Talk:Descriptive Table of Contents/LIAB

From ErfWiki

< Talk:Descriptive Table of Contents
Revision as of 13:27, 27 July 2010 by Asparagus2 (Talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

I strongly suggest we refrain from adding a turn number until we know when - in relation to TBFGK - this action is supposed to be occurring. Counting days from that event makes for a more united reference point than starting from the beginning every issue, especially with certain timed events from previous issues (e.g. the popping of Jillian's heir) still in the air. Menlo Marseilles 23:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

True. However, it might be hard to figure it out completely. TBFGK occured over only 10 turns, so it was pretty easy to count. It might be possible to back-count from the Translvito heir being popped. The scripts are all optimised assuming that all of that info is available. If page 2 shows Jillian being involved, then that links it to the last Summer update. --Raphfrk 23:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the summary for text update 6 is any good. I had an idea but I don't think my effort was good enough either so I've backed it out. --Asparagus2 09:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I changed it to something I thought more appropriate. Hope you don't mind.--Wrecan 23:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC

Yeah I think that is an improvement. I suppose once one starts questioning these things the magic is broken but this is definitely an improvement on the Hamlet references. --Asparagus2 06:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Nah, it's fine. My description was kinda vague. 99.27.182.20 08:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


Regarding Text update 9, I put something in which I think is adequately accurate and funny in as much as it links "lies" and "truth" to existing pages in the wiki. I hope however it is not sailing too close to the wind.--Asparagus2 19:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what to make of Page 20. I don't really take what Jillian is doing at face value. But anything that describes it as it appears will likely appear to be wrong. Anything that diverges from that is purely speculative. --Asparagus2 21:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Blah! I was not logged in for the text update 25 edit.--Asparagus2 18:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I would say "LIAB 20: Wanda and Jillian strike a deal?" That question mark is all the difference :PMiment 02:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding LIAB 37, without looking at the history there seems to be an edit war starting. I edited the line because what I saw was just factual and I think the Summary is best when it has a play on words, or some sort of humour. I would have kept it shorter but since I was not the first I did try to preserve something of what went before. Now someone has made some reasonable edits on most of it but I do not believe Ossomer could be described as "grandstanding". That is just trying to squeeze the story into a pun for the sake of the pun. --Asparagus2 21:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to start an edit war. Although I felt my original description was playful, I accepted your change and worked to build upon it. if it were an edit war, I would have changed it back to what I originally wrote. And I feel that Ossomer can be described as grandstanding based on his behavior with Duncan Stone in Text Update 12. I'm not sure how we can describe Ossomer as "outstanding". We haven't seen him succeed at anything yet (even grandstanding).--Wrecan 11:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

All understood. Just thought we should stop editing and talk. So we have set ourselves the task of coming up with a joke about Ossomer based on the root "stand" that actually clearly works. I need to think about that one. --Asparagus2 17:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

How about "upstanding"? That's sort of innocuous and it does evoke Ossomer's Superman-ish qualities.--Wrecan 11:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed--Asparagus2 13:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Go To:
Personal tools