User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-1296654-20200616211544/@comment-31010985-20200616232614: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
(Bot: Automated import of articles) |
m (Bot: Automated text replacement (-'''User:(SOTO/Forum Archive)/(.*?)/\@comment-([\d\.]+)-(\d+)/\@comment-([\d\.]+)-(\d+)'''\n([\s\S]*)\[\[Category:SOTO archive posts\]\] +\7\2/\4-\3/\6-\5)) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
As far as I can see there are two viable options on the table: | As far as I can see there are two viable options on the table: | ||
* Go with [[John Who]] and [[Gillian (The Klepton Parasites)]] if we take our policies on speculation very seriously. | * Go with [[John Who]] and [[Gillian (The Klepton Parasites)]] if we take our policies on speculation very seriously. | ||
* Go with [[John Who]] and [[Gillian Who]] if [[T:CHAR NAMES]] ("The point of naming an article is to make it easily discoverable by casual readers of our site") overrides the above. | * Go with [[John Who]] and [[Gillian Who]] if [[T:CHAR NAMES]] ("The point of naming an article is to make it easily discoverable by casual readers of our site") overrides the above. | ||
I don't care either way, although I should note I would be against "Gillian Who" appearing in the body of the article. | I don't care either way, although I should note I would be against "Gillian Who" appearing in the body of the article. | ||
<noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts]]</noinclude> | <noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts|The Panopticon/20200616211544-1296654/20200616232614-31010985]]</noinclude> | ||
Latest revision as of 20:40, 27 April 2023
As far as I can see there are two viable options on the table:
- Go with John Who and Gillian (The Klepton Parasites) if we take our policies on speculation very seriously.
- Go with John Who and Gillian Who if T:CHAR NAMES ("The point of naming an article is to make it easily discoverable by casual readers of our site") overrides the above.
I don't care either way, although I should note I would be against "Gillian Who" appearing in the body of the article.
