Difference between revisions of "Talk:Irombrozia"

From BattleMaster Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m
Line 10: Line 10:
  
 
Realm pages are usually done IC, or at least given IC perspective. Are you sure they're a part of the manual? Also, this page isnt that biased or slanted... and it does tell about the realm [[User:Vellos|Vellos]] 02:29, 19 September 2006 (CEST)
 
Realm pages are usually done IC, or at least given IC perspective. Are you sure they're a part of the manual? Also, this page isnt that biased or slanted... and it does tell about the realm [[User:Vellos|Vellos]] 02:29, 19 September 2006 (CEST)
 +
 +
The only stuff that could be called propaganda here are the titles of the various position-holders (which is ridiculously petty to complain over), and the listing of regions Irombrozia doesn't actually own under the "Regions making up Irombrozia" section.  Since they are asserting their claim over those regions, that seems perfectly reasonable. --[[User:Danaris|Anaris]] 02:43, 19 September 2006 (CEST)

Revision as of 02:43, 19 September 2006

Can we have the propaganda and "political lies" in a sub page? I suggest this be made a realm page! And yes, I know the Luz page also needs to sort that, I just have not had the time to do it personally and the original page was not written by me. Ps. I only mean the region and the claims part -- Maverick

Its an IC page. It can be as biased and slanted as we choose to be. Its been a while since I looked over this page, but it didnt seem THAT slanted... Vellos 21:10, 17 September 2006 (CEST)

That is my point. This should be the realm information page. The IC page should be a sub page since this page is a part of the manual (or it should be if it is not) -- Maverick

Realm pages are usually done IC, or at least given IC perspective. Are you sure they're a part of the manual? Also, this page isnt that biased or slanted... and it does tell about the realm Vellos 02:29, 19 September 2006 (CEST)

The only stuff that could be called propaganda here are the titles of the various position-holders (which is ridiculously petty to complain over), and the listing of regions Irombrozia doesn't actually own under the "Regions making up Irombrozia" section. Since they are asserting their claim over those regions, that seems perfectly reasonable. --Anaris 02:43, 19 September 2006 (CEST)