Talk:Kingdom: Difference between revisions
mNo edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (6 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
It seems to make more sense to put the explanatory text at the top, and the list of Kingdoms below. I've made that change, although if there is a pressing reason for it be otherwise, it can always be changed back. [[User:AlexandreDavigne|AlexandreDavigne]] ([[User talk:AlexandreDavigne|talk]]) 03:33, 8 February 2013 (EST) |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | |||
---- |
|||
Actually, it should be �thelmearc (mearc, not marc) [[User:Conrad Leviston|Conrad]] |
|||
=== Order === |
|||
I know that Lochach is near and dear to most of the contributors hearts, but I find the order of the kingdoms to be curious. Is there any reason not to put them in order of precedence? |
I know that Lochach is near and dear to most of the contributors hearts, but I find the order of the kingdoms to be curious. Is there any reason not to put them in order of precedence? |
||
| Line 7: | Line 11: | ||
Also, should we have a one line blurb for each kingdom? Could we tighten it up so it fits on one line? E.g., maybe just the year of formation rather than the full date. Details will be in the page for that kingdom anyway. ~ [[User:JakeVortex|JakeVortex]] 04:40, 5 Nov 2003 (EST) |
Also, should we have a one line blurb for each kingdom? Could we tighten it up so it fits on one line? E.g., maybe just the year of formation rather than the full date. Details will be in the page for that kingdom anyway. ~ [[User:JakeVortex|JakeVortex]] 04:40, 5 Nov 2003 (EST) |
||
:I'd say the list should be changed, as long as there is a good reason for the new order (you might want to add a short note about the order of the list to the article) - [[User:Tobin|Tobin]] |
:I'd say the list should be changed, as long as there is a good reason for the new order (you might want to add a short note about the order of the list to the article) - [[User:Tobin|Tobin]] |
||
::Done. Fix it, or let me know if it causes heartburn. ;-> ~ [[User:JakeVortex|JakeVortex]] |
|||
== Clean up== |
|||
We need to change this to a page for SCA kingdoms (or rather SCA kingdom timeline/OoP. The redirect for [[kingdom]] needs to be changed to its own page that can describe what was a [[period]] kingdom and what is an SCA kingdom (ala [[barony]], [[canton]], etc). It can have a link to the new version of this page. There should be no [[kingdoms]] page as it is a plural title. - [[User:Cian|Cian Gillebhrath]] 17:54, 12 Nov 2005 (CST) |
|||
:There is no doubt that we need a page that includes both SCA and historical kingdoms on it. I would personally leave the list of SCA kingdoms on this page until such time as the page becomes too cluttered. I agree with you regarding the plural title, and have changed it. [[User:Conrad Leviston|Conrad Leviston]] 22:35, 12 Nov 2005 (CST) |
|||
Latest revision as of 04:33, 8 February 2013
It seems to make more sense to put the explanatory text at the top, and the list of Kingdoms below. I've made that change, although if there is a pressing reason for it be otherwise, it can always be changed back. AlexandreDavigne (talk) 03:33, 8 February 2013 (EST)
Someone stop me if I'm wrong but shouldn't "Kingdom of Aethelmarc" read as "Kingdom of �thelmarc"? If no one has a problem with me fixing this I'll do so tomorrow. And I'll change the other popular spellings to redirects. - Tobin 12:22 29 Jun 2003 (EST)
Actually, it should be �thelmearc (mearc, not marc) Conrad
Order
I know that Lochach is near and dear to most of the contributors hearts, but I find the order of the kingdoms to be curious. Is there any reason not to put them in order of precedence?
Also, should we have a one line blurb for each kingdom? Could we tighten it up so it fits on one line? E.g., maybe just the year of formation rather than the full date. Details will be in the page for that kingdom anyway. ~ JakeVortex 04:40, 5 Nov 2003 (EST)
- I'd say the list should be changed, as long as there is a good reason for the new order (you might want to add a short note about the order of the list to the article) - Tobin
- Done. Fix it, or let me know if it causes heartburn. ;-> ~ JakeVortex
Clean up
We need to change this to a page for SCA kingdoms (or rather SCA kingdom timeline/OoP. The redirect for kingdom needs to be changed to its own page that can describe what was a period kingdom and what is an SCA kingdom (ala barony, canton, etc). It can have a link to the new version of this page. There should be no kingdoms page as it is a plural title. - Cian Gillebhrath 17:54, 12 Nov 2005 (CST)
- There is no doubt that we need a page that includes both SCA and historical kingdoms on it. I would personally leave the list of SCA kingdoms on this page until such time as the page becomes too cluttered. I agree with you regarding the plural title, and have changed it. Conrad Leviston 22:35, 12 Nov 2005 (CST)
