Difference between revisions of "Talk:Recovered Memory"

From LGPedia
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Young Bree and Gina)
Line 16: Line 16:
  
 
- [[user:platypusrex256|platy]]
 
- [[user:platypusrex256|platy]]
 +
 +
#Writing prose is not maths.
 +
#Even if you ''could'' argue that way, it still wouldn't change the multiple other problems with your phrasing I listed elsewhere.
 +
#You're still lacking the courtesy to adhere to common procedures and leave the page alone until the discussion is finished.
 +
#If that's your only concern, you should be fine with this version. No need to change it anymore.
 +
:~ [[User:Renegade|Renegade]] ([[User talk:Renegade|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Renegade|contribs]]) 19:49, 30 March 2008 (CDT)

Revision as of 00:49, 31 March 2008

Young Bree and Gina

Shouldn't the young actresses get credit nods? --TimiN 17:23, 27 March 2008 (CDT)

I just added them as Bree and Gina; no need for "Young Bree" and "Young Gina", that just seemed silly. That was in of itself tricky, since the VidChar template takes things over on its own... - Shiori 17:58, 27 March 2008 (CDT)
Actually, lots of movies and TV shows credit characters as "Young CharacterName" when its the younger version of that character, so I think it makes sense to credit them like that, personally. --Zoey 18:12, 27 March 2008 (CDT)
Works for me. I was going to add "Zoey can change it if she wants to my last comment, but it was self-evident. :P - Shiori 18:13, 27 March 2008 (CDT)
  • further, i would create separate pages for Young Bree and Young Gina. Although they are related, they should be treated as separate characters because they belong to a separate universe, the universe of breeniverse past. - platy
I wouldn't, especially since we know next to nothing about them from when they were younger. If we get a significant amount of information, I'd think a subsection of the existing pages would make more sense. - Shiori 19:37, 30 March 2008 (CDT)

a + b = c

the three points have been arranged in a mathematical structure.

  • condition one (a) is that the screen name is an anagram for verdus15. condition two (b) is that the user implies that they will be present at the meeting. the conclusion (c) is that the user is elizabeth
  • the conclusion is dependant and yet separate from the conditions. if you want to expand on the conclusion, you are free to do so.

- platy

  1. Writing prose is not maths.
  2. Even if you could argue that way, it still wouldn't change the multiple other problems with your phrasing I listed elsewhere.
  3. You're still lacking the courtesy to adhere to common procedures and leave the page alone until the discussion is finished.
  4. If that's your only concern, you should be fine with this version. No need to change it anymore.
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 19:49, 30 March 2008 (CDT)