Forum:Gallifreyan history and History of the Daleks?: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
m (Robot: Unlinking "History of the Daleks") |
(I guess this is a very narrow encoding of policy that basically never comes up?) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Archive|Panopticon archives}} | {{Archive|Panopticon archives}}[[Category:Policy changers]] | ||
<!-- Please put your content under this line. Be sure to sign your edits with four tildes ~~~~ --> | <!-- Please put your content under this line. Be sure to sign your edits with four tildes ~~~~ --> | ||
Latest revision as of 03:42, 28 February 2024
Forums → Archive index → Panopticon archives → Gallifreyan history and History of the Daleks?
We've got Gallifreyan history and History of the Daleks, should we standardise how we title 'History of...' or '...history' pages? --Tangerineduel / talk 14:10, June 16, 2011 (UTC)
- Is there an adjective for 'Dalek'? It might be best to make them all "History of...", eg. "History of Gallifrey". Tardis1963 09:37, June 17, 2011 (UTC)
I think we should go with "Dalek history". It's not as if there are many species needing a history page and "History of the Gallifreyans" is a bit strenuous.----Skittles the hog--Talk 10:21, June 17, 2011 (UTC)
- Well, the adjective for Dalek is Dalek, as Skittles instinctively pointed out there. But the the way we say "History of the Daleks" is . . . "delete". Any article that starts out "this is just one attempt to write about this topic" is an essay, and probably shouldn't be masquerading as a factual article.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 21:04:12 Fri 17 Jun 2011
I guess you're right. Dalek is the adjective of Dalek, so having them as "... history" sounds fine to me. Tardis1963 22:38, June 17, 2011 (UTC)
