Category talk:Branch: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| (5 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
----- | ----- | ||
Under the "Subcatagories" heading, which consists of Principalities, there are some glaring holes in our kingdom. Is there not a Principality for the rest of Washington State? What about Idaho/Montana?? | Under the "Subcatagories" heading, which consists of Principalities, there are some glaring holes in our kingdom. Is there not a Principality for the rest of Washington State? What about Idaho/Montana?? | ||
---- | |||
Alas, there is not. And only the panhandle of Idaho is part of An Tir. The rest of the state and all of Montana is part of... Artemisia? --[[User:Braidwood|Elizabeth Braidwood]] | |||
---- | |||
EB is once more correct. All of Montana, Utah and southern Idaho is [http://www.artemisia.sca.org/ Artemisia] Ralg (yet-another transplant from there) | |||
---- | |||
The Central Region of An Tir is divided into the Inlands Region, Rivers Region, and Western Region. All three regions are listed in the subcategory --[[User:Phelan Tolusmidr|Phelan Tolusmiðr]] | |||
== Redundant Category? == | |||
It seems to me that if we need this category at all, it should be limited to only sub-categories. ie. it should not contain a list of all branches. Or if it does, I would suggest we then eliminate "active branches" as a sub-category. Either way works but it seems silly to list the same branches twice in nested categories for no useful purpose. [[User:Edward.godwin|Edward]] ([[User talk:Edward.godwin|talk]]) 13:21, 31 January 2019 (CST) | |||
---- | |||
Interesting. I kind of like being able to see all the branches in one place, but also having access to the sub-categories to narrow down as the need strikes. Given that, I think it is much easier for folks who might be creating pages (or cleaning them up) to generally remember to label any branch with the branch category, rather than trying to remember an exception (like only active). That said, just sub-categories would also work, but I think the tendency has been to go the former route. --[[User:Michelino di Gino Martini|Michelino di Gino Martini]] ([[User talk:Michelino di Gino Martini|talk]]) 15:37, 31 January 2019 (CST) | |||
Latest revision as of 13:38, 31 January 2019
See Template:BranchTemplate for content ideas. Feel free to copy the template to your branch page and go from there.
Under the "Subcatagories" heading, which consists of Principalities, there are some glaring holes in our kingdom. Is there not a Principality for the rest of Washington State? What about Idaho/Montana??
Alas, there is not. And only the panhandle of Idaho is part of An Tir. The rest of the state and all of Montana is part of... Artemisia? --Elizabeth Braidwood
EB is once more correct. All of Montana, Utah and southern Idaho is Artemisia Ralg (yet-another transplant from there)
The Central Region of An Tir is divided into the Inlands Region, Rivers Region, and Western Region. All three regions are listed in the subcategory --Phelan Tolusmiðr
Redundant Category?
It seems to me that if we need this category at all, it should be limited to only sub-categories. ie. it should not contain a list of all branches. Or if it does, I would suggest we then eliminate "active branches" as a sub-category. Either way works but it seems silly to list the same branches twice in nested categories for no useful purpose. Edward (talk) 13:21, 31 January 2019 (CST)
Interesting. I kind of like being able to see all the branches in one place, but also having access to the sub-categories to narrow down as the need strikes. Given that, I think it is much easier for folks who might be creating pages (or cleaning them up) to generally remember to label any branch with the branch category, rather than trying to remember an exception (like only active). That said, just sub-categories would also work, but I think the tendency has been to go the former route. --Michelino di Gino Martini (talk) 15:37, 31 January 2019 (CST)