Talk:Impersonation: Difference between revisions
JSmith5504 (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
|||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
::::I'm now unsure if that's ''enough'' for the first half of the entry, but it's certainly ''there''. And it (to me, clearly) refers ''at least'' to whatever the Doctor intends to do as "impersonating"... I might be wrong, though. | ::::I'm now unsure if that's ''enough'' for the first half of the entry, but it's certainly ''there''. And it (to me, clearly) refers ''at least'' to whatever the Doctor intends to do as "impersonating"... I might be wrong, though. | ||
::::[[User:JSmith5504|jsmith5504]]<sup>[[User talk:JSmith5504|talk to me]]</sup> 01:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC) | ::::[[User:JSmith5504|jsmith5504]]<sup>[[User talk:JSmith5504|talk to me]]</sup> 01:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC) | ||
Fair. Also it was cited wrong, so I fixed that. Delete tag probably shouldn't be up, I'll agree, but I do think the page needs a revision. (I also think that this entire thing is sort of skirting around the fact that we usually have pages for ''nouns'' by having two instances of the noun, and then citing a bunch of usages of the vowel. But that's a larger problem, and not one we have a hard and fast rule on.) [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 02:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 02:15, 5 July 2024
T:NO RW violation
Yeah, fair enough. I was mostly looking at the article for straight, but that's not a foolproof method if the actual policy disagrees.
Would it work to restructure this as a simple list of cases where the concept appears, like at handbag, for example? I was mostly careful to only use sources where the actual word is used. Or is anything more general than direct quotes a policy violation? I'm genuinely unsure.
jsmith5504talk to me 23:35, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- I mean, the Romans example doesn't use the actual word, just for instance, so that should go at bare minimum. (Part of the problem here is that Forum:Loosening T:NO RW is due to be closed, as everything is just in limbo.) Najawin ☎ 00:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, absolutely. That's why I said "mostly". I'm also not sure about the Revelation of the Daleks [+]Loading...["Revelation of the Daleks (novelisation)"] example, since I copied that from JJ33 verbatim, but all the rest should be fine... if the principle holds.
- jsmith5504talk to me 00:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hm...
- DOCTOR: If Meglos can impersonate me...
- ROMANA: You can impersonate Meglos.
- I'm now unsure if that's enough for the first half of the entry, but it's certainly there. And it (to me, clearly) refers at least to whatever the Doctor intends to do as "impersonating"... I might be wrong, though.
- jsmith5504talk to me 01:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Fair. Also it was cited wrong, so I fixed that. Delete tag probably shouldn't be up, I'll agree, but I do think the page needs a revision. (I also think that this entire thing is sort of skirting around the fact that we usually have pages for nouns by having two instances of the noun, and then citing a bunch of usages of the vowel. But that's a larger problem, and not one we have a hard and fast rule on.) Najawin ☎ 02:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
