Talk:Order of the Headless: Difference between revisions
(Just adding the talk section) |
|||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
Mentions are allowed. [[User:Bold Clone]] reverted the mention as he didn't recall it, and then again as there isn't actually a mentioned section '''in the infobox'''. The mention is still, well, mentioned in the article body.----<u>[[User:Skittles the hog|Skittles the hog]]--<small>[[User talk:Skittles the hog|Talk]]</small></u> 19:09, June 20, 2011 (UTC) | Mentions are allowed. [[User:Bold Clone]] reverted the mention as he didn't recall it, and then again as there isn't actually a mentioned section '''in the infobox'''. The mention is still, well, mentioned in the article body.----<u>[[User:Skittles the hog|Skittles the hog]]--<small>[[User talk:Skittles the hog|Talk]]</small></u> 19:09, June 20, 2011 (UTC) | ||
Okay, so it's just some poor editor explanation then; thanks for clearing that up. - | Okay, so it's just some poor editor explanation then; thanks for clearing that up. - Would I be right in assuming that the reason for not having a 'mentions' section in the infobox (when they are in other pages) would be the relative 'lack of mentions' up to this point? [[User:Baziel|Baziel]] 19:35, June 20, 2011 (UTC) | ||
:What was poor about my explanation? I removed the info because I wasn't sure if they had actually been mentioned. Then, after it was confirmed that they had been mentioned, I removed the info again because there wasn't a "mentioned" section. It seems to me that it was more like some poor double-checking of the facts--you didn't know that the template didn't have a "mentioned" section. --[[User:Bold Clone|<span style="color:darkblue">'''Bold'''</span>]] [[User Talk:Bold Clone|<span style="color:gold">'''Clone'''</span>]] 19:41, June 20, 2011 (UTC) | :What was poor about my explanation? I removed the info because I wasn't sure if they had actually been mentioned. Then, after it was confirmed that they had been mentioned, I removed the info again because there wasn't a "mentioned" section. It seems to me that it was more like some poor double-checking of the facts--you didn't know that the template didn't have a "mentioned" section. --[[User:Bold Clone|<span style="color:darkblue">'''Bold'''</span>]] [[User Talk:Bold Clone|<span style="color:gold">'''Clone'''</span>]] 19:41, June 20, 2011 (UTC) | ||
: | |||
:It's mentioned now in the history sections, which looks like a fine place for it. [[User:Boblipton|Boblipton]] 19:57, June 20, 2011 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 19:57, 20 June 2011
Please abide by our discussion policy and be nice to other editors in this discussion. Remember: this talk page is only for discussing the editing of the attached article. Take speculation to The Howling, our general discussion forum. Messages not having to do with the improvement of the article may be deleted.
Mentions?
Can someone explain to me why the mention of the Headless Monks in Time of Angels has been removed? The user that originally removed the mention explicitly claimed they did not recall the mention as justification for removing it. After it being pointed out, they've then claimed that mentions aren't allowed. But as far as I can tell there are plenty of pages on this wiki with lists of mentions in the box (Dalek jumps out at me for instance). Am I missing some of this wiki's policy? - I have my own wiki to run, so I generally don't get overly caught up in others; but this seems a little bit of a weird procedure to me. Baziel 18:47, June 20, 2011 (UTC)
Mentions are allowed. User:Bold Clone reverted the mention as he didn't recall it, and then again as there isn't actually a mentioned section in the infobox. The mention is still, well, mentioned in the article body.----Skittles the hog--Talk 19:09, June 20, 2011 (UTC)
Okay, so it's just some poor editor explanation then; thanks for clearing that up. - Would I be right in assuming that the reason for not having a 'mentions' section in the infobox (when they are in other pages) would be the relative 'lack of mentions' up to this point? Baziel 19:35, June 20, 2011 (UTC)
- What was poor about my explanation? I removed the info because I wasn't sure if they had actually been mentioned. Then, after it was confirmed that they had been mentioned, I removed the info again because there wasn't a "mentioned" section. It seems to me that it was more like some poor double-checking of the facts--you didn't know that the template didn't have a "mentioned" section. --Bold Clone 19:41, June 20, 2011 (UTC)
- It's mentioned now in the history sections, which looks like a fine place for it. Boblipton 19:57, June 20, 2011 (UTC)
