Talk:Animal companion: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
If this article is about the Animal Companion entity, shouldn't it not be capitolized? As it is, currently, it'll interfere with the redirects to the spell, when the spell article is finally created. It'll also interfere with U's template, even if all the article links are corrected. Anyway, it is my belief that this isn't a proper noun, anyway, unless you're referring to the spell itself. -[[User:BELATHUS|Andy]] <sup>[[User talk:BELATHUS|talk]]</sup> 11:36, 4 May 2006 (PDT) |
If this article is about the Animal Companion entity, shouldn't it not be capitolized? As it is, currently, it'll interfere with the redirects to the spell, when the spell article is finally created. It'll also interfere with U's template, even if all the article links are corrected. Anyway, it is my belief that this isn't a proper noun, anyway, unless you're referring to the spell itself. -[[User:BELATHUS|Andy]] <sup>[[User talk:BELATHUS|talk]]</sup> 11:36, 4 May 2006 (PDT) |
||
: ...instead of typing all that, you could have just moved the stupid page. :P Oliver ([[User:Anshou|User]] | [[User talk:Anshou|Talk]]) 13:45, 4 May 2006 (PDT) |
|||
Revision as of 14:45, 4 May 2006
If this article is about the Animal Companion entity, shouldn't it not be capitolized? As it is, currently, it'll interfere with the redirects to the spell, when the spell article is finally created. It'll also interfere with U's template, even if all the article links are corrected. Anyway, it is my belief that this isn't a proper noun, anyway, unless you're referring to the spell itself. -Andy talk 11:36, 4 May 2006 (PDT)