Talk:Descriptive Table of Contents
From ErfWiki
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)