Talk:Clan Listing: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Reginald2710 (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| 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) | |||
Revision as of 21:54, 6 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)