Spencerian (talk | contribs) (Will simplify article to limit unfounded speculation) |
April Arcus (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
:This one is tough to justify. Aside from Tigh's comment, there's only speculation to go on, and a very questionable likelihood for more information. Still, it's a place, but I want to truncate the amount of assumed information. Compare with other mentioned-only locales such as [[Pilgrim Bay]] and [[Gup's Point]]. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 08:45, 30 June 2006 (CDT) | :This one is tough to justify. Aside from Tigh's comment, there's only speculation to go on, and a very questionable likelihood for more information. Still, it's a place, but I want to truncate the amount of assumed information. Compare with other mentioned-only locales such as [[Pilgrim Bay]] and [[Gup's Point]]. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 08:45, 30 June 2006 (CDT) | ||
::I think it's a good point. Naming a beach after a planet is a little absurd. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:06, 30 June 2006 (CDT) | |||
Revision as of 22:06, 30 June 2006
Caprica City has a shoreline, perhaps the beach is there. It'd make more sense to name a beach for the city it's on than the entire planet. --Pearse 11:55, 29 June 2006 (CDT)
- This one is tough to justify. Aside from Tigh's comment, there's only speculation to go on, and a very questionable likelihood for more information. Still, it's a place, but I want to truncate the amount of assumed information. Compare with other mentioned-only locales such as Pilgrim Bay and Gup's Point. --Spencerian 08:45, 30 June 2006 (CDT)
- I think it's a good point. Naming a beach after a planet is a little absurd. --Peter Farago 17:06, 30 June 2006 (CDT)