Talk:Knights of Ozem
Page name [CONCLUDED]
An argument could be made that this page should be renamed Knights of Lastwall, since that is their current name. --Brandingopportunity (talk) 06:24, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- I think, having considered this and with the publication of a whole sourcebook about the Knights of Lastwall, we need to split this page into two: Knights of Ozem and Knights of Lastwall. The former is a valid organisation albeit now historical, and we have plenty to make a page for the latter, which is a distinct change to the organisation. This also is consistent with what we've done for nations and their historical predecessors, such as Lastwall and Gravelands. Finally, we keep the correct categories for each page. That later task I'll do now anyway. --Fleanetha (talk) 21:19, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- An issue with this is that the new nations (Gravelands, Vidrian, etc) only share the territory and little else with predecessor states, while in this particular case, the only big difference is that the organisation rebranded its name. I think a simple rename would be sufficient (I doubt this proposal would even come up at the first place if the organisation had kept the old name). - HTD (talk) 16:17, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- Splitting articles with meaningfully different historical periods (e.g., French Fourth Republic vs French Fifth Republic), as Fleanetha has suggested, is very typical on other Wikis and I think would make sense here. CadeHerrig (talk) 12:24, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- An issue with this is that the new nations (Gravelands, Vidrian, etc) only share the territory and little else with predecessor states, while in this particular case, the only big difference is that the organisation rebranded its name. I think a simple rename would be sufficient (I doubt this proposal would even come up at the first place if the organisation had kept the old name). - HTD (talk) 16:17, 23 June 2022 (UTC)