Talk:Clan Listing - Revision history

Administrator: /* Recent */ new section

2011-05-08T12:53:08Z

Recent: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:53, 8 May 2011
Line 45:		Line 45:

	Fixed. Sorry. We both updated the site at the same time. --[[User:Cwevan\|Evan]] 17:16, 7 March 2008 (PST)		Fixed. Sorry. We both updated the site at the same time. --[[User:Cwevan\|Evan]] 17:16, 7 March 2008 (PST)

			== Recent ==

			Can we get clarification on the @ clan being the oldest clan?

			Removed "@" tags in names, don't need those here.

2008-03-08T01:16:24Z

BCO Clan

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:16, 8 March 2008
Line 43:		Line 43:

	Um why was bco clan removed from the wiki? we had everything needed on it. --[[User:Theowningone\|Theowningone]] 13:33, 7 March 2008 (PST)		Um why was bco clan removed from the wiki? we had everything needed on it. --[[User:Theowningone\|Theowningone]] 13:33, 7 March 2008 (PST)

			Fixed. Sorry. We both updated the site at the same time. --[[User:Cwevan\|Evan]] 17:16, 7 March 2008 (PST)

2008-03-07T21:33:49Z

BCO Clan

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:33, 7 March 2008
Line 42:		Line 42:
	== BCO Clan ==		== BCO Clan ==

	Um why was bco clan removed from the wiki? we had everything needed on it.		Um why was bco clan removed from the wiki? we had everything needed on it. --[[User:Theowningone\|Theowningone]] 13:33, 7 March 2008 (PST)

2008-03-07T21:33:29Z

New section: BCO Clan

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:33, 7 March 2008
Line 39:		Line 39:

	Thanks for fixing the Z4G listing Evan, my mind blanked on how to use wiki formatting --[[User:Knighttemplar\|Knighttemplar]] 07:13, 4 March 2008 (PST)		Thanks for fixing the Z4G listing Evan, my mind blanked on how to use wiki formatting --[[User:Knighttemplar\|Knighttemplar]] 07:13, 4 March 2008 (PST)

			== BCO Clan ==

			Um why was bco clan removed from the wiki? we had everything needed on it.

2008-03-04T15:13:50Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:13, 4 March 2008
Line 37:		Line 37:

	We should make it a requirement for clans to have a valid web page to have an entry on this list. For example, currently at least one newly added clan ("Xcelletic .xC") points to a bogus page. A week to update the link is sufficient imho, after which I'll remove it from the listing. --[[User:Chahk\|Chahk]] 10:25, 10 December 2007 (PST)		We should make it a requirement for clans to have a valid web page to have an entry on this list. For example, currently at least one newly added clan ("Xcelletic .xC") points to a bogus page. A week to update the link is sufficient imho, after which I'll remove it from the listing. --[[User:Chahk\|Chahk]] 10:25, 10 December 2007 (PST)

			Thanks for fixing the Z4G listing Evan, my mind blanked on how to use wiki formatting --[[User:Knighttemplar\|Knighttemplar]] 07:13, 4 March 2008 (PST)

2007-12-10T18:25:03Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:25, 10 December 2007
Line 34:		Line 34:

	I agree there is a bunch of empty space this way... it would make sense if we had 893843 clans, but we don't at the moment. Can we just make an alphabetized list and move the current template to this talk page to store until it is needed in the distant future? --[[User:Cwevan\|Evan]] 18:49, 7 July 2007 (EDT)		I agree there is a bunch of empty space this way... it would make sense if we had 893843 clans, but we don't at the moment. Can we just make an alphabetized list and move the current template to this talk page to store until it is needed in the distant future? --[[User:Cwevan\|Evan]] 18:49, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
			* I tend to agree. We don't have as many clans (active or not) to warrant the current page layout. Divide into several sections (Active, Inactive, Disbanded) and alphabetize within each. --[[User:Chahk\|Chahk]] 10:25, 10 December 2007 (PST)

			We should make it a requirement for clans to have a valid web page to have an entry on this list. For example, currently at least one newly added clan ("Xcelletic .xC") points to a bogus page. A week to update the link is sufficient imho, after which I'll remove it from the listing. --[[User:Chahk\|Chahk]] 10:25, 10 December 2007 (PST)

2007-07-07T22:49:21Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:49, 7 July 2007
Line 32:		Line 32:

	Without all those big letters and empty spaces --[[User:Knighttemplar\|Knighttemplar]] 10:54, 6 July 2007 (EDT)		Without all those big letters and empty spaces --[[User:Knighttemplar\|Knighttemplar]] 10:54, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

			I agree there is a bunch of empty space this way... it would make sense if we had 893843 clans, but we don't at the moment. Can we just make an alphabetized list and move the current template to this talk page to store until it is needed in the distant future? --[[User:Cwevan\|Evan]] 18:49, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

2007-07-06T14:54:49Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:54, 6 July 2007
Line 4:		Line 4:

	I think alphabetical is more valuable, but maybe the less notable disbanded ones could be purged every now and then? [[User:Broccoli\|Broccoli]] 14:27, 5 July 2007 (EDT)		I think alphabetical is more valuable, but maybe the less notable disbanded ones could be purged every now and then? [[User:Broccoli\|Broccoli]] 14:27, 5 July 2007 (EDT)



	Alphabetical makes it look empty and fail. There should be an active, inactive section, both organized alphabetically, but simply like this		Alphabetical makes it look empty and fail. There should be an active, inactive section, both organized alphabetically, but simply like this

	BRUKNER		BRUKNER

	BSID		BSID

	CW		CW

	II		II

	JPL		JPL


	Inactive		Inactive

	All others		All others

	because they suck		because they suck

	can't stick together		can't stick together

	don't know what they're doing		don't know what they're doing


	Without all those big letters and empty spaces --[[User:Knighttemplar\|Knighttemplar]] 10:54, 6 July 2007 (EDT)		Without all those big letters and empty spaces --[[User:Knighttemplar\|Knighttemplar]] 10:54, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

2007-07-06T14:54:26Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:54, 6 July 2007
Line 4:		Line 4:

	I think alphabetical is more valuable, but maybe the less notable disbanded ones could be purged every now and then? [[User:Broccoli\|Broccoli]] 14:27, 5 July 2007 (EDT)		I think alphabetical is more valuable, but maybe the less notable disbanded ones could be purged every now and then? [[User:Broccoli\|Broccoli]] 14:27, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

			Alphabetical makes it look empty and fail. There should be an active, inactive section, both organized alphabetically, but simply like this

			BRUKNER
			BSID
			CW
			II
			JPL

			Inactive
			All others
			because they suck
			can't stick together
			don't know what they're doing

			Without all those big letters and empty spaces --[[User:Knighttemplar\|Knighttemplar]] 10:54, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

2007-07-05T18:27:46Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:27, 5 July 2007
Line 2:		Line 2:

	With so many disbanded/inactive/whatever clans should we separate the list into an active list and an inactive list? --[[User:Cwevan\|Evan]] 13:38, 5 July 2007 (EDT)		With so many disbanded/inactive/whatever clans should we separate the list into an active list and an inactive list? --[[User:Cwevan\|Evan]] 13:38, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

			I think alphabetical is more valuable, but maybe the less notable disbanded ones could be purged every now and then? [[User:Broccoli\|Broccoli]] 14:27, 5 July 2007 (EDT)