Jump to content

Talk:Akrafena

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

RfC: Should Akrafena be merged with Akofena

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this very elderly discussion was to merge the articles. Have transferred the text to a section headed "coat of arms" to distinguish it from the general topic of the swords themselves. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:40, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should the Akrafena article be merged with the Akofena article? Which English version should be used in the article? Adamdaley (talk) 06:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]

Robert (talk) 03:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded discussion

[edit]
  • If both articles were to be merged as one article, I feel that the single article should have a high quality of information. With the information it should also be made as American English and have the grammar and spelling as of American English with the suitable referencing and citation so there isn't any confusion or doubts with information and users who are not that familiar with the article. If they remain as two separate articles, further referencing and citations need to be addressed as well as a specific English, as American english. Adamdaley (talk) 06:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the (minor) language issue: Adamdaley, you can't have it both ways! You wrote under the "Survey" heading:

To me it doesn't matter if it's either American English or British English.

but here you seem to be arguing for American English. Perhaps you're really just saying that they should both use the same variety of English? I'd go along with that, if the two articles remain separate and cross-reference each other, on your grounds of reducing confusion. I don't care which variety of English is used.
Still, supposing the decision is to merge the two articles, then the resulting article obviously should use only one variety of English; and, per usual practice, that variety should be the variety used by the original author.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Removed sections referenced to 'Davidson'

[edit]

I've removed two sections for which the reference was incomplete, and which seem dubious. As a result of removing these sections I'm also going to remove the hoax tag as everything else seems verifiable. Landscape repton (talk) 08:36, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This source seems to incorporate a decent amount of information on the topic that could replace some references if the Davidson source can't be located.Landscape repton (talk) 08:49, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Electric Eels do not Live in Africa

[edit]

There are no electric eels in Africa, how can the sheathes be made of them? There are electric catfish, but no eels. 47.220.160.48 (talk) 14:31, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]