User talk:Archlich631: Difference between revisions
>LegacymtgsalvationUser8147 No edit summary |
>LegacymtgsalvationUser8147 No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==prerev== | |||
Hi and thanks for your help! You asked about prerevisionist sources few times, so I thought I'd explain. There are two policies concerning it. First says that any place/person/event/other thing that appeared or was mentioned in any form in pre-rev sources (so its concept was created before [[revision]] started) has [[:Category:Prerevisionist]]. Second rule is that all pre-rev info is canon unless revisionist sources contradict them. Sure, you're right that it should be clearly marked where is revisionist part and where pre-rev one. Although, so far articles with mixed pre-rev/rev are rather rare or saying about different time periods - so there is no real problem. Anyway, creating more clear distinction between pre-rev and rev info in articles is a matter of (hopefully, near) future. --<b><span style="color:red">[[User:MORT|<sup><sup>M</sup></sup><sup>O</sup>R<sub>T</sub>]]</span></b> <sup><b>[[User talk: MORT|(T)]]</b></sup> 21:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC) | Hi and thanks for your help! You asked about prerevisionist sources few times, so I thought I'd explain. There are two policies concerning it. First says that any place/person/event/other thing that appeared or was mentioned in any form in pre-rev sources (so its concept was created before [[revision]] started) has [[:Category:Prerevisionist]]. Second rule is that all pre-rev info is canon unless revisionist sources contradict them. Sure, you're right that it should be clearly marked where is revisionist part and where pre-rev one. Although, so far articles with mixed pre-rev/rev are rather rare or saying about different time periods - so there is no real problem. Anyway, creating more clear distinction between pre-rev and rev info in articles is a matter of (hopefully, near) future. --<b><span style="color:red">[[User:MORT|<sup><sup>M</sup></sup><sup>O</sup>R<sub>T</sub>]]</span></b> <sup><b>[[User talk: MORT|(T)]]</b></sup> 21:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC) | ||
| Line 9: | Line 10: | ||
Ok, I will. [[User:Archlich|Archlich]] 22:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC) | Ok, I will. [[User:Archlich|Archlich]] 22:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC) | ||
==geography info in planes articles== | |||
Hi, and thanks again for your great work. I just come to give one suggestion. In the [[Kamigawa]] article all locations should be only listed. Very locations should be in their own articles. The same goes for [[Mercadia]] and other planes. --<b><span style="color:red">[[User:MORT|<sup><sup>M</sup></sup><sup>O</sup>R<sub>T</sub>]]</span></b> <sup><b>[[User talk: MORT|(T)]]</b></sup> 20:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC) | Hi, and thanks again for your great work. I just come to give one suggestion. In the [[Kamigawa]] article all locations should be only listed. Very locations should be in their own articles. The same goes for [[Mercadia]] and other planes. --<b><span style="color:red">[[User:MORT|<sup><sup>M</sup></sup><sup>O</sup>R<sub>T</sub>]]</span></b> <sup><b>[[User talk: MORT|(T)]]</b></sup> 20:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC) | ||
| Line 14: | Line 16: | ||
:Mirrodin is ok - like Dominaria. Some more things you have to remember about, when creating new articles are 1) '''bold''' the first appearence of the name of article in text, but if it has its own card, <c title="card tag">Baron Sengir</c> it instead. 2)Categories! They're important. Full list of storyline categories is [[Storylines|here]]. --<b><span style="color:red">[[User:MORT|<sup><sup>M</sup></sup><sup>O</sup>R<sub>T</sub>]]</span></b> <sup><b>[[User talk: MORT|(T)]]</b></sup> 09:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC) | :Mirrodin is ok - like Dominaria. Some more things you have to remember about, when creating new articles are 1) '''bold''' the first appearence of the name of article in text, but if it has its own card, <c title="card tag">Baron Sengir</c> it instead. 2)Categories! They're important. Full list of storyline categories is [[Storylines|here]]. --<b><span style="color:red">[[User:MORT|<sup><sup>M</sup></sup><sup>O</sup>R<sub>T</sub>]]</span></b> <sup><b>[[User talk: MORT|(T)]]</b></sup> 09:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC) | ||
==sha/sah== | |||
There is an article called [[Ish Sah]], but you sometimes use Ish Sha. Which one is correct. Just wanted to be sure... ;-) --<b><span style="color:red">[[User:MORT|<sup><sup>M</sup></sup><sup>O</sup>R<sub>T</sub>]]</span></b> <sup><b>[[User talk: MORT|(T)]]</b></sup> 20:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:33, 27 July 2007
prerev
Hi and thanks for your help! You asked about prerevisionist sources few times, so I thought I'd explain. There are two policies concerning it. First says that any place/person/event/other thing that appeared or was mentioned in any form in pre-rev sources (so its concept was created before revision started) has Category:Prerevisionist. Second rule is that all pre-rev info is canon unless revisionist sources contradict them. Sure, you're right that it should be clearly marked where is revisionist part and where pre-rev one. Although, so far articles with mixed pre-rev/rev are rather rare or saying about different time periods - so there is no real problem. Anyway, creating more clear distinction between pre-rev and rev info in articles is a matter of (hopefully, near) future. --MORT (T) 21:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I'm new to this site, so hopefully I'm doing everything correctly.
Thanks for the information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Archlich (talk • contribs).
It's ok. But remember to sign your messages. Just write ~~~~. --MORT (T) 22:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I will. Archlich 22:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
geography info in planes articles
Hi, and thanks again for your great work. I just come to give one suggestion. In the Kamigawa article all locations should be only listed. Very locations should be in their own articles. The same goes for Mercadia and other planes. --MORT (T) 20:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
What I meant is that it should be similiar to the article of Dominaria plane. All locations, major and minor (in case of Dominaria, only major, cuz otherwise it would be too much), should be just listed (with short description, optionally) and linked to their own respective articles. The "History of Mercadia" subtiltle would be ok as well. P.S. you meant Mercadia, not Mirrodin, I guess. ;-) --MORT (T) 22:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Mirrodin is ok - like Dominaria. Some more things you have to remember about, when creating new articles are 1) bold the first appearence of the name of article in text, but if it has its own card, card tag it instead. 2)Categories! They're important. Full list of storyline categories is here. --MORT (T) 09:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
sha/sah
There is an article called Ish Sah, but you sometimes use Ish Sha. Which one is correct. Just wanted to be sure... ;-) --MORT (T) 20:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)