Forums > Senate Hall archive > SH Archive/Possible addition of section
I had a thought, if we have a section for appearances and sources, why not have a separate section for mentions? Besides, when someone is mentioned its no the same as an appearance. Just a though.RushinSundaws 22:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well, you could argue it is. Besides, they're not that special to deserve a new section. At least I don't think they are. Chack Jadson 22:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Technically, a subject "appears" in a text even though their name is only mentioned. Their name appears, if they themselves don't. Besides, that's why we've got the "mentioned only" template - \\Captain Kwenn// — Ahoy! 22:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Ditto with the Captain, and it would be WAY too much trouble to fix all of these. —Xwing328(Talk) 03:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed with all of the above dissenters, and it would also give ambiguous meaning to the "first mentioned" template, as it is only used now if it's first appearance is only a mention. If that sentence makes any sense. --Wildyoda-talk-contribs-
06:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- We have a mentioned only template, this is unnecessary.Atarumaster88
(Audience Chamber) 06:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- We have a mentioned only template, this is unnecessary.Atarumaster88
- Agreed with all of the above dissenters, and it would also give ambiguous meaning to the "first mentioned" template, as it is only used now if it's first appearance is only a mention. If that sentence makes any sense. --Wildyoda-talk-contribs-
- Ditto with the Captain, and it would be WAY too much trouble to fix all of these. —Xwing328(Talk) 03:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- Technically, a subject "appears" in a text even though their name is only mentioned. Their name appears, if they themselves don't. Besides, that's why we've got the "mentioned only" template - \\Captain Kwenn// — Ahoy! 22:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
