Talk:1635: The Cannon Law
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article. You can discuss the Project at its talk page. |
| Stub | This article has been rated as stub-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at in the comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
[edit] move page 1635: The Cannon Law -> 1635: Cannon Law
- deleting by nowiki
- {{move|1635: Cannon Law}} per the below reason // FrankB 02:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
This page should be renamed, because "1635: Cannon Law" is the title of the work. Also the canon law does not seem correct. Canon law having a religious connotation, and cannon law being a double-entendre. 132.205.93.33 22:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Object—Erroneous and so a Bad nomination
The title is very correct, as was the original image I uploaded (erroneously deleted as well! I can't even take a month off for real life and earn some income apparently! <g>). This image is solely the e-book version and was probably a prototypical (not yet finished pre-production) artwork released on Baen's website.
The physical copy (a Hardcopy) beside me, as did the deleted pic reads 1635: The Cannon Law, as stubbed out back in July and August. IIi2}}Sorry Anom., but the double entendre is entirely meant by the author and fits right in with the plot and 'canon law' too. A fun series. // FrankB 02:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- Strongly agree 1635: Cannon Law is what's on the jacket of the book, and is also what Amazon calls it. Does someone know how to check how it's registered at Library of Congress? That should easily settle it. I'm also sure the double entendre is entirely meant by the author, but that double meaning hits home better without 'The'. Chris the speller (talk) 16:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
