Clutter
There are an almighty number of Lost Realms now in Beluaterra. That table's starting to get a bit unwieldy. We could get rid of two entries though: Fronen/Old Fronen and Khthon/Old Khthon. If you check the current Khthon page, it already links to the Old Khthon page. The same for Fronen's current page. As such, there doesn't seem to be any real need to link them separately on the Realms of Beluaterra page. Especially as, if anything, this is something that ought to be resolved through a disambiguation on the Fronen/Khthon pages, not four links to two realms in a Realms template. Any objections to removing the Old Khthon and Old Fronen links from the Realms of Beluaterra page? --Revan 14:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Hrrmm... I can see your point. I can also see points against it. To start with, I agree that the Lost Realms section is getting too large. Perhaps it could be changed like this: Break history into ages, as defined by the invasions. List all of this on a subpage of the BT page itself. The template could include a link to this page, while only listing the realms lost as a result of, and after, the most recent invasion. (Or the last dozen, or within the last calendar year, etc...) As for only listing one Fronen or one Khthon, I'm not sure. Just because a realm used the same name does not make it the same realm. Ideally they should be listed using distinctive names pointing to the page for that realm, using alt text as necessary. --Indirik (talk), Editor (talk) 16:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- I think that two long lived realms of the same name deserve a wiki page each for both the former incarnation and the present one, but let that be resolved with a bar atop the main wiki page of the realms involved (like so) - not here where it's just an unnecessary space burner. It's just bizarre and confusing that Khthon is listed as dead twice and Fronen alive and dead all at once. Historically different they maybe, but they're trading off the same name for a reason.
- As for the explicit issue of the size of the Lost Realms section, perhaps with Beluaterra we ought to break the Template in two? Have a table for extant realms and a table for Lost Realms both contained within the template, as follows. To be honest, Atamara could do with her realm table being broken up too. Though I do like the idea of a separate section off the Beluaterra page that sorted realms according to the age they fell/were founded. That's a good idea =) --Revan 18:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Call me sick, but I'm actually a bit fond of the shockingly long list of lost realms. Moreover, I feel that listing "recently lost realms" would be simply silly (if they're recently lost, the memory is more readily available, so it less needs database support), whereas listing only "very old lost realms" would be irrelevant. If there were a way we could classify significant lost realms (say, realms that existed at least 18 months?), and list only those, then put the others in an "other lost realms" category, that might be reasonable. Vellos 21:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- actually I am of the same opinion as Vellos - I really like this 'accruing' of history. If the table really does become too unwieldy, maybe moving shortlived realms of the first 1-2 ages somewhere else might be sensible...but for now either leave it as it is or restructure it according to 'date or age founded' TanSerrai 21:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
