![]() However, I feel the problem comes in when specific teams are mentioned. ![]() ![]() Mentioning the leagues you mentioned for the reasons you said above (i.e., Pillbox because it is equal in activity as Ducati, GU and Open Leagues because they are more active) sounds good to me. I had mentioned it only as "quick fix" sort of because I thought you had meant it seriously. Why should they not be included? Besides, surely the more inactive leagues need the link more than the others? - CBG 21:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC) You are correct, a nameless section is a bit stupid and doesn't provide much educational value through the use of examples. Surely they deserve a link at least, since they are BZFlag Leagues. The other two leageus are up and running, but not as active as the others. Pillbox is pretty much the same as Ducati in the terms of activity, so they deserve it too. I felt that the GU and Open leagues deserved the same treatment as they are far more active than ducati at the moment. In the old link you provided, there were 5 teams of the original ducat league mentioned. What on earth is the point of a League section that says "BZFlag has some leagues where players join teams and match." ? That's just stupid, as far as I can see. Lan56 23:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC) Reply My comment on removing all the links was totally sarcastic. A section without names and examples sounds like a good deal to keep debates like this from happening. You say that "Surely ALL the links in the section should be removed, at the very least," I feel this would be best at this point to avoid any disagreement on what deserves mentioning and what doesn't. Therefore, I don't see the educational value and the maintaining of a NPOV by adding even more teams and making it a complex list, like what has happened. In general, what I am trying to say is that it has turned into more of a detailed list of teams rather than a small handful of examples to give an uneducated reader a feel for what exists, which is what it was originally. I eliminated the two bottoms one because they were captioned, "Some other leagues you might want to look into are:", which provides no real explanation as to why they are significant enough to remain on the page, and are rather out of place. Frankly, I feel it has gotten out of hand. However, it has now turned into a hierarchy and more advanced list of leagues, all of different social, historical, and statistical diversity. In that case, a correction could have been made. Perhaps other teams had been around a lot longer than even the oldest listed, such as TLZ. Therefore, I had felt that they were good examples for their historical significance. Because the teams that were originally listed had been around virtually since BZFlag transferred to SF.net (save HoW), which was a landmark move into its current modern era, or shortly after. Originally, the 5 leagues that were listed (as of ) were placed with the idea to not make the section complex and filled with specific names of leagues, but to provide a small handful of examples just to give the uneducated reader a feel for what is around. I have reverted back to the previous version because whatever Lan56 says about those leagues, they are leagues, so why can't they be listed? - CBG 13:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC) I find it odd that we can advertise 4 leagues, but not two others, when there is nothing obvious that is different about those two, compared to the 4 that were not removed. It's also interesting that he says this is not a place to "advertise" the leagues? In that case, why is there a league section at all? Surely ALL the links in the section should be removed, at the very least. He removed links to two leagues because they are "too new" even though they were both created before the OpenLeague that he did not remove. CBG 23:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)Īlso, It's interesting to see that Lan56 edited the section. I did however have a problem in making a link read "", the and tags did not help so for now I have just dropped the brackets from the team name. I totally rewrote the League section as I felt the existing information was very out of date and misleading.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |