Editing Talk:Capellan Confederation Armed Forces
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision
Your text
Line 3:
Line 3: :That's the problem with naming the regiment after its CO. What's wrong with including a listing for a destroyed brigade and noting in its description that it is defunct and why? --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 02:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC) :That's the problem with naming the regiment after its CO. What's wrong with including a listing for a destroyed brigade and noting in its description that it is defunct and why? --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 02:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC) ::Nothings wrong but there should be some system behind shuffling the entries of the listing around. For my taste the formations like Chesterton Reserves that ceased to exist should go to another entry, best as point 4 moving the other entries further down the list. Units that ceased to exist are already recognizable but I think units that were renamed should be too especially when they end up in a new formation under a different name, also a small sentence that is dropped in if any units of a formation were moved to another formation would be good. Some of all this is already in and if anyone else is fine with it I will continue to complete it that way, but before I'll check some source to be sure anything is on the list before I adjust something.--[[User:BigDuke66|BigDuke66]] 19:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC) ::Nothings wrong but there should be some system behind shuffling the entries of the listing around. For my taste the formations like Chesterton Reserves that ceased to exist should go to another entry, best as point 4 moving the other entries further down the list. Units that ceased to exist are already recognizable but I think units that were renamed should be too especially when they end up in a new formation under a different name, also a small sentence that is dropped in if any units of a formation were moved to another formation would be good. Some of all this is already in and if anyone else is fine with it I will continue to complete it that way, but before I'll check some source to be sure anything is on the list before I adjust something.--[[User:BigDuke66|BigDuke66]] 19:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC) − :::Finished, hope anythings looks good.--[[User:BigDuke66|BigDuke66]] 20:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC) ==Preston's Lancers== ==Preston's Lancers==
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision | Your text | ||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
:That's the problem with naming the regiment after its CO. What's wrong with including a listing for a destroyed brigade and noting in its description that it is defunct and why? --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 02:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC) | :That's the problem with naming the regiment after its CO. What's wrong with including a listing for a destroyed brigade and noting in its description that it is defunct and why? --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 02:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC) | ||
::Nothings wrong but there should be some system behind shuffling the entries of the listing around. For my taste the formations like Chesterton Reserves that ceased to exist should go to another entry, best as point 4 moving the other entries further down the list. Units that ceased to exist are already recognizable but I think units that were renamed should be too especially when they end up in a new formation under a different name, also a small sentence that is dropped in if any units of a formation were moved to another formation would be good. Some of all this is already in and if anyone else is fine with it I will continue to complete it that way, but before I'll check some source to be sure anything is on the list before I adjust something.--[[User:BigDuke66|BigDuke66]] 19:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC) | ::Nothings wrong but there should be some system behind shuffling the entries of the listing around. For my taste the formations like Chesterton Reserves that ceased to exist should go to another entry, best as point 4 moving the other entries further down the list. Units that ceased to exist are already recognizable but I think units that were renamed should be too especially when they end up in a new formation under a different name, also a small sentence that is dropped in if any units of a formation were moved to another formation would be good. Some of all this is already in and if anyone else is fine with it I will continue to complete it that way, but before I'll check some source to be sure anything is on the list before I adjust something.--[[User:BigDuke66|BigDuke66]] 19:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC) | ||
| − | |||
==Preston's Lancers== | ==Preston's Lancers== | ||