Talk:Continuity editing
Add topic | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
 | The content of Discontinuous editing was merged into Continuity editing. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Merge
[edit]Support. That way we will be able to compare them without doubling our efforts. --Adoniscik (talk) 18:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Support. The fact that there is an equally valid alternative to continuity editing needs to be stressed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.183.54.198 (talk) 05:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Support. --Na7 (talk) 01:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Against - Coming from an academic screen studies background in editing, both approaches to editing are yes in some respects similar but are also contrasting methods as the articles both point out. 'Continuity' and 'Discontinuity' as even the words suggest are different and hence should have each in their own right a page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.144.12 (talk) 14:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Ellipse
[edit]What's an "ellipse"?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.86.147 (talk) 08:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
So the editors decided to introduce ellipses to avoid having films of the length of days, months or YEARS? That's just a very silly statement. Kumagoro-42 11:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumagoro-42 (talk • contribs) 11:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Fixed I fixed that, now it says "To occupy long periods of time" The creeper2007 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:41, 17 April 2020 (UTC)