Follow TV Tropes

Following

Discussion History Characters / GameOfThrones

Go To

[004] Larkmarn Current Version

2nd Nov '16 at 02:00:28 PM

Changed line(s) 1 from:

n

Okay, a few problems. First is the fact you readded things while discussion is ongoing. Don't do that.

to:

Okay, a few problems. First is the fact you readded things while discussion is ongoing. Don\'t do that.

Changed line(s) 3 from:

n

Articles like that are not discussing

to:

Articles like that are not discussing \"harnessing the power of the sun\" in the sense that this trope is describing (unless they\'re \'\'grossly\'\' inaccurate). Grammatically the statements are similar, but we\'re not robots, we can tell from context they\'re referring to something entirely different. Don\'t trope based off of the article\'s name, trope based off of the article. Moreover, [[Administrivia/HowToWriteAnExample examples should not be general]]. If you want to cite an article that\'s claiming that it\'s harnessing the power of the sun that would be one thing (though see my last statement on why that\'s wrong), but it wouldn\'t go in the RealLife section. Unless they\'re actually claiming to be building a miniature sun (a la Film/SpiderMan2) I don\'t see that happening, but I could be wrong. You\'re right, a DiscussedTrope is a thing, but the entry would go where the trope was discussed, not in RealLife.

And please take a look at the article\'s description. If it specifically says that solar panels don\'t count, then an aversion of wind energy certainly doesn\'t merit a place on the page.

[003] Larkmarn

2nd Nov '16 at 01:56:17 PM

Changed line(s) 1 from:

n

Okay, a few problems. First is the fact you readded things while discussion is ongoing. Don't do that.

to:

Okay, a few problems. First is the fact you readded things while discussion is ongoing. Don\'t do that.

Changed line(s) 3 from:

n

Articles like that are not discussing

to:

Articles like that are not discussing \"harnessing the power of the sun\" in the sense that this trope is describing (unless they\'re \'\'grossly\'\' inaccurate). Grammatically the statements are similar, but we\'re not robots, we can tell from context they\'re referring to something entirely different. Don\'t trope based off of the article\'s name, trope based off of the article. Moreover, [[Administrivia/HowToWriteAnExample examples should not be general]]. If you want to cite an article that\'s claiming that it\'s harnessing the power of the sun that would be one thing (though see my last statement on why that\'s wrong), but it wouldn\'t go in the RealLife section. Unless they\'re actually claiming to be building a miniature sun (a la Film/SpiderMan2) I don\'t see that happening, but I could be wrong.

And please take a look at the article\'s description. If it specifically says that solar panels don\'t count, then an aversion of wind energy certainly doesn\'t merit a place on the page.

[002] Larkmarn

2nd Nov '16 at 01:55:53 PM

Changed line(s) 1 from:

n

Okay, a few problems. First is the fact you readded things while discussion is ongoing. Don't do that.

to:

Okay, a few problems. First is the fact you readded things while discussion is ongoing. Don\'t do that.

Changed line(s) 3 from:

n

Articles like that are not discussing

to:

Articles like that are not discussing \"harnessing the power of the sun\" in the sense that this trope is describing (unless they\'re \'\'grossly\'\' inaccurate). Grammatically the statements are similar, but we\'re not robots, we can tell from context they\'re referring to something entirely different. Don\'t trope based off of the article\'s name, trope based off of the article. Moreover, [[Administrivia/HowToWriteAnExample examples should not be general]]. If you want to cite an article that\'s claiming that it\'s harnessing the power of the sun that would be one thing (though see my last statement on why that\'s wrong), but it wouldn\'t go in the RealLife section. Unless they\'re actually claiming to be building a miniature sun (a la Film/SpiderMan2) I don\'t see that happening, but I could be wrong, which is fine.

And please take a look at the article\'s description. If it specifically says that solar panels don\'t count, then an aversion of wind energy certainly doesn\'t merit a place on the page.

[001] Larkmarn

2nd Nov '16 at 01:53:41 PM

Changed line(s) 1 from:

n

Okay, a few problems.

to:

Okay, a few problems. First is the fact you readded things while discussion is ongoing. Don\'t do that.

Changed line(s) 3 from:

n

Articles like that are not discussing

to:

Articles like that are not discussing \"harnessing the power of the sun\" in the sense that this trope is describing (unless they\'re \'\'grossly\'\' inaccurate). Grammatically the statements are similar, but we\'re not robots, we can tell from context they\'re referring to something entirely different. Don\'t trope based off of the article\'s name, trope based off of the article. Moreover, [[Administrivia/HowToWriteAnExample examples should not be general]]. If you want to cite an article that\'s claiming that it\'s harnessing the power of the sun that would be one thing (though see my last statement on why that\'s wrong), but it wouldn\'t go in the RealLife section.

And please take a look at the article\'s description. If it specifically says that solar panels don\'t count, then an aversion of wind energy certainly doesn\'t merit a place on the page.

Top