Talk:Ceilick

I think we need to separate out the canon and non-canon information in this article. I'm not sure sure of the best way of doing this so that we can preserve the entire article content, so I'm open to suggestions. -- Malvineous 11:44, 2 July 2007 (GMT)

In another article, I don't quite remember which one (a creature from Keen 4 I think), there was used some kind of template, around the lines of "Point of View of <Someone>" at the beginning of a non-cannon paragraph. Maybe something like that can be done... marking non-cannon paragraphs in a special way...Sega381 02:29, 5 July 2007 (GMT)

I did that, but as Malvineous and I discussed before, giving the person's name is not a good idea. I never got to review this again. Now I think we could just separate the unofficial info to a regular section of the article, titled "Unofficial information", or something; suggest if can make a more creative name. --Shadow Master 13:16, 5 July 2007 (GMT)

Any other suggestions about this? I like the idea of separating it out into a different section. How about calling the section something like "Fan interpretations", so that it can include things that are mentioned in mods and fangames? -- Malvineous 06:57, 13 July 2007 (GMT)

Sounds fine to me.... in any event, have a separate section is a start... if we want to change the name later it would not be that hard. But naming it that way seems ok to me.-Sega381 14:26, 13 July 2007 (GMT)

Boldness

Why are all of the occurrences Ceilick bold in the article? This seems to be unique among the creature articles, as far as I can tell. Should it be removed to bring it in line? [I could just make this change, but I'm trying to be a bit more 'involved' in the KeenWiki, although I am worried that I'm going a bit overboard in the Talk page department.] -- CK Guy 04:45, 3 March 2008 (GMT)

Early in the wiki development we were still getting used to the style - the style I now prefer is that the first occurrence of the article name should be linked with [[ and ]] (which will make it bold) but doing this throughout the rest of the article isn't really necessary (and yes I know it was me who put them in in the first place half the time...) Feel free to bring any articles back in line! -- Malvineous 11:15, 3 March 2008 (GMT)