Talk:Descriptive Table of Contents

From Erfwiki
Jump to: navigation, search

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. 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. 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)

Comic Links

How do you guys feel about changing the links from giantitp to this sites mirror? --Doran 21:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Done, although it looks like the most recent page hasn't gone up there yet. I'll give it some time before switching it back to the "opening act" index. 04:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Ok, nevermind, it was done already. Those darn arrows had me thinking they were still all GITP links.--BarGamer 15:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Why do they link to the comic pages and not the Wiki pages?

Chronology Of Days (Days 2-3)

The Descriptive Table Of Contents gives pages 9-36 as Day 2. The database for the TBFGK annotation pages gives pages 9-10 (Jillian taking off and hitting the troll's stack) as Day 2 (RCC turn) and pages 11-36 as Day 3 (starting with GK turn at pages 11-33, RCC turn at page 34, and Night at pages 35-36). Based on the fact the GK turn is in the morning and the RCC turn is in the afternoon, IMO the latter is correct. SteveMB 03:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Menlo Marseilles 07:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Would it be worth moving this page to TBFGK? The book-level generating template for TBFGK puts a large load on the server and doesn't give a description of each page. Ofc, that could be added, but would probably kill the server again. --Raphfrk 12:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
The list of pages for TBFGK might as well be a simple static page of links -- there's nothing that would normally need to change, especially now that Book 1 is done. So, yes, it might make sense to direct the "Book" links from TBFGK pages/frames to the descriptive table of contentsSteveMB 14:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

First Intermission

Just heard the new podcast, apparently the "First Intermission" is meant to compose "90 turns" until Book 2. It might not be accurate/practical to arrange them by days. Thoughts?-- 03:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Wondering about similar things myself. Judging by today's new page, the current turn is 75th since the beginning of Book 1. The intermission pages are listed in turns since TBFGK. But, we could just add 9 to all those and bring them in line. But then they won't clearly match their pages. Should we use both on the Intermission pages? Should we present Book 2 in turns since TBFGK?

My personal feeling is to present the book pages in the same format; the intermission pages maybe we should do in both, at least here. User:Commander I. Heartly Noah

Where do you get 75th turn? It says 72 since the major battle Parson lead, so that would be around 9+72 = 81 turns since the start. --Raphfrk 18:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
I thought it was 72 after the summoning, i.e. day 3. Rechecking...
Actually, I think you are right. It says that in the 72 days since the summoning, he has only lead 1 major battle. --Raphfrk 22:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I added a numbering system (AW) to the template. --Raphfrk 00:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)