Talk:IT TOOK A TALKING BEAR TO GIVE THE NAME A YOUNG BOY LOVES

Okay, I smell a mess here: on this article, we are told that Chris met GodBear in 1992. In the article Christopher's name change, it tells us no date for the meeting but tells us that the name was changed in 1994. On the big timeline, Chris met GodBear in 1989. So, what is canon and what we need to adjust here? Griffintown 01:33, 11 October 2009 (CEST)Griffintown


 * I'm not sure what is right and what isn't. I included a reference for the article link that was posted in cwc for people to look over and determine what's actually going on. Alteceastlansing 01:47, 11 October 2009 (CEST)
 * Well obviously go off this article. It's from 1993, from an actual reliable source (i.e. newspaper) as opposed to Chris's warped personal history, and Chris has a fuzzy memory for time. He's often off by weeks or months in videos, he thinks that he's been trolled for three years (only two), he thought Ivy died last year (only this July), and he apparently got the date wrong in his PS3 history level. We learn more things, we revise things as we learn them. Remember, CWCki is not always right. --Champthom 05:20, 11 October 2009 (CEST)


 * At this moment, both dates are in the CWChronology, with short references to eachother. RachmaninovDESU 07:50, 11 October 2009 (CEST)

formatting
maybe we should have a nice way of formatting newspaper articles, with a nice serif font and grey background and justified spacing and shit --cogsdev/vedsgoc 02:35, 11 October 2009 (CEST)
 * Okay, here's a quick one, . Feel free to tweak it. Enjoy, folks! --wwwwolf (wake me when you need me) 11:03, 12 October 2009 (CEST)

Chris was not that slow-in-the-mind back then?
In the article, Chris is 11, and is "intellectually 12 or 13". Since child IQ is 100 times intellectual age over chronological age, this puts Chris's IQ at roughly 110 back then. Just a little note. --16BitAlex 03:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Except that he's now about seven years old mentally. Which, using the formula, puts his IQ at ((100x7)/28) = 25. Actually, that makes sense.


 * You have to remember to: back then Chris's mind was still growing and he was actually being challenged intellectually by school. After a decade of doing nothing besides playing video games and masturbating, his brain probably lost a good amount of its functionality form inactivity. Chris might have actually had the chance to be a genius, but his laziness and refusal to be challenged destroyed what little chance he had at improving his mind. --SargentPickles 10:29, 26 May 2010 (EST)
 * Well, considering he has a singular lack of talent in all elements of the wide field of human endeavours and displays, in fact, aptitude with absolutely nothing at all, I can't say that I disagree.--Ronichu 14:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Title name
Does the name of the title have to be in all caps? Even though it was printed that way, I don't think it means the author intended it to be reproduced in all caps. I'm thinking about moving it to a regularly capitalized title. ChaosAkita 22:05, 29 July 2011 (PDT)

That's how it was published, why change it? --Thorgnzorrg 23:00, 29 July 2011 (PDT)


 * Using a random book next to me as an example, FREAKANOMICS by STPHEN D. LEVITT and STEPHEN J. DUBNER is written in a capital case font. However, that doesn't mean that the writers wanted to disregard normal capitalization rules; that's just how they chose to display the title and their names in. Nor does it mean since the book's title isn't italicized on the cover, the title shouldn't be italicized if I were to mention it in this wiki. The same goes for everything else that was published in a capital typeface, including this newspaper article. ChaosAkita 01:05, 31 July 2011 (PDT)