Talk:Rivers Region: Difference between revisions
→"Region" added: follow-up |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
In retrospect, I think it's possible that Rivers (Region) would be a better page name. Then I can make a Western (Region) too, etc. Any comments on this? [[User:Wenyeva|Wenyeva atte grene]] 23:50, 30 Nov 2005 (EST) | In retrospect, I think it's possible that Rivers (Region) would be a better page name. Then I can make a Western (Region) too, etc. Any comments on this? [[User:Wenyeva|Wenyeva atte grene]] 23:50, 30 Nov 2005 (EST) | ||
I agree "Rivers Region" is a better name. "Western Region" is a good historical reference as well. --[[User:Braidwood|Elizabeth Braidwood]] 20:13, 5 Dec 2005 (EST) | |||
Revision as of 17:13, 5 December 2005
"Region" added
Hello,
I changed the page to Rivers Region from Rivers because I generally heard the regions with the word "Region" tacked on... "They are in Rivers Region" not "They are in Rivers." As I am up here in Western Region, though, maybe the usage is different down there. It can be changed back easily if people think it's necessary. Right now there's a redirect so if you link to Rivers it will take you through to Rivers Region, so nothing is broken. Wenyeva atte grene 23:39, 30 Nov 2005 (EST)
In retrospect, I think it's possible that Rivers (Region) would be a better page name. Then I can make a Western (Region) too, etc. Any comments on this? Wenyeva atte grene 23:50, 30 Nov 2005 (EST)
I agree "Rivers Region" is a better name. "Western Region" is a good historical reference as well. --Elizabeth Braidwood 20:13, 5 Dec 2005 (EST)