I really don't see the significance to the musical's being named after it, not to the extent that it should be the only tidbit in the bare-bones definition. Also, isn't the reference a bit dated?
But, Eo, if you can make a case, we'll put it right back. Turtle Fan 18:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Since it was listed under Sequoyah as Oh-Sequoyah! I figured it should be listed under Oklahoma.
It need not be listed as filmed in Arizona, however.
EoGuy99 19:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)EoGuy
But Oh-Sequoyah! was relevant to HT's story (and not much else about the place was, not in the SA series certainly). The real play isn't relevant to anything. Turtle Fan 19:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, not all of my corrections and/or additions are good ones, I guess.
Bye
EoGuy99 19:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)EoGuy
Can someone explain to me how Sequoyah can be a mess with insurgents in the Second Great war, despite there being enough settlers from the U.S. to vote in favor of staying in the U.S. during the plebecite?
- It was a pretty close vote and a significant minority is certainly able to make a lot of trouble. The majority of Northern Irish in the 60s and 70s were unionist but the IRA and other Republican groups were still able to raise Cain. The history of guerrilla warfare is absolutely stuffed with other examples.
- There's also a good chance that the pro-US majority eroded during the war. Most of them were settlers who came from elsewhere in the US and had enough ties to more peaceful regions that they could pull out as things got violent. The pro-CS contingent would have been made up entirely of Sequoyah lifers, possibly augmented by Freedomite infiltrators from the CS, but still. The border was sewn up tight on account of the war so the pro-CS crowd had no options other than to stay and fight. The best lack all conviction, while the worst are filled with passionate intensity. Turtle Fan 01:11, June 5, 2011 (UTC)
T2G[]
We've got a section saying simply "See these other two articles" and a lit comment that essentially boils down to "No, really, see these other two articles." Is the latter truly necessary? Turtle Fan (talk) 18:53, January 10, 2016 (UTC)
- I suggest that it's the former that should go, as the lit comment is a detailed description. TR (talk) 21:02, January 10, 2016 (UTC)
- I was thinking about this and tend to agree with TR's suggestion to just have the Lit Comm. It makes the "See" redundant while providing useful info to the user so they don't have to click on the links. ML4E (talk) 21:36, January 10, 2016 (UTC)
- Hmm, yes, that does sound like a better option. Turtle Fan (talk) 00:37, January 11, 2016 (UTC)