Difference between revisions of "Cunnan talk:Lochac-centrism"

From Cunnan
Jump to navigationJump to search
(Adding suggestions for regional bias hotlist)
(How about "Regional Point of View"?)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
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? - [[User:Tobin|Tobin]] 15:51, 1 Jan 2004 (EST)
 
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? - [[User:Tobin|Tobin]] 15:51, 1 Jan 2004 (EST)
 
* 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]]

Revision as of 03:21, 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