I appreciate the creation of articles pertaining to NAL provinces, but I have a couple rather minor qualms. First, and with all due respect, this is a perfect example of how nòt to use the "here be dragons" template. That one is really intended for areas of IB -- broad topics -- where we have no clue what lies behind the door. The Bahamas, quite frankly, are covered by quite a lot of QAA: the only real differences between *here* and *there* are events that lead up to the Covenant of 1803. The earlier history and much of later events are either known or readily knowable. Of course, we don't know a whole lot about recent Bahamian history under F-C's thumb (dissidents, protests, covert military ops, etc, I would suspect), but these places aren't totally clean slates is what I'm saying! I would suggest removing the tag.
The other is that we need to be careful of creating a whole slew of stub articles. Unless it's your plan to take on the histories of a dozen North American provinces, we risk the future deletion of empty articles, just like what we witnessed re South America. We also need to be very careful about creating a whole slew of articles just to fill gaps. We took that gamble with Africa a while ago and lost. Had to redecorate the whole place. I'ld rather not see the NAL turned into a bunch of patch-work articles!
It's not my intention to curb creative juices -- just want to make sure we're not biting off more than can be chewed without choking. Patience is a virtue: take your time with these twelve provinces, David! ;) Elemtilas
- Actually, I'm not planning on nor interested in writing up every single un-taken province of the NAL. Understandable you might think so from my actions, but it happens that is not the case. This is Thanksgiving Weekend, the first I've spent alone in five years, and two weeks since my Colleen passed on. Quite simply, I was just making busy work for myself, filling in a few things that--it seems to me--belonged. Better than brooding. But I must also point out that while there may well be things established about (for example) the Bahamas, I don't see it anywhere. Honestly, I wasn't going to add anything, just put the templates and flags in place. Zahir 19:47, 27 November 2005 (PST)
- Don't take me the wrong way, please! Far be it from me to step on your toes or to keep you from some good old fashionned busy work (especially given the circumstances)! I'm also not saying you shouldn't have created the stub articles. But I am reminded that we just deleted several score such articles from the Wiki for no other reason than that they were empty templates of places! Sooner or later, someone will probably want to take on those provinces (even though at present it won't be you) so the effort is probably not wasted.
- I understand that mány things are not written anywhere. This will always be the case for a project like this, and as we go along, the situation will not get any better. This will be worse as time goes on, and believe you me, it be hardest on newer Members, such as yourself. I also understand that it will be the cause of frustration -- we've talked about the situation before and have never really come up with a perfect solution. You can also take my word for it that the present Wiki, imperfect and incomplete as it is, is fár better than what we had a couple years ago, which was basically the memories of myself and John Cowan (at that time, the folks who had been around the longest.
- This is where QAA comes in to play. It was devised, by Jan as I recall, to work in tandem with the known (written) facts covered by QSS. When things are not specifically written out for a place, it is assumed that the situation *there* is reasonably similar if not identical to the situation *here*. A good example is the Commonwealth itself. It wasn't actually made QSS until it was written down by me -- but, right from the beginning, it was assumed that Britain's power and prestige and extent of domain were more or less similar to *here*. Thus, places like Bahamas and Malta and Hong Kong, etc. are assumed to tag along even if there is nothing specific written (though we later agreed that India would not be part of Britain's domain). Elemtilas
- Well, at least now they're lying in wait for whoever eventually wants to take them up. The templates are ready, and the ones with flags have the flags in place. Zahir 17:50, 28 November 2005 (PST)
Certainly not Nassau, since England/Scotland *there* followed the Jacobite succession and never had William of Orange-Nassau as King. Benkarnell 14:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe the capital could be named "Stuart". On the other hand, the town could have been founded by dutches.--Marc Pasquin 14:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- The original name *here* was Charles Town, for King Charles I. With the uncreative naming habits of the Stuarts, there are too many James Towns and Charles Towns scattered across the New World, if you ask me. "Stuarton" could work. Or maybe, since the Bahamas were an English colony, name it after an English statesman rather than a Scottish monarch. Benkarnell 15:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
New London? West London? Well it could be New Edinburgh or "South New Castreleon". Misterxeight 21:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Padraic, I added your historical episode to the page. In that spirit I attempted to give the Bahamas a motto. I changed the traditional Expulsis piratis, restitutia commercia (Rogers' motto *here*, unfortunately changed upon Independence in the 70s) to Pacificatis piratis... since the pirates *there* were not expelled, merely pacified. I don't know Latin, however, and that word may need a reconjugation. Benkarnell 03:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
There's a discrepancy: the Infobox and the name of the Lady Governor (taken from a news article?) suggest that the Bahamas was an English colony, later province. But the Viceregal College page and Padraic's Rogeres history give the honor to Kemr. Does anyone know which it is? I added the bit about Charles I myself based on real life, so don't take that as QSS. Benkarnell 04:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- OK. I'd prefer Kemr, actually, only because an inodinate number of provinces seem to be Enlgish. But if that's the way it is, fine. Benkarnell 16:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- I have no preference one way or the other -- it's simply QAA that Bahamas were English as per *here*. Like many other places in America, its actual population is quite mixed. For example, there are many Kemrese there, and the majority of all Bahamians are Kemrese Rite, whether English speaking or not. Elemtilas 23:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)