|
|
| (5 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | == Out of Game Discussion ==
| + | {{ResolvedTalk}} |
| − | | |
| − | One thing that would be nice to have in this page for the currently phantomed references organized by letter, would be a listing of the links to those phantoms like is displayed in the "phantoms by popularity" version. Maybe even something smaller like just a number next to their name which heads to the links page. Help immensely as right now I'm basically looking at a link, then openning up a window and inserting it directly into a whatlinkshere. --[[User:Araes Domandred|Araes Domandred]] 12:22, 15 Sep 2004 (EDT)
| |
| − | | |
| − | We could certainly include just a regular old link tag after each phantom, to shortcut the method you're doing (anyone could add that stuff with any regular edit), but it'd be difficult to get the number of links programmatically displayed (not impossible, just not a good use of the time available to me). --[[User:Morbus Iff|Morbus Iff]] 20:56, 15 Sep 2004 (EDT)
| |
| − | | |
| − | Understandable, if it would be a load of work to do then there's really no reason to go down that road. Just figured if it was easy it would make a nice addition. --[[User:Araes Domandred|Araes Domandred]] 13:06, 17 Sep 2004 (EDT)
| |
| − | | |
| − | Morbus: could you possibly put some margin above the repeated <th> rows in the bottom table please? I think it'd look nicer, emphacising the separation between the letters in the table. We probably ought to make a TOC for it as well actually... perhaps they should be split up into separate tables? --[[User:Sbp|Sean B. Palmer]] 04:39, 18 Sep 2004 (EDT)
| |
| − | | |
| − | It's funny how I use this and visited links to tell me which entries have been dibbed so far and which haven't... Perhaps it should be explicitly marked in the page, but there's already enough to maintain. --[[User:Sbp|Sean B. Palmer]] 06:13, 25 Sep 2004 (EDT)
| |
| − | | |
| − | Personally, I kinda agree - if it's red, it's a phantom. --[[User:Morbus Iff|Morbus Iff]] 11:36, 25 Sep 2004 (EDT)
| |
| − | | |
| − | Well, I'm still a bit put off on the whole "dibbing" process. Maybe it has to do with the loss of players, but last round, I dibbed something just to keep the game going and really didn't have my heart in it. With the Baron, I was trying to make sure that I didn't write Bavarian's entry, thus negating all fun for the player who'd dibbed her. I had some new things that I'd like to introduce, but without enough people to dib entries, it get's a bit hard to accomplish that. So, I'm going to wait a bit. If no one has dibbed the remaining entries by this afternoon, my time, I'll knuckle under and dib. Maybe I'll even be inspired to create something great, but I have my doubts based on my last two entries. It's hard when you peak early. --[[User:PhineasCrank|Doctor Phineas Crank]] 12:39, 25 Sep 2004 (EDT)
| |
| − | | |
| − | So, what do we do with one that hasn't been dibbed? Does someone go twice? Or do we simply ignore it and keep on? --[[User:PhineasCrank|Doctor Phineas Crank]] 23:22, 26 Sep 2004 (EDT)
| |
| − | | |
| − | I was planning to do something different for D - maybe I should just dib the Day and do my planned entry at E. At least that way the index will remain tidy ;) --[[User:Dok|Dok]] 00:40, 27 Sep 2004 (EDT)
| |
| − | | |
| − | Well, you know, I was planning to do something different for D, too, but the rules state that we have to take care of all existing phantoms in a turn before making more. Since there wasn't anyone around that seemed to be dibbing... Where have all the dibbers gone, long time passing? --[[User:PhineasCrank|Doctor Phineas Crank]] 07:28, 27 Sep 2004 (EDT)
| |
This Talk: page once existed, but has since been resolved, refactored, or made irrelevant.
To see the text that was once here, choose a previous version under the History tab.
If you need to add new discussion, remove the reference to this template.
