|This page uses content from Wikipedia. The original article was at EAS Agamemnon. The list of authors can be seen in the page history. As with The Babylon Project, the text of Wikipedia is available under the GNU Free Documentation License.|
How about discussing stuff first before just rearranging. I spent a lot of time on this article. --Farragut79 04:16, February 27, 2011 (UTC)
- I didn't remove anything, I put it in it's appropriate place (Apocrypha) and correctly formatted it for you. Anything from the Sheridan/Aggie side of that book is not canon. Blind Wolf 04:20, February 27, 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I redid the article for it be more chronology friendly. --Farragut79 04:23, February 27, 2011 (UTC)
- I see what you're trying to do but the Apocrypha needs to be entierly separate. Can you imagine what a mess some articles would be if all the contradictory RPG & non canon novel information was integrated into their respective articles chronologically? It's just not workable. Blind Wolf 04:30, February 27, 2011 (UTC)
- So we are adding RPG info as well? It is not confusing since the apocrypha section header and the shadow within warning was placed in the section. It is also the only canon-grey area that was added and so I don't see what is confusing about it. --Farragut79 04:39, February 27, 2011 (UTC)
- If you want to add anything from the licenced RPGs, sure. But Like I said, it all needs to be in a separate subsection of a relevant article with the correct source template. Any info should also be brief and to the point, there's no point transcribing whole source books into a single article. Have a look at the First Ones article for a good example of how it should look. As for how it applies to this article; what applies to one, applies to all. The apocrypha stays separate. Blind Wolf 04:50, February 27, 2011 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.