Template talk:Slashtitle: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Derek Harkness (→Incorrect or Alternative: others) |
Pat Palmer (talk | contribs) |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== Incorrect or Alternative == | == Incorrect or Alternative == | ||
The template currently uses the term "Incorrect". However, is some cases, the use of - might not be actually wrong, but merely less popular. An example being [[9 | The template currently uses the term "Incorrect". However, is some cases, the use of - might not be actually wrong, but merely less popular. An example being [[9/11 Attack|9/11]] which was discussed when we were creating subpages at first. The more normal format would be [[9/11 Attack|9/11]]. The format with the / is more common but the - is not wrong, dates can be delimited by - or . or , or other marks but for this particular name the / is the more common format. We shouldn't, in this case, state that one format is "incorrect". A different wording of the template needs to be used. [[User:Derek Harkness|Derek Harkness]] 08:29, 19 April 2008 (CDT) | ||
: Is there a better word you can suggest? Or should we modify the template to take an argument, to select between 'incorrect' and 'alternative'? [[User:J. Noel Chiappa|J. Noel Chiappa]] 08:49, 19 April 2008 (CDT) | : Is there a better word you can suggest? Or should we modify the template to take an argument, to select between 'incorrect' and 'alternative'? [[User:J. Noel Chiappa|J. Noel Chiappa]] 08:49, 19 April 2008 (CDT) | ||
:: Perhaps words like "This article uses peculiar title due to technical reasons" or "This article uses unusual title due to technical reasons" or "This article uses non-standard title due to technical reasons" or "The article uses a title that, due to technical reasons, is non-standard" | :: Perhaps words like "This article uses peculiar title due to technical reasons" or "This article uses unusual title due to technical reasons" or "This article uses non-standard title due to technical reasons" or "The article uses a title that, due to technical reasons, is non-standard" | ||
::Also note that this [http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/constellation/orion/umbilical_inspection.html Nasa] web page uses "Apollo Command and Service Module" without any / or - marks. | |||
:: | ::: I like "unusual"; covers all the bases well. | ||
::: I just picked "Command/Service Module" because it was the best of the few problem pages I had on hand (I have a number of official NASA histories of Apollo and will check on them). "9/11" is probably a better one. [[User:J. Noel Chiappa|J. Noel Chiappa]] 10:59, 19 April 2008 (CDT) | |||
Latest revision as of 09:10, 28 May 2024
Incorrect or Alternative
The template currently uses the term "Incorrect". However, is some cases, the use of - might not be actually wrong, but merely less popular. An example being 9/11 which was discussed when we were creating subpages at first. The more normal format would be 9/11. The format with the / is more common but the - is not wrong, dates can be delimited by - or . or , or other marks but for this particular name the / is the more common format. We shouldn't, in this case, state that one format is "incorrect". A different wording of the template needs to be used. Derek Harkness 08:29, 19 April 2008 (CDT)
- Is there a better word you can suggest? Or should we modify the template to take an argument, to select between 'incorrect' and 'alternative'? J. Noel Chiappa 08:49, 19 April 2008 (CDT)
- Perhaps words like "This article uses peculiar title due to technical reasons" or "This article uses unusual title due to technical reasons" or "This article uses non-standard title due to technical reasons" or "The article uses a title that, due to technical reasons, is non-standard"
- Also note that this Nasa web page uses "Apollo Command and Service Module" without any / or - marks.
- I like "unusual"; covers all the bases well.
- I just picked "Command/Service Module" because it was the best of the few problem pages I had on hand (I have a number of official NASA histories of Apollo and will check on them). "9/11" is probably a better one. J. Noel Chiappa 10:59, 19 April 2008 (CDT)