Cunnan talk:Lochac-centrism: Difference between revisions

From Cunnan
Jump to navigationJump to search
(How about "Regional Point of View"?)
(sounds good.)
 
Line 2: Line 2:
* Probably, but what should we call it? "Regionality"? "Parochiality"? "Internationalisation"? [[User:Morgant|Morgant]]
* Probably, but what should we call it? "Regionality"? "Parochiality"? "Internationalisation"? [[User:Morgant|Morgant]]
** Good point. There are pages that should have a regional focus because of the subject matter (e.g., [[An Tir]]) there are others that have a limited scope because they were only written from that perspective. How about we call this '''regional point of view''' or '''RPOV'''? ~ [[User:JakeVortex|JakeVortex]]
** Good point. There are pages that should have a regional focus because of the subject matter (e.g., [[An Tir]]) there are others that have a limited scope because they were only written from that perspective. How about we call this '''regional point of view''' or '''RPOV'''? ~ [[User:JakeVortex|JakeVortex]]
*** Sounds good to me. I'll add a note about using "What links here?" to find RPOV articles. - [[User:Tobin|Tobin]]

Latest revision as of 10:27, 6 January 2004

Hmmm, should we limit ourselves to Lochac centrism? It possible that at some point we will have to deal with info specific to other kingdoms. Is a more general notice needed? - Tobin 15:51, 1 Jan 2004 (EST)

  • Probably, but what should we call it? "Regionality"? "Parochiality"? "Internationalisation"? Morgant
    • Good point. There are pages that should have a regional focus because of the subject matter (e.g., An Tir) there are others that have a limited scope because they were only written from that perspective. How about we call this regional point of view or RPOV? ~ JakeVortex
      • Sounds good to me. I'll add a note about using "What links here?" to find RPOV articles. - Tobin