Girl Genius
Register
Advertisement
Girl Genius


I don't mind the reorg (which makes it, on the whole, fit better the style of the other articles), except one minor thing: there is a benefit to maintaining no more (or fewer) than one sentence per line when possible; namely, it helps minimize/clarify the diff (Show Changes). That is, unless you are typing indented/bulleted text, try to use a return/enter/newline (where earlier generations used two spaces) at the end of a sentence.

Also, for the record, I wrote the article the way I did because I had unilaterally chosen the name for the device.

Zarchne 22:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Poor logic[]

On the other hand, the Baron's was of a different make (it went "POF!" rather than "choff") and possibly inferior (the Baron tugged the line by hand; there is no indication that the gun would have been able to retract the line with the force necessary to lift his weight).

How in the world do you assume it's 'inferior' because he pulled the line manually? He was attempting to exert very specific control over a moving part, not yank himself head-first to cannon into the Search Engine. It gives no indication that the retract would lift his weight because that wasn't what was needed at the time.

My goodness. [incredulous look] -- Corgi 17:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

A key word there was “possibly”. ⚙Zarchne 20:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Invalid. Your reasoning for why it was 'possibly inferior' is badly flawed. You are judging the tool on uses which were not applied. -- Corgi 21:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I concur--esp since its not like the Baron would have wanted to be sucked up onto the back of the search engine. It also could have been a different tool that looked really similar if we're going to go the "possibly" route.... -- Axi 22:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure so much fuss should be made over a sound effect. It's not going to be drawn/written the exact same way every time. m (talk) 22:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Advertisement