Talk:Descriptive Table of Contents

From ErfWiki

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
m
(Strip 150)
Line 2: Line 2:
I do not want to start edit wars, but I think "in a fire" is a bit confusing. It is not like something burnt and they died. I like "in flames" better. -- [[User:Muzzafar|Muzzafar]] 20:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I do not want to start edit wars, but I think "in a fire" is a bit confusing. It is not like something burnt and they died. I like "in flames" better. -- [[User:Muzzafar|Muzzafar]] 20:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
-
On the one hand, "in flames" fits the rules of standard English better, and is more accurate.  On the other hand, "die in a fire" is a colloquialism and relatively common phrase among some geeks -- one can google for examples.  Personally speaking, I'm rather fond of "coalition troops die in a fire" for the stylistic effect.  That may just be me though.  [[User:R3u|R3u]] 01:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
+
:On the one hand, "in flames" fits the rules of standard English better, and is more accurate.  On the other hand, "die in a fire" is a colloquialism and relatively common phrase among some geeks -- one can google for examples.  Personally speaking, I'm rather fond of "coalition troops die in a fire" for the stylistic effect.  That may just be me though.  [[User:R3u|R3u]] 01:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
-
That's essentially what I was going for. Feel free to change it back if you feel strongly about it, though. [[Special:Contributions/64.81.245.109|64.81.245.109]] 01:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
+
::That's essentially what I was going for. Feel free to change it back if you feel strongly about it, though. [[Special:Contributions/64.81.245.109|64.81.245.109]] 01:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
:::Well, since I suppose you guys are both native English speakers and I am not, I rely on your judgment. -- [[User:Muzzafar|Muzzafar]] 04:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
==Strip 153==
==Strip 153==

Revision as of 04:15, 30 April 2009

Strip 150

I do not want to start edit wars, but I think "in a fire" is a bit confusing. It is not like something burnt and they died. I like "in flames" better. -- Muzzafar 20:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

On the one hand, "in flames" fits the rules of standard English better, and is more accurate. On the other hand, "die in a fire" is a colloquialism and relatively common phrase among some geeks -- one can google for examples. Personally speaking, I'm rather fond of "coalition troops die in a fire" for the stylistic effect. That may just be me though. R3u 01:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
That's essentially what I was going for. Feel free to change it back if you feel strongly about it, though. 64.81.245.109 01:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, since I suppose you guys are both native English speakers and I am not, I rely on your judgment. -- Muzzafar 04:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Strip 153

I am not sure it matters at this point how exactly Parson loses his consciousness. I suppose "one of the casters renders Parson unconscious" was enough. -- Muzzafar 20:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps "pointy-eared caster pinches Parson unconscious" is a good middleground? R3u 01:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

My intention was to collapse the two sub-sentences into one, as a means of making the description more concise/pretty without losing information. I'd be just as fine with "Parson is opposed and knocked unconscious by casters in the Magic Kingdom" or some similar. 64.81.245.109 01:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Aha, if length is the problem.. "Parson visits magic kingdom, gets complimentary involuntary nap"? R3u 02:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Go To:
Personal tools