... but if you want to drop that idea, I can't say no, can I? But I'm just confused, if you don't like that idea, why only raise it now? - Wedge
Because I had never equated Confed as an informal term and the notion never crossed my mind. Confed is used in official documents contained within canon sources. So I bring it up now because I never put it into that category and was surprised to see it there. --Dundradal 14:35, 3 September 2010 (CDT)
It was in that original list I sent to you, so I thought you were okay with it. Anyway, it seems to me that the authors were probably also writing in an informal tone, but if it's in the literature now, I suppose we're stuck with it. Point removed. I don't like it, but I wasn't 'persecuting' it. - Wedge
