m (Listing order) |
(→Listing order: Cannot be accurately chronological and should therefore be in page name order) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Listing order== |
==Listing order== |
||
Laughable. — [[User:Robin Patterson|Robin Patterson]] [[User talk:Robin Patterson|(Talk)]] 01:32, July 5, 2010 (UTC) |
Laughable. — [[User:Robin Patterson|Robin Patterson]] [[User talk:Robin Patterson|(Talk)]] 01:32, July 5, 2010 (UTC) |
||
| + | |||
| + | Any attempt to get these monarchs listing in a category in chronological order is misguided and doomed to fail, because at least one of the kings had two separate terms and cannot therefore be in fully correct order. We need an '''article''' for the chronology. It can show all sorts of interesting things that a category cannot show, such as "houses", relationships, and reasons for cessation of reign. — [[User:Robin Patterson|Robin Patterson]] [[User talk:Robin Patterson|(Talk)]] 12:40, September 25, 2010 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 12:40, 25 September 2010
Listing order
Laughable. — Robin Patterson (Talk) 01:32, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
Any attempt to get these monarchs listing in a category in chronological order is misguided and doomed to fail, because at least one of the kings had two separate terms and cannot therefore be in fully correct order. We need an article for the chronology. It can show all sorts of interesting things that a category cannot show, such as "houses", relationships, and reasons for cessation of reign. — Robin Patterson (Talk) 12:40, September 25, 2010 (UTC)