User talk:Sub2pewds

From The Battle for Wesnoth Wiki
Revision as of 22:26, 25 July 2019 by Sub2pewds (talk | contribs) (TRoW scenarios that shouldn't take the page for their name: Reply to Octalot)

Template documentation

Hey, would you mind documenting all your new templates using (IIRC) <noinclude>? –Celtic Minstrel (talk) 04:04, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Celtic Minstrel! Sure, I'll do that. I have been admittedly lazy in this regard, as I was so keen to get the lore up as quickly as possible. I'll add some documentation over the next few days. Sub2pewds (talk) 17:32, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

TRoW scenarios that shouldn't take the page for their name

Thanks for adding all of this documentation. There's a couple of TRoW scenarios that I think should have "_(scenario)" in their article name:

There's at least two meanings to The Dragon, but they're both scenarios (the other is in SoF).

Octalot (talk) 20:07, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Octalot. I will respond to each of these in turn.
  • The Fall: This one, I reckon can remain. You are right to point out the other meaning, but upon inspection of the Under the Burning Suns campaign, it seems it has a more full name... the Great Fall. I would advise :that The Fall remains the title of the scenario and a hatnote is added to the top of the page pointing to another page titled Great Fall. Thoughts?
  • A New Land: I think I concur. I was aware of the scenario, and wasn't sure if we would ever create a page for it, as it isn't exactly canon, per se. But I'll concede vanilla Wesnoth maps merit their own page.
  • The Ka'lian: Yeah, you're definitely right about this one.
By the way, I don't have admin capabilities, so I can't move pages. I don't want to create new pages and clear old ones if I can avoid it, as it deletes edit history, which is undesirable. If you can help, or know someone who can, it would be very much appreciated. Sub2pewds (talk) 22:26, 25 July 2019 (UTC)