Talk:The Light Brigade

Koimanu, stop reverting this page. You've made no attempt to merge my changes with yours, and that's not acceptable. I updated the infobox with the latest information about your flag's crews and allies, and you just blew it away. Do not simply cut and paste the old version back.

Regarding the issue of royalty. While I have no objection to listing royalty for your flag, it's not customary. Please note, however, this information tends to change pretty regularly for most large flags, and someone has to keep it up-to-date. In fact, the list is already out of date because it mentions neither Letta nor Walker.

Moving further down, you have an unadorned link to an off-wiki URL. It should be labelled as to what it represents instead of making the reader guess.

The description of your flag's government structure is fine, but neither it nor the off-wiki URL belong under "Public Statement" because "Public Statement" should be what your in-game flag statement is.

So, I'm going to merge our versions in a few minutes. Do not simply roll back the changes.

--Barrister 08:30, 12 November 2005 (PST)

My apologies, the only changes myself and other Brigaders wre ntoicing was the loos of the info we really wanted up there. I didn't notice any other changes that were made. Merging works fine. As for out of date info, I believe we are waiting to add the new titled members until their crews' probation periods are over.

-- Komainu 17:48, 12 Nov 2005 (EST)

Thank you Barrister. Things seem to be runnign much smoother now.

-- Komainu 03:16, 5 Dec 2005 (EST)

Incorrect Information
Becouse i am not at home i am unable to check the current situation but i at least know that Helystra is not the queen so if someone wanted to edit this that would be nice :) --Konck1 14:42, 15 February 2006 (PST)
 * The information in the infobox is correct as of the time it was updated, though I didn't have time at the time to check over the article itself. --Thunderbird 14:45, 15 February 2006 (PST)


 * Sorry for not specifying the article is incorrect --Konck1 14:47, 15 February 2006 (PST)