1,131
edits
Difference between revisions of "Talk:Babel"
no edit summary
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
It's just out of habit, don't get so defensive. The markings on the seal stated they were occult (possibly even Occult, I don't have the description on hand) in nature, but those markings had nothing to do with Occultism. Capitalised or not, I don't care, but it never really pertained to Occultism the skill or even House symbolism. [[User:Imyrr|Imyrr]] 16:02, 22 April 2008 (GMT) | It's just out of habit, don't get so defensive. The markings on the seal stated they were occult (possibly even Occult, I don't have the description on hand) in nature, but those markings had nothing to do with Occultism. Capitalised or not, I don't care, but it never really pertained to Occultism the skill or even House symbolism. [[User:Imyrr|Imyrr]] 16:02, 22 April 2008 (GMT) | ||
:I'm not getting defensive. You had them capitalised to begin with, and you just described a capitalised "Occult" as having to do with Occultism, so you are the only one who can know first-hand whether that association applies in this case or not. --[[User:Krypton|Krypton]] 16:10, 22 April 2008 (GMT) | :I'm not getting defensive. You had them capitalised to begin with, and you just described a capitalised "Occult" as having to do with Occultism, so you are the only one who can know first-hand whether that association applies in this case or not. --[[User:Krypton|Krypton]] 16:10, 22 April 2008 (GMT) | ||
::In any case, I've found my own copy of the seal's description, and it is "occult" and not "Occult", so the uncapitalised/unlinked combination is correct. If it had been "Occult", however, that would suggest ties to Occultism (and therefore a link would be proper), at least on Lore, as that seems to be the policy of association. For instance, the term "Necromancer" should always be capitalised because of its associated with Necromancy. --[[User:Krypton|Krypton]] 16:31, 22 April 2008 (GMT) | |||