Ultima Codex talk:Style guide

Links on repetitive words
I used to think that the way things worked around here is that if you have a word in an article that is pertinent to another article, that you were supposed to link that word to that article on that word's first occurrence, and never again after within the same article. Now after seeing a few articles, I'm wondering if the scope of that rule is just within a section, meaning, you will again link words if they repeat after another level 2 heading. Which is it? Or "should it be" I should say, since it's not in the guide yet. AngusM 03:33, August 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I've wondered the same thing from time to time. I've been under the impression that it's only supposed to be the first occurrence in the entire article. --Terilem 03:37, August 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * That's probably not the wisest way to do it, though. Articles are sometimes big. Sections less so. Often readers' attentions are focused only on one section, so if that section omits links, they are apt to miss relevant articles. I vote we make it one link to a section.
 * And are all talk pages without automatically generated tables of contents? They can get pretty big, too, in which case, contents are valuable. AngusM 03:57, August 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * I used to follow the "once in an article" rule, but I've found out, working on several wikis, that it's better to have it once in a section, unless maybe the section is tooo small. I vote to make it one link per section, too.
 * About the talk pages, they do generate TOCs. You just have to look at this page :). Automatic TOCs appear only after the article/talk page has more than three or four sections.--Sega381 00:39, October 7, 2010 (UTC)


 * Soooo, should we add this to the style guide?--Sega381 02:26, October 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. I usually like leave it for longer. 'Never know when someone might happen along and see these things for the first time. AngusM 03:16, October 8, 2010 (UTC)

Capitals in image captions
Since we're on about capitals, what about capital initials in image captions? I don't see captions as being like section headers or article titles, so I think the same capitalization rules should apply to this as to paragraphs. AngusM 03:22, September 14, 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I think that would be the best way of doing it. Dungy 11:07, September 14, 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed too. Captions are just sentences, not titles.--Sega381 18:52, September 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, I think we should designate various types of texts, and make policies for them. I can think of 4, and they'd be paragraphs, titles, captions and list items, the last of which would include table cells. Did I miss anything? AngusM 01:06, October 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * Nope, I think that's all of them. However, I think that the poilicies are going to be pretty similar, except for the titles...--Sega381 02:22, October 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * True. I would give their capitalization policies the same way, but these classifications might be useful later, for things like punctuation and such. AngusM 03:23, October 8, 2010 (UTC)

Formatting for mantras, words of power, etc.
I've seen mantras and words of power handled in a couple of different ways around the wiki (allcaps, quotes, etc.). My understanding of grammar is that when citing words themselves, they should be italicized, which is what I've started doing whenever I encounter such cases. Do others agree with this? --Terilem 04:46, September 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, we should have policy on this. Usually I see italics for words that come from a different language (loanwords, for instances, like "savoir-faire" or Latin words). But I don't see mantras and words of power as language, but just magical syllables. Those I'd be inclined to put in upper case. AngusM 05:47, September 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is most certainly true of loanwords as well, but it's not quite the point I was making. Italics apply to words discussed as words, which I believe is what the mantras are on the wiki. For instance, it would be correct for me to write "I like the word cheese," not, "I like the word CHEESE." --Terilem 05:54, September 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Obviously I go for the former. In fact, there's a bit in the style guide that deals with this. But I thought we were talking about mantras. I don't see the connection to your example. AngusM 18:31, September 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * We were talking about mantras; I was just using an everyday example to illustrate my point. Take, for instance, this line:


 * Meditating at the shrine, the traveler has to chant the mantra "MU", to find the ways of Compassion.


 * For the reasons I've discussed, I see no reason why that shouldn't be:


 * Meditating at the shrine, the traveler has to chant the mantra mu to find the ways of Compassion.


 * --Terilem 00:11, September 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * I can ask that schoolteacher/consultant, but I think for magical gibberish using upper case is what's typical.
 * We should be able to find some kind of net resource to consult on issues of typesetting and stuff, but I'm not even sure what to Google. AngusM 04:33, September 17, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I had a look around at some guidelines on proper usage of italics as well as Wikipedia's style guide, which is how I arrived at my view on the matter. I should probably specify that I'm referring more to when these words are used in the main content of an article, not in a table or infobox, etc. In the context I'm talking about, allcaps just looks... bad. --Terilem 07:53, September 17, 2010 (UTC)

Narrative for contingencies
Your classic narrative just has one chain of events. Computers, with their jumps and conditional branches, don't allow for that. So the narrative for a computer game requires a new paradigm, and, I believe, a policy for the Codex. Here're the ideas I have: AngusM 02:29, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) All contingencies are discussed, while giving as much preference and validity as possible to each. I'm not terribly fond of this one, and implementing it to its fullest degree would be madness. I was researching Wilfred the other day, and realized that there are about a dozen ways in which he turns down the Avatar's offer to join the party, and only one way in which he accepts. A more reasonable way to implement this would be just to ignore many of the contingencies, or (in the case of Wilfred rejecting the party) to just lump various similar contingencies into one.
 * 2) Only specify one contingency as the main one, and any others can be tucked away in another section. This seems to happen most often, with the "other" section being "Trivia"&mdash;I almost never see "if" outside of a Trivia section. This, of course, invites a hail of controversy over what the "one" contingency should be. I would guess that unavatarly or game-stopping contingencies, like that which causes the destruction of Britiannia or the (unresurrectable) death of the Avatar, would be deemed not to be a main continency. But it won't always be so simple.
 * 3) A hybrid of 1. and 2. I've seen 1. get done very rarely, when it seems that there is more than one contingency wherein none of them are more obviously valid than the others. Of course, a hybrid would invite even more controversy. Well, that's what discussion pages and a consensus template (when we get it) are for.
 * 4) Something I haven't thought of yet.

Proposal for Unicode policy
I started this issue on Talk:Computer Ports of Ultima V.

Unicode is a wonderful character set, but with its dozen or so "planes" each one of which has 1000s of characters, there are a ton of valid characters that won't show up in people's browsers properly. I realized how serious this might be when I looked at Computer Ports of Ultima V and saw a bunch of "Apple �"-looking text where I expected to see "Apple ][". The "II" on that page is not the much older and therefore more reliable ASCII, but Unicode, which shows up fine for 2 other editors, but not for me. Since this could happen to others, I propose we adopt the following: I don't suppose we could force pages to use ISO-8849-1. I'm not crazy about forcing such a regional character set, but since this is an English language site, anyone whose system doesn't support ISO-8849-1 won't benefit from the Codex much. On the other hand, any character in ISO-8849-1 probably has widely supported Unicode counterparts. AngusM 05:36, September 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Never use Unicode when there's a perfectly usable ASCII/HTML alternative. This means we use ASCII characters, and HTML entities and tags. I've noticed Unicode superscript characters in tables for footnotes. These could be replaced with the likes of &lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; or even better &lt;sup style="font-size: x-small;"&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; . I know, that's a mouthful, but the way I see it, editors should take on 100 shares of inconvenience to save readers one share.
 * 2) It could be more permissable when the symbols you are using aren't that crucial to the text. I noticed that there are these tables adorned with Unicode ankhs. I can't see those ankhs, which was a bit annoying, but I got over it, and was able to understand everything on the page anyway.
 * 3) If 1. and 2. don't apply, and you must use Unicode, then try to use a character that's widely supported. I have no idea how to do that. Perhaps there's a web site that lists that stuff. Googling "unicode +supported" didn't give me much joy.


 * I agree with the idea of not using Unicode if it is not really necessary. But I'm curious on why you're not seeing it. By now, all browsers should support Unicode, and the only reason I can think of for it not working is if there is some special configuration in that browser disabling Unicode (or maybe in mobile browsers too). Out of curiosity, what browser brand, version and language are you using (and on which OS)?--Sega381 18:59, September 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm using the latest FF using Canadian English on WinXPHESP3, but the latest IE also had problems with what's on Computer Ports of Ultima V. I don't think that this is a browser issue, but the font I'm using. And it's not a matter of Unicode being completely unsupported, but just certain code points, such as the one that makes the ankh and "II". I can see a lot of other Unicode.
 * I don't think there's much helping anyone whose system doesn't support any Unicode at all. However, I think it could be rather a long time before most systems are able to support all code points. So I think we should try to avoid Unicode if we can, and especially avoid code points we think aren't well supported. AngusM 19:20, September 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting... it may be the fonts then that don't support all Unicode code points. If you want to know more about it, you could try googling for the font and what it supports. But anyway, I do agree that there is no need to use strange symbols in most of the cases.--Sega381 02:17, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * I've discovered a little bit more about what it takes to support a code point; more specifically, the "II". It also has a link that shows you which fonts support those points. So which ones do you guys have?
 * I'm a bit confused by all this. Which font is the Computer Ports article trying to display? Does it have to be one of those on that supported fonts page? What if the font in the article doesn't have that code point? Do most browsers fall back on a font that does support it? AngusM 20:47, September 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, the article itself does not define any font to show. The style used in this Wiki probably defines a font to use, and if so, there are three cases: the browser displays the article in that font; the browser does not have that font, and defaults to another one (browsers do that); the browser for some reason is forcing a webpage to always use a defined font, with no regard to what the webpage says (there may be a user configuration for that). In the last two cases, if the default or pre-defined font does not support the coid point, you would not see the character. If the website style is not defining a font, only the last two cases may apply. I'll see if I can check which font, at least for me, is being used, and what font is being defined by the Wiki style.--Sega381 23:45, September 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see, comparing typography visually, the font the Editable Codex is using to display the info in my browser is Arial. In the Firefox 3 configuration section, there is a checkbox to "allow webpage to select a font", and also 4 default fonts (depending on something) for each character set. As one of that default fonts, the Serif one (for all charsets, including Unicode), is Arial, I am not sure if Firefox is using that default font to show me the Editable Codex info, or if Wikia has some stylesheet somewhere defining that the codex should use Arial. But since you're not seeing it correctly, it may mean you're not seeing the content in Arial font, which should mean you have another default Serif font for the Unicode charset, one that doesn't support that code point.--Sega381 01:04, October 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * You're quite right, in that it is not editors that decide the font for that article (we could, but usually don't) so it is probably decided by Wikia. And Wikia does somehow force a font of their choosing. I, too, went into my Options for FF, and change my default fonts to Ultima Runes. It didn't change the way any Codex pages looked. My "allow webpage to select a font" checkbox is also checked. Considering what we've found so far, and the fact that my IE has the same problem, it's looking like it's a matter of the fonts that I've got on my system. AngusM 03:14, October 1, 2010 (UTC)

Italics for spell names?
I have no idea what would be grammatically sound for these, since spells obviously don't exist in real life. In the context of a sentence, Origin has done it both ways, tending towards un-italicized in older materials and italicized in later ones (i.e. U7 clue book, SI manual & clue book, U8 manual & clue book). I tend to prefer seeing the spell names in italics, myself. Thoughts? --Terilem 08:18, September 23, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd be OK with italics. I don't like having them capitalized, and the few times I've removed the capitalization, it still doesn't quite feel right. Dungy 11:20, September 23, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd be inclined to keep them capitalized, not only because I'm used to seeing them written like that in all Ultima literature, but also because I'd say they're basically names/titles, so it would seem to make sense. --Terilem 11:30, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Then say as much on the lexicon talk page. AngusM 19:52, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, not a huge fan of caps, but when I come across the ones I've changed, I'll change them back. I'll also start italasizing spell names as I encounter them too. That seems to be where consensus is heading here. Dungy 23:09, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Hang on, when you guys are saying "capitalize" do you mean all caps or capital initials? If we agree that they are proper nouns (and that's how I feel), then they should definitely have capital initials.
 * So my vote is that they their initials and only their initials should be capitalized. AngusM 16:41, October 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, yes, I meant capital initials only. You know how I feel about allcaps :P --Terilem 08:27, October 12, 2010 (UTC)

Past and Present Tense
Ok, I think we've reached a point where we should start deciding on what tense to use for in-game events, such as NPC's biographies or game plots. As of now, there are some articles written in the past tense, and others in the present tense. The past tense uses an in-game POV, as if the articles are written by someone living in that Universe, after the last game. The present tense uses an out-of-game POV, as if the articles are written by someone from, well, the real world. I'm not sure which way to go, but I think now is the time to decide on this. I hope to get some opinions on this?--Sega381 00:40, October 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * I've always personally preferred past tense when discussing NPC biographies and plot points. Dungy 00:50, October 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * That exactly why I've written in-game events in the past tense. The game had already happened and the story moved on. I tried to write them in the present one time, but it simply looked wrong and I dropped it.--Tribun 00:54, October 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm very much in favor of the present tense, as the past tense often is used to imply one "correct" course of action which can seem incongruous with how an individual reader might have approached the game with their particular Avatar. I feel that the present tense also gives a greater sense that each game is something that can be a current experience (as they are for people just discovering them). This should probably also be addressed under the discussion of how to address branching in games.


 * Lastly, even if the past tense is officially adopted, I'd very much prefer it if the opening sentence and the body of the article match tense-wise. (Blu3vib3 00:55, October 2, 2010 (UTC)) 


 * If you refer with this to the opening sentence of NPC articles, they describe an NPC's characteristics, not the events. That's the reason why it is in the present, while the rest is in the past.--Tribun 00:57, October 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * As a reader, the distinction hasn't seemed very clear to me and the sudden shift feels really awkward linguistically. Could perhaps, there be a separate section after the descriptor, denoting a shift from definition to history? (Blu3vib3 01:10, October 2, 2010 (UTC))


 * In any event, I agree that the opening sentence and body should match tenses. For example, even though I'm not decided on which tense to use, I've written several NPC pages in the past tense. And the opening sentence too, such as "Bleh was a mage that lived at Moonglow during ...". I understand the characteristics point you are trying to make, but if the article is written in past tense from an in-game point of view, the characteristics of the NPC are also a thing of the past, and writing just the intro in an out-of-game POV and the rest in an in-game POV seems very inconsistent.
 * In any event, I think the best argument for writing everything in the past tense is that it somehow "immerses" you more into the game, by telling it as it is something that actually happened. Basically, it is more fun and engaging. But on the other hand, this is actually an encyclopedia, and games, unlike movies and books, actually can be played in different ways, making the "canon" on what the character actually did more difficult to decide (except on major plot points). And, in any event, things in the game have NOT already happened, it depends on which game someone is actually playing (though if one takes an in-game POV, of course, things already happened). And the present tense IS more encyclopedic, which is what we may want to achieve here. I do agree and insist that the past tense is more "fun" and more, hmmm, "likeable"? from a fan point of view, and personally I like writing in that tense. But I'm starting to thinkg that the present tense is, objectively, the best way to go.--Sega381 01:17, October 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * While I really can understand that the past tense is more fun for the writer (much like the dorky in game journals I kept while playing these games as a kid), for me as a reader, I feel sort of alienated by entries that seem to reflect ____ editor's Avatar's experience. To me, hearing what another person did in the game feels awkward, as I often say to myself "My Avatar didn't do that!" In some cases, really interesting dialog happens when certain courses of action are followed - such as when you fail to kill Voldin and he is arrested, or when Iolo or Shamino stand trial in Fawn instead of Dupre, and I like to think that the entries should be able to reflect the realities of quirky players who sentimentally refuse to kill the Bliy Skup Ductosnore or who murder Frank the Fox for being a twit. (Blu3vib3 01:30, October 2, 2010 (UTC))
 * We are trying to get away from subjectivity, so you are on the right track there. What I don't quite get is why you (and others) think the present tense is more objective, and the past tense is immersing. I see it as the opposite. If you are talking in the present tense, it's a bit like you are there (and immersed) which puts you on a subjective footing.
 * BTW, it's seems that everyone believes that the entire Codex should be one tense. I don't think this has to be. I think most articles should be past (talking about pre-U1 in the present would look really strange) but what about articles like Britannia? Who's willing to change that article to make it look like Britannia doesn't exist anymore? So, yeah, I guess Avril wrote Complicated with me in mind, but we might find that we can apply tenses differently, according to the context. This, BTW, is a different issue than the one about changing tense within an article. AngusM 03:15, October 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * The assumption that every article on the wiki should have the same tense is just to simplify things. We may not get there, we may choose to have mixed tenses or whatever (though I'm not convinced there will be a real definite argument on that, but maybe). Anyway, the idea is to define what tense or tenses we will use.


 * About the present thing, the POV it uses is really simple for me (unlike the decision we have to make). Let's start with a simpler example: talking about Ultima II graphics. If you say "Ultima II had very bad graphics", that is not the proper tense to use (unless you are saying something like "... at a time when other games had better graphics"). Ultima II had bad graphics and still has bad graphics (it's just an example, forget about the grphics). The game is the same as it was when it came out as it is now (besides upgrades and the like). Using the past tense is to somehow relate the game to one's personal experience, or time of writing, or in perspective with the game that follows. The game, as a work of art, or more specifically its characteristics, are out of time. The time it came out, the reception it got, even its influences, etc, all of that is inside the past. But the game itself, much like a movie or a book, is out of time. That is why the present tense should be used in this cases (you can probably find more about this in the Wikipedia policies).


 * Now, this extends to the contents of the book/game/movie. In a movie, there might be a scene where a guy kills another one. You don't say "a guy killed another one" in a movie, unless you're somehow interwoving the moment when you watched the movie with the plot itself. The guy didn't kill the other in the past. Every time you see the movie, the guy kills the other. So, as the rest of the characteristics of the work itself, the actions in the movie should be described in the present tense (this does not include things that, according to the movie plot, happened before the movie started in that universe; that is past from every point of view. This last point is interesting, so I'll get back on it later). Once again, you can read more about it in Wikipedia policies, and probably in articles on the subject. Btw, this is not immersion, this is interaction with the book/movie/game. The tense is present because you will always be interacting with the game in the present (unless, again, you are refering to some specific experience you had the first time you played the game, for example, which is not the focus of this wiki). There is no subjectivity in describing your interaction in present. If you color your description with opinions, well, then that is subjective. If your are describing how the sky is, there is no subjectivity in using the present tense. The sky still exists, that is why you use the present tense. The same applies to these works of art: ther characteristics and playable story still exist, so they should be described in the present tense.


 * On the other hand, if you describe events in a game/movie/book as having taken place in the past, you are actually placing yourself in the game/movie/book timeline, and you are standing in a point in time after the events of the work took place (at the end of the movie, book or game). This implies that, besides the fact that you finished, you are assuming that things happened in one specific way, because they already happened. Furthermore, if you WANTED to write something from an in-game perspective, you HAVE to pick a spot in the timeline, which, unless you're explaining things as a character who is accompaning the action, is usually after the game /book /movie has ended. In fact, in a game series, this is what the manual does: it picks a point in time after the previous games ended, and explains stuff form an in-game POV, in the past tense.


 * So, and I insist this is not something I think or that I'm just making up, present tense is used to describe stuff happening in works such as books/movie/games. If the past tense is used for this, you are either refering to a particular, specific interaction you had with the work, and that interaction happened in the past (which is very subjective), or you're getting inside the work's universe and talking from a spot in time after the events happened. So, you're either adding subjectivity or using an in-game POV.


 * Now, an interesting point here is that, if one forgets about all the games except for Ultima IX (I know, yikes, but whatever), from the point of view of U9, everything before the start of the game did happen in the past from every point of view. This is probably why one may tend to use past tense (in fact, many articles in this wiki are written assuming U7 is the "current" game, and seeing every other game in U7's past). But this is a very limited approach, as a reader may not care about U9 (understandably), ans just care about U3, and from U3's POV, its events are the present. Therefore, if we want to describe events from a movie/book/game without using another work in that series as a reference, AND we do not want to relate it to a particular time we played/watched/read it OR use an in-game POV, we should use the present tense.


 * So for me, the question is, going back to the start of this question, whether we want to write about in-game events from an in-game POV (which will use past) or from a out-of-games (and not using any game a as a reference) POV, which, for all the reasons described above, must be in present tense.


 * Btw, I've been in several discussions about this topic in other Wikis, and the decisions have never been very easy.... Oh, and sorry on the long rambling, ufff...--Sega381 03:58, October 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * Everyone has been making good points here, and I certainly understand the argument for present tense. However, the sheer amount of work that would be required to convert every article might just bring me to tears. It's been hard enough just getting the content of a lot of them into respectable shape to begin with, and the prospect of turning around and rewriting every single one all over again... I don't know if I can cope with that. :P --Terilem 04:15, October 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm glad to see so much interest in such a fundamental issue.
 * I don't think we need be looking at the cost of instantly realizing a policy issue when setting one. 1, we don't have to realize a policy as soon as it is set, we can do that over time. 2, it'll only be harder to realize what we should have been doing early on if we leave it. AngusM 04:43, October 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, basically the idea is to define how it SHOULD be, so that new articles will follow that policy. New edits should too, so if someone is editing Sin'Vraal to add a bit of trivia, they can use that opportunity to rewrite the tense in that article, if needed. There is NO way we'll do that quickly, but that's not the idea. I do think that, whatever we eventually choose, we HAVE to decide on a position. Otherwise, the Codex will always be inconcistent between articles. If we do choose some position, eventually, maybe in a LONG time, the Codex will be coherent. But at least we'll be on a consistent track.--Sega381 12:32, October 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * I guess part of my point is that up till now I have been striving for consistent tense in the articles I edit, which is to say converting everything following the introductory line (though that "rule" has never sat right with me) to past tense when required. I have to admit past tense feels more comfortable to me, but maybe it's just because it's what I've grown accustomed to. On the other hand, I can't deny you guys are right; movie plots and such on Wikipedia are handled in present tense, and it would be fair to say past tense is more befitting an in-game narrative than an encyclopedia. --Terilem 13:08, October 2, 2010 (UTC)

Article structure
I think it's time to add guidelines on article structure to the style guide. There are several things we can work out, but to me there is a minimal structure that every article should follow (though sections are optional): * Disambig notices * Infobox *  * Trivia * See Also * References * External Links * Nav bars Of course, each type of article may have a specific structure for the "Article Contents and Sections", such as one for NPCs, another for Dungeons, or Towns, or Games. But the layout above should be common for every page, I think.--Sega381 13:51, October 11, 2010 (UTC)


 * What a coincidence, I just started dealing w/a format issue on Talk:Gypsies. Yes, that structure looks pretty good. I'd also recommend we have soft guidelines, in which there would be that issue that I brough up on the Gypsy talk page, which is: in an article whose emphasis is in-game, any out-game material should be placed towards the end. For instance, if Chuckles is based on an OSI employee, don't clog the first screen with a biography of that employee. Hmm... now that I've said that, I see that I the out-game guy is talked about in the first paragraph. It's only one sentence, but maybe the article would be better served if it was put in the Trivia section. AngusM 04:12, October 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * Good points. I've added the "Trivia" section at the end of the structure, just after the main content. I agree with the soft guidelines, too, if needed. Btw, the structure I've outlined is very general, and used in Wikipedia and almost any other wiki (in fact, we are using it here), so if no further comments appear, I'll add it to the style guide. The details of the structure of the inner article contents, and the soft guidelines, will probably require more discussion.--Sega381 00:34, October 14, 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, main structure added. I'm not sure on how to follow with the specific article structure for the rest. Off the top of my mind, I think we should define a structure for articles of the following types: games, NPCs, monsters, items, places (towns/dungeons/etc)... there are a lot more, but I think these are the most important ones.--Sega381 16:06, October 20, 2010 (UTC)

Archive
I created the link for the archive page at the top and archived a few things. If you feel like they weren't closed feel free to either a) move them back or b) start up the conversation again with a link to the archive section. -- Fenyx4 05:35, October 7, 2010 (UTC)