Talk:Babkha: Difference between revisions
From MicrasWiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
(Created page with 'Hey Taurusrex/ Your Radiance- excellent work as always but I feel I should point out that there is a problem with the section on Kelestan. You've written that '''Baatharz is the …') |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
Baatharz is not 'occupied' by Antica and Ashkenatza in the manner a reader of this article would think- it's not marked as occupied territory by the MCS and cannot therefore be called such in MicrasWiki. I hasten to add that this isn't to do with a pro-Ashkenatzi bias on my part, simply a matter of terminology which is misleading and presents an inaccurate view of Euran politics as they stand today. | Baatharz is not 'occupied' by Antica and Ashkenatza in the manner a reader of this article would think- it's not marked as occupied territory by the MCS and cannot therefore be called such in MicrasWiki. I hasten to add that this isn't to do with a pro-Ashkenatzi bias on my part, simply a matter of terminology which is misleading and presents an inaccurate view of Euran politics as they stand today. | ||
Over-pedantic much? | |||
Revision as of 17:57, 13 February 2011
Hey Taurusrex/ Your Radiance- excellent work as always but I feel I should point out that there is a problem with the section on Kelestan. You've written that Baatharz is the northernmost region of Babkha and is presently occupied by Antica, Ashkenatza, and Babkha.
Baatharz is not 'occupied' by Antica and Ashkenatza in the manner a reader of this article would think- it's not marked as occupied territory by the MCS and cannot therefore be called such in MicrasWiki. I hasten to add that this isn't to do with a pro-Ashkenatzi bias on my part, simply a matter of terminology which is misleading and presents an inaccurate view of Euran politics as they stand today.
Over-pedantic much?
