 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
 | The contents of the Discontinuous editing page were merged into Continuity editing. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history. |
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.
What's an "ellipse"?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.86.147 (talk) 08:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Ellipse edit
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)
Fixed I fixed that, now it says "To occupy long periods of time" The creeper2007 (talk)