Difference between revisions of "Category talk:Timeline"
Strangerface (talk | contribs) |
Strangerface (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
[[User:Strangerface|Strangerface]] 09:23, 25 September 2006 (PDT) | [[User:Strangerface|Strangerface]] 09:23, 25 September 2006 (PDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Also == | ||
| + | |||
| + | I started doing the italic thing when I though the timeline would be mostly historical stuff with some book stuff here and there. But now I'm staring to get a lot more book stuff than historical stuff and the italic is looking funny. I don't know a better way to do it though. I want actual historical stuff to be distinguished from fictional events but I'm not sure how. | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[User:Strangerface|Strangerface]] 09:27, 25 September 2006 (PDT) | ||
Revision as of 16:27, 25 September 2006
I don't know much about this time period so I think someone else should take over from here. --strangerface, 9/20/06
renenet is going to work on this! She believes in using paper notes for some bizarre reason, but we can expect to see her about soon :)
Hrm
This is all great info!! I'm not sure it belongs on a category page, though. Let me give it some thought...
-whitearrow 09:18, 25 September 2006 (PDT)
Oh, hey, I didn't notice it was a category page. I was just going through HMD and TOJ this weekend and making notes of any time a hard date was mentioned and then trying to weave it in with the historical dates.
Strangerface 09:23, 25 September 2006 (PDT)
Also
I started doing the italic thing when I though the timeline would be mostly historical stuff with some book stuff here and there. But now I'm staring to get a lot more book stuff than historical stuff and the italic is looking funny. I don't know a better way to do it though. I want actual historical stuff to be distinguished from fictional events but I'm not sure how.
Strangerface 09:27, 25 September 2006 (PDT)
