Talk:Patent of Arms: Difference between revisions
From Cunnan
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
* Originally it may have been, but in this context it is an SCAism as it refers to a non-historical [[award]].--[[User:User 144|User 144]] 15:21, 8 Jun 2006 (EST) |
* Originally it may have been, but in this context it is an SCAism as it refers to a non-historical [[award]].--[[User:User 144|User 144]] 15:21, 8 Jun 2006 (EST) |
||
* Then perhaps we need both contexts on the page (hint hint), like many other pages do (e.g. [[reeve]]). Mind you this also demonstrates that perhaps once more we need to make sure that everyone is using a universal meaning for [[SCAism]]. If [[Patent of Arms]] is an SCAism because it has a distinctly different meaning to that in period, then perhaps [[Lord]], [[Lady]] and many other pages should as well? After all, you can't say that they work the same way in the SCA as in period. I suspect this is about to be shifted to the Village Pump :^) - [[User:Cian|Cian Gillebhrath]] 17:25, 8 Jun 2006 (EST) |
* Then perhaps we need both contexts on the page (hint hint), like many other pages do (e.g. [[reeve]]). Mind you this also demonstrates that perhaps once more we need to make sure that everyone is using a universal meaning for [[SCAism]]. If [[Patent of Arms]] is an SCAism because it has a distinctly different meaning to that in period, then perhaps [[Lord]], [[Lady]] and many other pages should as well? After all, you can't say that they work the same way in the SCA as in period. I suspect this is about to be shifted to the Village Pump :^) - [[User:Cian|Cian Gillebhrath]] 17:25, 8 Jun 2006 (EST) |
||
I think that as this [[wiki]] bills itself as a [[recreationist]] resource leaning towards the [[SCA]] it should present information in that sense. ie Historical context first, [[SCA]] and other contexts afterwards.--[[User:User 144|User 144]] 18:00, 8 Jun 2006 (EST) |
**I think that as this [[wiki]] bills itself as a [[recreationist]] resource leaning towards the [[SCA]] it should present information in that sense. ie Historical context first, [[SCA]] and other contexts afterwards.--[[User:User 144|User 144]] 18:00, 8 Jun 2006 (EST) |
||
***While I agree with the conclusion to this point, I don't necessarily agree with the line of argument. You have removed the word heavy from the front page blurb. As for this being categorised as an SCAism, it does not meet the criteria set out in the category page. [[User:Conrad Leviston|Conrad Leviston]] 23:26, 8 Jun 2006 (EST) |
|||
**Other pages have approached this format with subheadings eg "Historical Lords" followed by "Lords inthe SCA". I like this approach (until an article becomes very long) as it allows comparison between historical practise and what the SCA does (which although it could be more historical, we forget how many things we do are based on good history because those bits are the stereotypes). This way I also see no need to decide if it is an SCA-ism or not.[[User:Tiff|Tiff]] |
|||
** I think that the subheading idea is the best way to go about it. I do however, think that an article should lead with a historical meaning and the subheadings only kick in afterwards. On a page that just describe the way things are done in the SCA without a historical reference should be marked in some manner as to not give the wrong idea to some leafing through this resource. --[[User:User 144|User 144]] 16:46, 9 Jun 2006 (EST) |
|||
Latest revision as of 17:46, 9 June 2006
Is the patent of arms an SCAism? I understood that it was a mundane term originally. Conrad Leviston 13:44, 8 Jun 2006 (EST)
- Originally it may have been, but in this context it is an SCAism as it refers to a non-historical award.--User 144 15:21, 8 Jun 2006 (EST)
- Then perhaps we need both contexts on the page (hint hint), like many other pages do (e.g. reeve). Mind you this also demonstrates that perhaps once more we need to make sure that everyone is using a universal meaning for SCAism. If Patent of Arms is an SCAism because it has a distinctly different meaning to that in period, then perhaps Lord, Lady and many other pages should as well? After all, you can't say that they work the same way in the SCA as in period. I suspect this is about to be shifted to the Village Pump :^) - Cian Gillebhrath 17:25, 8 Jun 2006 (EST)
- I think that as this wiki bills itself as a recreationist resource leaning towards the SCA it should present information in that sense. ie Historical context first, SCA and other contexts afterwards.--User 144 18:00, 8 Jun 2006 (EST)
- While I agree with the conclusion to this point, I don't necessarily agree with the line of argument. You have removed the word heavy from the front page blurb. As for this being categorised as an SCAism, it does not meet the criteria set out in the category page. Conrad Leviston 23:26, 8 Jun 2006 (EST)
- Other pages have approached this format with subheadings eg "Historical Lords" followed by "Lords inthe SCA". I like this approach (until an article becomes very long) as it allows comparison between historical practise and what the SCA does (which although it could be more historical, we forget how many things we do are based on good history because those bits are the stereotypes). This way I also see no need to decide if it is an SCA-ism or not.Tiff
- I think that the subheading idea is the best way to go about it. I do however, think that an article should lead with a historical meaning and the subheadings only kick in afterwards. On a page that just describe the way things are done in the SCA without a historical reference should be marked in some manner as to not give the wrong idea to some leafing through this resource. --User 144 16:46, 9 Jun 2006 (EST)
- I think that as this wiki bills itself as a recreationist resource leaning towards the SCA it should present information in that sense. ie Historical context first, SCA and other contexts afterwards.--User 144 18:00, 8 Jun 2006 (EST)
