Talk: 1929

Should this be a note, as opposed to an event per se? Witnesses for the defence: 2282, 2296 and 2342 all contain refs to wine vintage years. (Might worth considering if Tom Paris’ “connoisseurship” should be added to his page) Archer4real, 8/9/12, 11.54a.m.

well, should it?--Archer4real (talk) 14:41, September 27, 2012 (UTC)

I think it's fine the way it is. 31dot (talk) 15:08, September 27, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose: see my above comments re other wine vintages .Archer4real, 27/9/12, 16:45p.m.

I guess I don't really see the distinction or necessity of doing so, but I won't prevent it from being changed. 31dot (talk) 16:25, September 27, 2012 (UTC)

I think I’m with you at last. Do you mean to suggest that the fact the other wines listed are ‘real’ and the one in question is holographic makes the difference? If so then leave it as is, otherwise I see no reason for not doing the same as with other vintages years, e.g. 2309 et al. Archer4real, 28/9/12, 10:46a.m. GMT

I guess I kind of see what you are getting at- in which case probably the Events header should just be changed to Notes, as the Nazi reference is also just a notation. 31dot (talk) 10:07, September 28, 2012 (UTC)