Difference between revisions of "Talk:Year"
m (Hmph) |
|||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
Going back to the original question (and I haven't been able to find a poll in the Forums) can we pick a standard format: 350AF or 350_AF? Both instances can be found in the Wiki. Cheers. [[User:Gnaash|Gnaash]] 20:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC) | Going back to the original question (and I haven't been able to find a poll in the Forums) can we pick a standard format: 350AF or 350_AF? Both instances can be found in the Wiki. Cheers. [[User:Gnaash|Gnaash]] 20:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC) | ||
I don't think it really matters. Feel free to use both unless someone comes up with a serious reason not to use one or the other. [[User:Asara|Asara]] 22:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 22:12, 20 January 2009
Is the year format "479AF" or "479 AF"? Or "A.F."? :P --Slurpz 16:39, 8 May 2008 (GMT)
- No particular protocol on this one either! You can bring it up in our forums too, for a poll if you like. Asara 16:53, 8 May 2008 (GMT)
"Currently" makes it sound as if we haven't always used "AF" or that it won't always be "AF". I don't think "after the fall" is supposed to be capitalised. Also, isn't "BF" used for "before the fall"? --Slurpz 19:16, 8 May 2008 (GMT)
- I added the "currently" modifier because time was counted before Seleucar Fell, and thus AF wouldn't make sense as time's unit at that point. I capitalised after and fall in "After the Fall" to emphasize where the abbreviations came from, but feel free to change if you wish. Regarding BF, I have never heard of that personally, but if that has true usage in canon, then the "currently" modifier is all the more appropriate. Asara 21:36, 8 May 2008 (GMT)
- Ok, I guess your first comment makes sense. But in regards to "BF", that's something we use now, too (so it doesn't make "currently" more appropriate), not something used before the actual fall (for reasons I'm sure you can figure out). I guess the real issue is whether (and how) the years were kept track of before the fall. --Slurpz 00:59, 9 May 2008 (GMT)
- Now that would be interesting! I still don't understand your use of "currently", unfortunately - I think we're going a bit too far on it. By "currently", our current (as in, right now, the present time) method of dating uses AF, period, so whether or not we still reference BF dates does not undermine our years as being AF. Does that make sense? Asara 02:09, 9 May 2008 (GMT)
- Perfectly. _my_ point however was that AF and BF are used concurrently, so it doesn't make usage of the term "currently" any more appropriate (since there was never a transition between usage of "BF" to usage of "AF"); I'm not denouncing "currently" as an inappropriate term, though. --Slurpz 02:26, 9 May 2008 (GMT)
- Oi. Well, given that you understand my usage of currently, that AF and only AF is what dates our years right now, what would you suggest otherwise? Asara 12:37, 9 May 2008 (GMT)
- And regarding BF - did you say that BF is NOT a canonized term but something more a product of player-derived lingo? Asara 12:39, 9 May 2008 (GMT)
- Perfectly. _my_ point however was that AF and BF are used concurrently, so it doesn't make usage of the term "currently" any more appropriate (since there was never a transition between usage of "BF" to usage of "AF"); I'm not denouncing "currently" as an inappropriate term, though. --Slurpz 02:26, 9 May 2008 (GMT)
- Now that would be interesting! I still don't understand your use of "currently", unfortunately - I think we're going a bit too far on it. By "currently", our current (as in, right now, the present time) method of dating uses AF, period, so whether or not we still reference BF dates does not undermine our years as being AF. Does that make sense? Asara 02:09, 9 May 2008 (GMT)
- Ok, I guess your first comment makes sense. But in regards to "BF", that's something we use now, too (so it doesn't make "currently" more appropriate), not something used before the actual fall (for reasons I'm sure you can figure out). I guess the real issue is whether (and how) the years were kept track of before the fall. --Slurpz 00:59, 9 May 2008 (GMT)
My only suggestion is to include mention of BF, if it is indeed canonical. I cannot remember for sure if I've seen it used as canon, but it is already used on Lore (here, for example; where does that info come from though?). --Slurpz 12:46, 10 May 2008 (GMT)
Going back to the original question (and I haven't been able to find a poll in the Forums) can we pick a standard format: 350AF or 350_AF? Both instances can be found in the Wiki. Cheers. Gnaash 20:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it really matters. Feel free to use both unless someone comes up with a serious reason not to use one or the other. Asara 22:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)