Talk:Ian Chesterton/Appearances: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
Bongolium500 (talk | contribs) m (Bongolium500 moved page Talk:Ian Chesterton - list of appearances to Talk:Ian Chesterton/Appearances: moving appearance page) |
|||
| (2 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
"Comprehensive but not definitive" What is the useful distinction? [[User:Boblipton|Boblipton]] 00:45, August 6, 2011 (UTC) | "Comprehensive but not definitive" What is the useful distinction? [[User:Boblipton|Boblipton]] 00:45, August 6, 2011 (UTC) | ||
:What indeed. These lists of appearance pages piss me off so I don't spend much time here, precisely for this reason. They should be done automatically, through the use of categories, rather than being a managed list. The message shouldn't appear at all, as ''nothing'' on a wiki is ever truly "definitive" anyway. No need for ''only'' these appearance lists to bear such a message — especially since, as you rightly point out, there's no useful distinction between ''comprehensive'' and ''definitive''. I think the person who wrote that was probably meaning to say, "comprehensive but not complete". But, as I said, ''no'' message like this should adorn these appearance list pages. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}} | :What indeed. These lists of appearance pages piss me off so I don't spend much time here, precisely for this reason. They should be done automatically, through the use of categories, rather than being a managed list. The message shouldn't appear at all, as ''nothing'' on a wiki is ever truly "definitive" anyway. No need for ''only'' these appearance lists to bear such a message — especially since, as you rightly point out, there's no useful distinction between ''comprehensive'' and ''definitive''. I think the person who wrote that was probably meaning to say, "comprehensive but not complete". But, as I said, ''no'' message like this should adorn these appearance list pages. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}'''01:16:23 Sat '''06 Aug 2011 </span> | ||
Thanks, Czechout. I'll remove it.[[User:Boblipton|Boblipton]] 01:20, August 6, 2011 (UTC) | Thanks, Czechout. I'll remove it.[[User:Boblipton|Boblipton]] 01:20, August 6, 2011 (UTC) | ||
Latest revision as of 20:27, 20 February 2023
What does that mean?[[edit source]]
"Comprehensive but not definitive" What is the useful distinction? Boblipton 00:45, August 6, 2011 (UTC)
- What indeed. These lists of appearance pages piss me off so I don't spend much time here, precisely for this reason. They should be done automatically, through the use of categories, rather than being a managed list. The message shouldn't appear at all, as nothing on a wiki is ever truly "definitive" anyway. No need for only these appearance lists to bear such a message — especially since, as you rightly point out, there's no useful distinction between comprehensive and definitive. I think the person who wrote that was probably meaning to say, "comprehensive but not complete". But, as I said, no message like this should adorn these appearance list pages.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 01:16:23 Sat 06 Aug 2011
Thanks, Czechout. I'll remove it.Boblipton 01:20, August 6, 2011 (UTC)
- It was one of those notes that was on many list of pages early on in this wiki's life, one of many things that was never removed.
- I think it was just to say 'we're still building this page, don't complain if story X isn't here'. --Tangerineduel / talk 15:08, August 6, 2011 (UTC)
