Difference between revisions of "Talk:Abington the 2nd"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m |
|||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
:To me, the reincarnation of the realm should have its own page. This is especially important in that the "reincarnation" of the realm may have nothing whatsoever to do with the original realm of that name. If the second/third/etc. realm of that name makes it and becomes a true realm in its own right, then the old realm page should be moved, and the new one take its place, a la [[Fronen]] and [[Fronen/Old Fronen]]. --[[User:Indirik|Indirik]] 20:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC) | :To me, the reincarnation of the realm should have its own page. This is especially important in that the "reincarnation" of the realm may have nothing whatsoever to do with the original realm of that name. If the second/third/etc. realm of that name makes it and becomes a true realm in its own right, then the old realm page should be moved, and the new one take its place, a la [[Fronen]] and [[Fronen/Old Fronen]]. --[[User:Indirik|Indirik]] 20:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ::That's exactly my point. This resurrection seems too insignificant and shortlived to justify it's own page and would be better off being mentioned in the main Abington article. I'm not suggesting we should make this a precedent, just that in this case, it hardly seems necessary. The realm was gone in two weeks and there is barely a paragraph's worth of text written about it. At the very least if it does stay, we ought to move the page to [[Abington II]] as is conventional with other realms that take on the names of dead realms --[[User:Revan|Revan]] 21:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 23:19, 25 February 2009
Merge contents with Abington?
For a realm that lasted for such a short time and was only attempting to continue an old Atamaran name, it seems strange that this secession is known as 'Abington II.' As though it was substantially different from the first realm. Surely this would be better off included on the Abington page, much like the recent resurrection of Southasland was tastefully integrated into that page. --Revan 19:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- To me, the reincarnation of the realm should have its own page. This is especially important in that the "reincarnation" of the realm may have nothing whatsoever to do with the original realm of that name. If the second/third/etc. realm of that name makes it and becomes a true realm in its own right, then the old realm page should be moved, and the new one take its place, a la Fronen and Fronen/Old Fronen. --Indirik 20:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- That's exactly my point. This resurrection seems too insignificant and shortlived to justify it's own page and would be better off being mentioned in the main Abington article. I'm not suggesting we should make this a precedent, just that in this case, it hardly seems necessary. The realm was gone in two weeks and there is barely a paragraph's worth of text written about it. At the very least if it does stay, we ought to move the page to Abington II as is conventional with other realms that take on the names of dead realms --Revan 21:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
