From TinWiki.org
This is a discussion page
| Please finish your message with your signature by typing ~~~~ or by using the signature button in the editing toolbar.
Discussion pages are used for discussing the writing and editing of articles. To add a message, click the plus (+) sign tab. To reply, write directly under the post you are replying to, and preferably indent your reply by entering a colon (:) at the beginning of the line.
A discussion page is for discussing the article it accompanies, not for discussing the topic described by the article. tinWiki is not a forum, but an encyclopedia.
|
|
|
|
PLEASE do not replace the level 8 data, it was from a unreliable site that's been shutdown. I erased it for a reason. I was also the one who put it there, so I'm going to say right now that it is false.
--DP-EBE 17 15:20, 9 November 2006 (CST)
Title
Does anyone else think that the title of this article should be moved? Especially since there is no "Bases" category? I think it should be moved to "Dulce Underground Base" or something very similar.
Xkp 17:43, 20 May 2007 (CDT)
- Being new to tinWiki, I have in fact been curious about those titles that start like that, with "Bases:", I think I have seen a few other pages with that type of title. Anyway, that title type is just something I have noticed and so I wanted to "comment". Whether the title(s) should change or not is something I feel needs to be commented on by people who have been around longer than me, and know what was the reason the titles are like that in the first place. Optimist 18:30, 20 May 2007 (CDT)
I made those pages when I was new to tinWiki, and wasn't sure about categories. By all means, move the pages to reflect that they no longer begin with Bases:. I believe there are 5 or 6 pages that are like that.William One Sac 19:59, 20 May 2007 (CDT)
- Ok, I will move the pages
Xkp 21:15, 20 May 2007 (CDT)
"Known and rumored levels"
Just mentioning that I shortening this header to simply "Levels", since there is a disclaimer on top of the article saying the information in the article cannot be verified it doesn't make sense to label any of the information as explicity "known", is what I thought. Optimist 13:04, 8 June 2007 (CDT)
- It may be time to remove that disclaimer, as the original article has been completely revisioned with all of the edits. William One Sac 19:10, 8 June 2007 (CDT)
- I have now removed the disclaimer. However, I listed some of its text in a new References section that I created right now. That way, it still says something about the sources, like the disclaimer box did, but now it's only like one of multiple sources, or one of several list items in a list (even though there aren't any other list items just yet...) Optimist 09:59, 18 May 2008 (CDT)
