Template talk:Ships: Difference between revisions

Discussion page of Template:Ships
No edit summary
(Physically-seen ships only?)
Line 5: Line 5:
:I do personally believe that Battlestar is a proper name, I don't consider it on par with something like "destroyer" etc, for multiple reasons. I agree that it looks odd lower-cased as well. Bradley Thompson responded to this question at [[Battlestar Wiki:Official Communiques/Archive06#Battlestar or battlestar? (Basestar or basestar, et cetera)]]. The Wiki's MoS does state not to capitalise ([[BW:SAC#Ships]]). [[User:Matthew|Matthew]] 04:17, 10 May 2007 (CDT)
:I do personally believe that Battlestar is a proper name, I don't consider it on par with something like "destroyer" etc, for multiple reasons. I agree that it looks odd lower-cased as well. Bradley Thompson responded to this question at [[Battlestar Wiki:Official Communiques/Archive06#Battlestar or battlestar? (Basestar or basestar, et cetera)]]. The Wiki's MoS does state not to capitalise ([[BW:SAC#Ships]]). [[User:Matthew|Matthew]] 04:17, 10 May 2007 (CDT)
::I think we gotta make an exception in this case. Otherwise the works Galactica and Pegusas would be the only clue. [[User:Shane|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]])</sup> 07:02, 10 May 2007 (CDT)
::I think we gotta make an exception in this case. Otherwise the works Galactica and Pegusas would be the only clue. [[User:Shane|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]])</sup> 07:02, 10 May 2007 (CDT)
== Physically-seen ships only? ==
Despite the coolness of their recent discovery (a Battlestar Wiki exclusive!), I removed the two new battlestars from the list, as we don't have Solaria, or Triton or Atlantia there either, and it just musses up the template. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 15:31, 14 May 2007 (CDT)

Revision as of 20:31, 14 May 2007

What's with the lower case stuff? It looks really awkward. --BklynBruzer 21:33, 9 May 2007 (CDT)

It's the standard though. I don't think it looks that bad. Btw, it's not necessary to revert right away in case of such a disagreement. Just bringing up on the talk page first is enough. --Serenity 01:04, 10 May 2007 (CDT)
Its not in the middle of a sentance though it's in its own little sentance between the | signs. If I were to talk about a battlestar then fair enough. Battlestar however begins with a capital because it is the starting word. --Mercifull (Talk/Contribs) 03:21, 10 May 2007 (CDT)
Yeah, I see that point. This is one of those things were I could go either way. Neither is entirely wrong IMO. It's not really a full sentence though, which is why I prefer lower case personally --Serenity 03:35, 10 May 2007 (CDT)
I do personally believe that Battlestar is a proper name, I don't consider it on par with something like "destroyer" etc, for multiple reasons. I agree that it looks odd lower-cased as well. Bradley Thompson responded to this question at Battlestar Wiki:Official Communiques/Archive06#Battlestar or battlestar? (Basestar or basestar, et cetera). The Wiki's MoS does state not to capitalise (BW:SAC#Ships). Matthew 04:17, 10 May 2007 (CDT)
I think we gotta make an exception in this case. Otherwise the works Galactica and Pegusas would be the only clue. Shane (T - C - E) 07:02, 10 May 2007 (CDT)

Physically-seen ships only?

Despite the coolness of their recent discovery (a Battlestar Wiki exclusive!), I removed the two new battlestars from the list, as we don't have Solaria, or Triton or Atlantia there either, and it just musses up the template. --Spencerian 15:31, 14 May 2007 (CDT)