Difference between revisions of "Talk:Bay of Dardanos"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Concerning the removal of the "Cnidian Gates" link, would you be averse to keeping the article around in a bare-bones form? "It is called this and it is located here," or something thereabouts. -{{User:Delphinus/sig1}} 15:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC) | Concerning the removal of the "Cnidian Gates" link, would you be averse to keeping the article around in a bare-bones form? "It is called this and it is located here," or something thereabouts. -{{User:Delphinus/sig1}} 15:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC) | ||
:I suppose it depends what's in the article. What did you have in mind? I'll ask Big N. [[User:Asara|Asara]] 17:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC) | :I suppose it depends what's in the article. What did you have in mind? I'll ask Big N. [[User:Asara|Asara]] 17:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC) | ||
:Thinking about it a bit more, I guess it would be a disservice -not- not include it from the Chronicler standpoint. Geographical information would certainly be OK, I just don't know how blurby it would be. [[User:Asara|Asara]] 14:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 14:37, 23 January 2009
Concerning the removal of the "Cnidian Gates" link, would you be averse to keeping the article around in a bare-bones form? "It is called this and it is located here," or something thereabouts. -Delphinus @ 15:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- I suppose it depends what's in the article. What did you have in mind? I'll ask Big N. Asara 17:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thinking about it a bit more, I guess it would be a disservice -not- not include it from the Chronicler standpoint. Geographical information would certainly be OK, I just don't know how blurby it would be. Asara 14:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)