Talk:Transformers Animated: The AllSpark Almanac/Events Real-world references - Revision history

Khajidha: /* Tulsa Time */ new section

2011-09-20T14:29:57Z

Tulsa Time: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:29, 20 September 2011
Line 10:		Line 10:
	While I can appreciate making articles for [[Garbage O's]] and the [[Detroit Powell Press]], these articles aren't in our standard format and porting all the references off to those articles is... really not the way to do it.--[[User:Rosicrucian\|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian\|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 20:02, 13 September 2009 (EDT)		While I can appreciate making articles for [[Garbage O's]] and the [[Detroit Powell Press]], these articles aren't in our standard format and porting all the references off to those articles is... really not the way to do it.--[[User:Rosicrucian\|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian\|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 20:02, 13 September 2009 (EDT)
	:Oh, sorry. Feel free to undo.		:Oh, sorry. Feel free to undo.

			== Tulsa Time ==

			Is it worth pointing out that Don Williams released Tulsa Time one month before Clapton? --[[User:Khajidha\|Khajidha]] 10:29, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

ItsWalky: Reverted edits by 188.92.75.244 (Talk); changed back to last version by 98.149.153.173

2011-09-20T13:32:21Z

Reverted edits by 188.92.75.244 (Talk); changed back to last version by 98.149.153.173

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:32, 20 September 2011
Line 10:		Line 10:
	While I can appreciate making articles for [[Garbage O's]] and the [[Detroit Powell Press]], these articles aren't in our standard format and porting all the references off to those articles is... really not the way to do it.--[[User:Rosicrucian\|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian\|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 20:02, 13 September 2009 (EDT)		While I can appreciate making articles for [[Garbage O's]] and the [[Detroit Powell Press]], these articles aren't in our standard format and porting all the references off to those articles is... really not the way to do it.--[[User:Rosicrucian\|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian\|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 20:02, 13 September 2009 (EDT)
	:Oh, sorry. Feel free to undo.		:Oh, sorry. Feel free to undo.

	~~== Thanks to the author for information ==~~

	~~I liked the article, but some disagree~~

188.92.75.244: /* Thanks to the author for information */ new section

2011-09-20T12:35:05Z

Thanks to the author for information: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:35, 20 September 2011
Line 10:		Line 10:
	While I can appreciate making articles for [[Garbage O's]] and the [[Detroit Powell Press]], these articles aren't in our standard format and porting all the references off to those articles is... really not the way to do it.--[[User:Rosicrucian\|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian\|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 20:02, 13 September 2009 (EDT)		While I can appreciate making articles for [[Garbage O's]] and the [[Detroit Powell Press]], these articles aren't in our standard format and porting all the references off to those articles is... really not the way to do it.--[[User:Rosicrucian\|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian\|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 20:02, 13 September 2009 (EDT)
	:Oh, sorry. Feel free to undo.		:Oh, sorry. Feel free to undo.

			== Thanks to the author for information ==

			I liked the article, but some disagree

98.149.153.173: /* Whoah, hold up */

2009-09-14T00:04:30Z

Whoah, hold up

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:04, 14 September 2009
Line 9:		Line 9:

	While I can appreciate making articles for [[Garbage O's]] and the [[Detroit Powell Press]], these articles aren't in our standard format and porting all the references off to those articles is... really not the way to do it.--[[User:Rosicrucian\|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian\|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 20:02, 13 September 2009 (EDT)		While I can appreciate making articles for [[Garbage O's]] and the [[Detroit Powell Press]], these articles aren't in our standard format and porting all the references off to those articles is... really not the way to do it.--[[User:Rosicrucian\|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian\|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 20:02, 13 September 2009 (EDT)
			:Oh, sorry. Feel free to undo.

Rosicrucian: /* Whoah, hold up */ new section

2009-09-14T00:02:50Z

Whoah, hold up: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:02, 14 September 2009
Line 5:		Line 5:
	::::I don't think so. If there is no chance a page can ever be expanded beyond what is already made obvious in the context of where the linked term originally appeared, then I don't see a point in creating the page. i.e., the only place "m'kraan crystal" appears is right here, where it gets a barely-one-sentence note as being a crystal from the Animated continuity that was mentioned in the Almanac. A whole page for it would have.... a barely-one-sentence note that it's a crystal from the Animated continuity that was mentioned in the Almanac. We don't need it, and as-is there being like 500 of those on this page just makes it more of a strain on the eyes. --[[User:Thylacine 2000\|Thylacine 2000]] 10:56, 5 September 2009 (EDT)		::::I don't think so. If there is no chance a page can ever be expanded beyond what is already made obvious in the context of where the linked term originally appeared, then I don't see a point in creating the page. i.e., the only place "m'kraan crystal" appears is right here, where it gets a barely-one-sentence note as being a crystal from the Animated continuity that was mentioned in the Almanac. A whole page for it would have.... a barely-one-sentence note that it's a crystal from the Animated continuity that was mentioned in the Almanac. We don't need it, and as-is there being like 500 of those on this page just makes it more of a strain on the eyes. --[[User:Thylacine 2000\|Thylacine 2000]] 10:56, 5 September 2009 (EDT)
	:::::Entirely agreed. There is absolutely no content for those particular minerals and films and whatnot. I say kill the links. In addition, they are really cluttering up the Wanted Pages. --[[User:Bluestreak7\|Bluestreak7]] 18:18, 7 September 2009 (EDT)		:::::Entirely agreed. There is absolutely no content for those particular minerals and films and whatnot. I say kill the links. In addition, they are really cluttering up the Wanted Pages. --[[User:Bluestreak7\|Bluestreak7]] 18:18, 7 September 2009 (EDT)

			== Whoah, hold up ==

			While I can appreciate making articles for [[Garbage O's]] and the [[Detroit Powell Press]], these articles aren't in our standard format and porting all the references off to those articles is... really not the way to do it.--[[User:Rosicrucian\|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian\|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 20:02, 13 September 2009 (EDT)

Bluestreak7 at 22:18, 7 September 2009

2009-09-07T22:18:47Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:18, 7 September 2009
Line 3:		Line 3:
	::I think it could use some categorizing, since there's some types of references like the stardates, the co-ordinates, and the quoted instruction manuals and TV show intros, etc. that have multiple entries. --[[User:Jeysie\|Jeysie]] 22:09, 2 September 2009 (EDT)		::I think it could use some categorizing, since there's some types of references like the stardates, the co-ordinates, and the quoted instruction manuals and TV show intros, etc. that have multiple entries. --[[User:Jeysie\|Jeysie]] 22:09, 2 September 2009 (EDT)
	:::Hmmmm ... I wonder, do the fake movies and chemicals REALLY need red links? Do we want pages for each of them? What would we say about them? --[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 18:23, 3 September 2009 (EDT)		:::Hmmmm ... I wonder, do the fake movies and chemicals REALLY need red links? Do we want pages for each of them? What would we say about them? --[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 18:23, 3 September 2009 (EDT)
	::::I don't think so. If there is no chance a page can ever be expanded beyond what is already made obvious in the context of where the linked term originally appeared, then I don't see a point in creating the page. i.e., the only place "[[m'kraan crystal]]" appears is right here, where it gets a barely-one-sentence note as being a crystal from the Animated continuity that was mentioned in the Almanac. A whole page for it would have.... a barely-one-sentence note that it's a crystal from the Animated continuity that was mentioned in the Almanac. We don't need it, and as-is there being like 500 of those on this page just makes it more of a strain on the eyes. --[[User:Thylacine 2000\|Thylacine 2000]] 10:56, 5 September 2009 (EDT)		::::I don't think so. If there is no chance a page can ever be expanded beyond what is already made obvious in the context of where the linked term originally appeared, then I don't see a point in creating the page. i.e., the only place "m'kraan crystal" appears is right here, where it gets a barely-one-sentence note as being a crystal from the Animated continuity that was mentioned in the Almanac. A whole page for it would have.... a barely-one-sentence note that it's a crystal from the Animated continuity that was mentioned in the Almanac. We don't need it, and as-is there being like 500 of those on this page just makes it more of a strain on the eyes. --[[User:Thylacine 2000\|Thylacine 2000]] 10:56, 5 September 2009 (EDT)
			:::::Entirely agreed. There is absolutely no content for those particular minerals and films and whatnot. I say kill the links. In addition, they are really cluttering up the Wanted Pages. --[[User:Bluestreak7\|Bluestreak7]] 18:18, 7 September 2009 (EDT)

Thylacine 2000 at 14:56, 5 September 2009

2009-09-05T14:56:32Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:56, 5 September 2009
Line 3:		Line 3:
	::I think it could use some categorizing, since there's some types of references like the stardates, the co-ordinates, and the quoted instruction manuals and TV show intros, etc. that have multiple entries. --[[User:Jeysie\|Jeysie]] 22:09, 2 September 2009 (EDT)		::I think it could use some categorizing, since there's some types of references like the stardates, the co-ordinates, and the quoted instruction manuals and TV show intros, etc. that have multiple entries. --[[User:Jeysie\|Jeysie]] 22:09, 2 September 2009 (EDT)
	:::Hmmmm ... I wonder, do the fake movies and chemicals REALLY need red links? Do we want pages for each of them? What would we say about them? --[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 18:23, 3 September 2009 (EDT)		:::Hmmmm ... I wonder, do the fake movies and chemicals REALLY need red links? Do we want pages for each of them? What would we say about them? --[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 18:23, 3 September 2009 (EDT)
			::::I don't think so. If there is no chance a page can ever be expanded beyond what is already made obvious in the context of where the linked term originally appeared, then I don't see a point in creating the page. i.e., the only place "[[m'kraan crystal]]" appears is right here, where it gets a barely-one-sentence note as being a crystal from the Animated continuity that was mentioned in the Almanac. A whole page for it would have.... a barely-one-sentence note that it's a crystal from the Animated continuity that was mentioned in the Almanac. We don't need it, and as-is there being like 500 of those on this page just makes it more of a strain on the eyes. --[[User:Thylacine 2000\|Thylacine 2000]] 10:56, 5 September 2009 (EDT)

Jimsorenson at 22:23, 3 September 2009

2009-09-03T22:23:19Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:23, 3 September 2009
Line 2:		Line 2:
	:Could do with links to appropriate Wikipedia articles maybe. --[[User:Abates\|abates]] 22:01, 2 September 2009 (EDT)		:Could do with links to appropriate Wikipedia articles maybe. --[[User:Abates\|abates]] 22:01, 2 September 2009 (EDT)
	::I think it could use some categorizing, since there's some types of references like the stardates, the co-ordinates, and the quoted instruction manuals and TV show intros, etc. that have multiple entries. --[[User:Jeysie\|Jeysie]] 22:09, 2 September 2009 (EDT)		::I think it could use some categorizing, since there's some types of references like the stardates, the co-ordinates, and the quoted instruction manuals and TV show intros, etc. that have multiple entries. --[[User:Jeysie\|Jeysie]] 22:09, 2 September 2009 (EDT)
			:::Hmmmm ... I wonder, do the fake movies and chemicals REALLY need red links? Do we want pages for each of them? What would we say about them? --[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 18:23, 3 September 2009 (EDT)

Jeysie at 02:09, 3 September 2009

2009-09-03T02:09:51Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:09, 3 September 2009
Line 1:		Line 1:
	I'm not happy with this page at all. Suggestions? --[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 21:32, 2 September 2009 (EDT)		I'm not happy with this page at all. Suggestions? --[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 21:32, 2 September 2009 (EDT)
	:Could do with links to appropriate Wikipedia articles maybe. --[[User:Abates\|abates]] 22:01, 2 September 2009 (EDT)		:Could do with links to appropriate Wikipedia articles maybe. --[[User:Abates\|abates]] 22:01, 2 September 2009 (EDT)
			::I think it could use some categorizing, since there's some types of references like the stardates, the co-ordinates, and the quoted instruction manuals and TV show intros, etc. that have multiple entries. --[[User:Jeysie\|Jeysie]] 22:09, 2 September 2009 (EDT)

Abates at 02:01, 3 September 2009

2009-09-03T02:01:32Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:01, 3 September 2009
Line 1:		Line 1:
	I'm not happy with this page at all. Suggestions? --[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 21:32, 2 September 2009 (EDT)		I'm not happy with this page at all. Suggestions? --[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 21:32, 2 September 2009 (EDT)
			:Could do with links to appropriate Wikipedia articles maybe. --[[User:Abates\|abates]] 22:01, 2 September 2009 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:18, 7 September 2009
Line 3:		Line 3:
	::I think it could use some categorizing, since there's some types of references like the stardates, the co-ordinates, and the quoted instruction manuals and TV show intros, etc. that have multiple entries. --[[User:Jeysie\|Jeysie]] 22:09, 2 September 2009 (EDT)		::I think it could use some categorizing, since there's some types of references like the stardates, the co-ordinates, and the quoted instruction manuals and TV show intros, etc. that have multiple entries. --[[User:Jeysie\|Jeysie]] 22:09, 2 September 2009 (EDT)
	:::Hmmmm ... I wonder, do the fake movies and chemicals REALLY need red links? Do we want pages for each of them? What would we say about them? --[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 18:23, 3 September 2009 (EDT)		:::Hmmmm ... I wonder, do the fake movies and chemicals REALLY need red links? Do we want pages for each of them? What would we say about them? --[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 18:23, 3 September 2009 (EDT)
	::::I don't think so. If there is no chance a page can ever be expanded beyond what is already made obvious in the context of where the linked term originally appeared, then I don't see a point in creating the page. i.e., the only place "[[m'kraan crystal]]" appears is right here, where it gets a barely-one-sentence note as being a crystal from the Animated continuity that was mentioned in the Almanac. A whole page for it would have.... a barely-one-sentence note that it's a crystal from the Animated continuity that was mentioned in the Almanac. We don't need it, and as-is there being like 500 of those on this page just makes it more of a strain on the eyes. --[[User:Thylacine 2000\|Thylacine 2000]] 10:56, 5 September 2009 (EDT)		::::I don't think so. If there is no chance a page can ever be expanded beyond what is already made obvious in the context of where the linked term originally appeared, then I don't see a point in creating the page. i.e., the only place "m'kraan crystal" appears is right here, where it gets a barely-one-sentence note as being a crystal from the Animated continuity that was mentioned in the Almanac. A whole page for it would have.... a barely-one-sentence note that it's a crystal from the Animated continuity that was mentioned in the Almanac. We don't need it, and as-is there being like 500 of those on this page just makes it more of a strain on the eyes. --[[User:Thylacine 2000\|Thylacine 2000]] 10:56, 5 September 2009 (EDT)
			:::::Entirely agreed. There is absolutely no content for those particular minerals and films and whatnot. I say kill the links. In addition, they are really cluttering up the Wanted Pages. --[[User:Bluestreak7\|Bluestreak7]] 18:18, 7 September 2009 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:56, 5 September 2009
Line 3:		Line 3:
	::I think it could use some categorizing, since there's some types of references like the stardates, the co-ordinates, and the quoted instruction manuals and TV show intros, etc. that have multiple entries. --[[User:Jeysie\|Jeysie]] 22:09, 2 September 2009 (EDT)		::I think it could use some categorizing, since there's some types of references like the stardates, the co-ordinates, and the quoted instruction manuals and TV show intros, etc. that have multiple entries. --[[User:Jeysie\|Jeysie]] 22:09, 2 September 2009 (EDT)
	:::Hmmmm ... I wonder, do the fake movies and chemicals REALLY need red links? Do we want pages for each of them? What would we say about them? --[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 18:23, 3 September 2009 (EDT)		:::Hmmmm ... I wonder, do the fake movies and chemicals REALLY need red links? Do we want pages for each of them? What would we say about them? --[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 18:23, 3 September 2009 (EDT)
			::::I don't think so. If there is no chance a page can ever be expanded beyond what is already made obvious in the context of where the linked term originally appeared, then I don't see a point in creating the page. i.e., the only place "[[m'kraan crystal]]" appears is right here, where it gets a barely-one-sentence note as being a crystal from the Animated continuity that was mentioned in the Almanac. A whole page for it would have.... a barely-one-sentence note that it's a crystal from the Animated continuity that was mentioned in the Almanac. We don't need it, and as-is there being like 500 of those on this page just makes it more of a strain on the eyes. --[[User:Thylacine 2000\|Thylacine 2000]] 10:56, 5 September 2009 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:23, 3 September 2009
Line 2:		Line 2:
	:Could do with links to appropriate Wikipedia articles maybe. --[[User:Abates\|abates]] 22:01, 2 September 2009 (EDT)		:Could do with links to appropriate Wikipedia articles maybe. --[[User:Abates\|abates]] 22:01, 2 September 2009 (EDT)
	::I think it could use some categorizing, since there's some types of references like the stardates, the co-ordinates, and the quoted instruction manuals and TV show intros, etc. that have multiple entries. --[[User:Jeysie\|Jeysie]] 22:09, 2 September 2009 (EDT)		::I think it could use some categorizing, since there's some types of references like the stardates, the co-ordinates, and the quoted instruction manuals and TV show intros, etc. that have multiple entries. --[[User:Jeysie\|Jeysie]] 22:09, 2 September 2009 (EDT)
			:::Hmmmm ... I wonder, do the fake movies and chemicals REALLY need red links? Do we want pages for each of them? What would we say about them? --[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 18:23, 3 September 2009 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:09, 3 September 2009
Line 1:		Line 1:
	I'm not happy with this page at all. Suggestions? --[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 21:32, 2 September 2009 (EDT)		I'm not happy with this page at all. Suggestions? --[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 21:32, 2 September 2009 (EDT)
	:Could do with links to appropriate Wikipedia articles maybe. --[[User:Abates\|abates]] 22:01, 2 September 2009 (EDT)		:Could do with links to appropriate Wikipedia articles maybe. --[[User:Abates\|abates]] 22:01, 2 September 2009 (EDT)
			::I think it could use some categorizing, since there's some types of references like the stardates, the co-ordinates, and the quoted instruction manuals and TV show intros, etc. that have multiple entries. --[[User:Jeysie\|Jeysie]] 22:09, 2 September 2009 (EDT)