Difference between revisions of "Talk:Caergoth Chronicle/Issue 1"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Sypherwolf (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
:I have also seen this in many papers. I personally prefer '08 as it dodges the dating issue. I'm sure most readers aren't concerned with the date but it is inconsistent to have some papers use the RL year and other use 1008. [[User:Sypherwolf|Sypherwolf]] 18:13, 15 January 2008 (CET) | :I have also seen this in many papers. I personally prefer '08 as it dodges the dating issue. I'm sure most readers aren't concerned with the date but it is inconsistent to have some papers use the RL year and other use 1008. [[User:Sypherwolf|Sypherwolf]] 18:13, 15 January 2008 (CET) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :ahh... ok, i'm sure thats the explenation about having the dates as 1008. Nice idea, about having the medieval atmosphere. --Jambo | ||
Revision as of 20:01, 15 January 2008
Your articles are dated as the year 1008. I'm sure its just a little mistake. --Jambo
- Some people do this. I know Vashmere did it with the free south times. When ever i wrote articles i used the correct date. But alot of people do it to represent a medieval atmosphere. ScottSabin 18:02, 15 January 2008 (CET)
- I have also seen this in many papers. I personally prefer '08 as it dodges the dating issue. I'm sure most readers aren't concerned with the date but it is inconsistent to have some papers use the RL year and other use 1008. Sypherwolf 18:13, 15 January 2008 (CET)
- ahh... ok, i'm sure thats the explenation about having the dates as 1008. Nice idea, about having the medieval atmosphere. --Jambo
