Why, in heaven's name, would you remove a single existing link to Perchance to Dream, and replace it with four references that do not exist?? You've just turned a sourced article into an unsourced one -- why???? --Seventy 13:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Woah, calm down. I'll change it back until they do exist. --The Doctor 13:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think removing red links just because an article does not exist is not correct wiki policy.
- And you are incorrect about it being "unsourced" -- even if the four sources given are unwritten articles... they are still "sources" and completely valid! -- Captain MKB 13:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think removing red links just because an article does not exist is not correct wiki policy. - And removing blue links to replace them with red links is correct policy?
- The answer is quite simple (!!!!) -- Perchance to Dream is a novel from the 1990s that does not reference Ra'ch B'ullhy in any way, and had to be removed. - Oh, forgive me. I meant Perchance to Dream (comic) -- which was the link that was in the article, and was the link removed despite being 100% correct. Being purposefully dense does not score you points, Captain.
- "To Take Arms Against a Sea of Troubles", "By a Sleep to Say We End", "In the Sleep of Death, What Dreams May Come" and "Enterprises of Great Pitch and Moment" are the four comics books, made a decade afterwards, that actually have this character in them. - Actually, they are four installments of a four-part series entitled... yes, Perchance to Dream!! Oh, and before getting snotty with me, why not check back in the article history, and look at who changed the cite from the novel to the comic in the first place?
- And you are incorrect about it being "unsourced" -- even if the four sources given are unwritten articles... they are still "sources" and completely valid! - Huh? What's the difference between a link that goes nowhere, and not having a link at all? You're saying one is just as good as the next? How can a link that goes nowhere be as valid as one that actually exists? That's like putting footnote/endnote numbers into an academic paper, and then not including the notes. Or, in this case, throwing those notes away. --Seventy 02:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Well the overeactive bitching and whining can stop now, as the articles now exist. I've started to fill the first issue out, and will get through the others when time allows. End of. --The Doctor 12:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)