Difference between revisions of "Talk:Kingdom of Gleann Abhann"
m (Yvesdelyle moved page Talk:Gleann Abhann to Talk:Kingdom of Gleann Abhann: Moved to update the status)
Latest revision as of 21:18, 17 March 2017
I added an SCA box based on the info that was there already. THus most of it is now unneeded, as it appears in the box. If someone has a better use for the space, knock yourself out. I figured I'd leave it if someone really prefered that to the nifty box most kingdoms have.
Thanks for the box...I have a copy of the Kingdom Arms I can upload.
Nice kingdom graphic. I like the laurel leaves. Sabine 06:08, 28 July 2006 (EST)
- Thank you --Thorgrimr of Dragonsspine 11:44, 28 July 2006 (EST)
This is the only one of the 19 kingdoms that doesn't have "Kingdom of" in its name/title - that should be fixed by a superuser for parallelism. Avraham haRofeh 02:21, 5 September 2006 (EST)
Good idea. I also notice many of the local groups are listed as (name) instead of Shire/Barony of (name). Maybe someone can fix those as well?
- The general reason for this is that branches can get an upgrade, e.g. Principality of Lochac to Kingdom of Lochac, canton to shire or barony etc. If Shire of XXXX is just a redirect to the actual text on XXXX then nothing will need to be moved when it becomes a principality. Otherwise, shifting the content of Shire of XXXX to Principality of XXXX (which makes Shire of XXXX a redirect) can very easily create a set of broken double redirects. Umm... understand what I am trying to say? - Cian Gillebhrath 16:08, 25 September 2006 (EST)
Do we really need links for the all individuals (kings, Queens, Knights)?