Talk:Boardelectrix - Revision history

Trey56: /**/Closed STUFF

2007-04-22T19:58:49Z

: Closed STUFF

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:58, 22 April 2007
Line 15:		Line 15:

	I really don't think this article should be here. I think it's too minor to be listed. Since it's presumably a division of [[Videlectrix]], I think that we should just have a short note about it in the Videlectrix article. Videlectrix is a pretty cheap company, offering limited features with their games. The board game featured in [[geddup noise]] was pretty vague with the fun features. {{User:Teh Frossty One/sig}}		I really don't think this article should be here. I think it's too minor to be listed. Since it's presumably a division of [[Videlectrix]], I think that we should just have a short note about it in the Videlectrix article. Videlectrix is a pretty cheap company, offering limited features with their games. The board game featured in [[geddup noise]] was pretty vague with the fun features. {{User:Teh Frossty One/sig}}
		+
		+	== Closed STUFF ==
		+
		+	{{stuffcloseddecline}}
		+
		+	=== Sorry it isn't a reference ===
		+	{{stufffact\|The game piece on the Boardelectrix logo is a reference to the pieces for the game [[Wikipedia:Sorry! (game)\|Sorry!]].}}
		+	{{stuffverdict\|03:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)\|21:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)\|overwhelmingly declined\|17\|2\|Boardelectrix}}

Teh Frossty One: Board...vid..what's the difference?

2005-11-20T21:20:25Z

Board...vid..what's the difference?

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:20, 20 November 2005
Line 11:		Line 11:

	:I think the way it's worded in the article conveys that well enough. We don't want to say "is related to Videlectrix." There's no ''real'' relation other than the name. (Although—hypothetical—if they were real companies, would Videlectrix have a case for suing Boardelectrix?) —[[User:AbdiViklas\|AbdiViklas]] 19:49, 14 October 2005 (UTC)		:I think the way it's worded in the article conveys that well enough. We don't want to say "is related to Videlectrix." There's no ''real'' relation other than the name. (Although—hypothetical—if they were real companies, would Videlectrix have a case for suing Boardelectrix?) —[[User:AbdiViklas\|AbdiViklas]] 19:49, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
		+
		+	== Board...vid..what's the difference? ==
		+
		+	I really don't think this article should be here. I think it's too minor to be listed. Since it's presumably a division of [[Videlectrix]], I think that we should just have a short note about it in the Videlectrix article. Videlectrix is a pretty cheap company, offering limited features with their games. The board game featured in [[geddup noise]] was pretty vague with the fun features. {{User:Teh Frossty One/sig}}

AbdiViklas: m-hm.

2005-10-14T19:49:36Z

m-hm.

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:49, 14 October 2005
Line 9:		Line 9:

	I think the connection is obviously known. It is supposed to be a joke.--[[User:Martin925\|Martin925]] 01:58, 14 October 2005 (UTC)		I think the connection is obviously known. It is supposed to be a joke.--[[User:Martin925\|Martin925]] 01:58, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
		+
		+	:I think the way it's worded in the article conveys that well enough. We don't want to say "is related to Videlectrix." There's no ''real'' relation other than the name. (Although—hypothetical—if they were real companies, would Videlectrix have a case for suing Boardelectrix?) —[[User:AbdiViklas\|AbdiViklas]] 19:49, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Martin925: connection is known

2005-10-14T01:58:19Z

connection is known

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:58, 14 October 2005
Line 7:		Line 7:

	:Link to it from Inside References, I think. We tend not to link to things from the Transcript (except for [[The Paper]], since there's nowhere else really to hang the link) {{User:Phlip/sig}} 23:35, 9 October 2005 (UTC)		:Link to it from Inside References, I think. We tend not to link to things from the Transcript (except for [[The Paper]], since there's nowhere else really to hang the link) {{User:Phlip/sig}} 23:35, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
		+
		+	I think the connection is obviously known. It is supposed to be a joke.--[[User:Martin925\|Martin925]] 01:58, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Phlip at 23:35, 9 October 2005

2005-10-09T23:35:33Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:35, 9 October 2005
Line 5:		Line 5:

	Hey, in [[geddup noise]] should I link the first mention in the transcript to it (which is in a little box dealy), or should I link from Fun Facts? (Or should I do the first and delete the second?) —[[User:AbdiViklas\|AbdiViklas]] 23:30, 9 October 2005 (UTC)		Hey, in [[geddup noise]] should I link the first mention in the transcript to it (which is in a little box dealy), or should I link from Fun Facts? (Or should I do the first and delete the second?) —[[User:AbdiViklas\|AbdiViklas]] 23:30, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
		+
		+	:Link to it from Inside References, I think. We tend not to link to things from the Transcript (except for [[The Paper]], since there's nowhere else really to hang the link) {{User:Phlip/sig}} 23:35, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

AbdiViklas: help on email linking standards?

2005-10-09T23:30:33Z

help on email linking standards?

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:30, 9 October 2005
Line 3:		Line 3:
	:I'm all for keeping it. {{User:FireBird/sig}} 23:11, 9 October 2005 (UTC)		:I'm all for keeping it. {{User:FireBird/sig}} 23:11, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
	::'K; in that case we need to start linking to it. (and thanks, 24.12.193.124, for creating it; you ought to become a member and avoid the playground taunts and jabs!) —[[User:AbdiViklas\|AbdiViklas]] 23:22, 9 October 2005 (UTC)		::'K; in that case we need to start linking to it. (and thanks, 24.12.193.124, for creating it; you ought to become a member and avoid the playground taunts and jabs!) —[[User:AbdiViklas\|AbdiViklas]] 23:22, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
		+
		+	Hey, in [[geddup noise]] should I link the first mention in the transcript to it (which is in a little box dealy), or should I link from Fun Facts? (Or should I do the first and delete the second?) —[[User:AbdiViklas\|AbdiViklas]] 23:30, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

AbdiViklas: 'k

2005-10-09T23:22:06Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:22, 9 October 2005
Line 2:		Line 2:

	:I'm all for keeping it. {{User:FireBird/sig}} 23:11, 9 October 2005 (UTC)		:I'm all for keeping it. {{User:FireBird/sig}} 23:11, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
		+	::'K; in that case we need to start linking to it. (and thanks, 24.12.193.124, for creating it; you ought to become a member and avoid the playground taunts and jabs!) —[[User:AbdiViklas\|AbdiViklas]] 23:22, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

FireBird: Er.

2005-10-09T23:11:59Z

Er.

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:11, 9 October 2005
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Should this page exist? I was about to delete it, but didn't want to be hasty. Two appearances in as many 'toons now. —[[User:AbdiViklas\|AbdiViklas]] 23:10, 9 October 2005 (UTC)		Should this page exist? I was about to delete it, but didn't want to be hasty. Two appearances in as many 'toons now. —[[User:AbdiViklas\|AbdiViklas]] 23:10, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

-	:I'm for it. {{User:FireBird/sig}} 23:11, 9 October 2005 (UTC)	+	:I'm all for keeping it. {{User:FireBird/sig}} 23:11, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

FireBird: Keep.

2005-10-09T23:11:42Z

Keep.

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:11, 9 October 2005
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Should this page exist? I was about to delete it, but didn't want to be hasty. Two appearances in as many 'toons now. —[[User:AbdiViklas\|AbdiViklas]] 23:10, 9 October 2005 (UTC)		Should this page exist? I was about to delete it, but didn't want to be hasty. Two appearances in as many 'toons now. —[[User:AbdiViklas\|AbdiViklas]] 23:10, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
		+
		+	:I'm for it. {{User:FireBird/sig}} 23:11, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

AbdiViklas: yea or nay?

2005-10-09T23:10:37Z

yea or nay?

New page

Should this page exist? I was about to delete it, but didn't want to be hasty. Two appearances in as many 'toons now. —[[User:AbdiViklas|AbdiViklas]] 23:10, 9 October 2005 (UTC)