Talk:Clan Listing: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| 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) | |||
Revision as of 14:49, 7 July 2007
Disbanded, inactive, whatever. :P --arklansman
With so many disbanded/inactive/whatever clans should we separate the list into an active list and an inactive list? --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? 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 --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? --Evan 18:49, 7 July 2007 (EDT)