Talk:History of Saxony

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] PICTURES!!!!!!!!

1. This article needs more pictures!!! Then it would be super dooper awesome!

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.92.15.78 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 20 May 2006

2. Changed to "This article needs more pictures!!! Then it would be super dee dooperly awesome!" by:[1]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.24.229.90 (talk • contribs) Revision as of 23:09, 18 October 2006

3. -agreed! Pictures would be nice... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelmaraude (talk • contribs) Revision as of 06:45, 20 October 2006

[edit] Needs more organization.

  • Can hardly read+Information is scattered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dongolov (talk • contribs) Revision as of 16:01, 29 October 2006 (Needs more organization.)

__________________________________ CONCISE: The article is a handy little overview of Saxony; a guide to the future tidier article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kompass (talk • contribs) Revision as of 03:57, 7 December 2006 ('m Added comment defending this page'.)

  • Above reconstructed/refactored and tagged by me! // FrankB 07:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Motion to Split

|
  1. The problem with this article is first it's not getting edited[2]

       
  2. Secondly, geographic... the damn name started at the Rhine (see: description in Old Saxony--I've been looking for a good map of Germany to pin 'that' region down ever since!) and has gradually been drifting Eastwards until the current locale in Free State of Saxony/Kingdom of Saxony.


    1. A fair guess on that is a drift of 500 miles! (Boston to Pittburgh)

         
  1. Thirdly, political or historo-political concerns and topics are intricately blended with geographic due to the laws of inheritance in the old Holy Roman Empire and the later eventual German State.
  2. OTOH, as a survey article, it may have a place, but should focus then on the high points of the change and drift over time, their causes and effects, and leave the different geo-political coverages to the articles annoted already as main articles. Believe THAT is the best way to go. // FrankB 07:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I just read the article and think it is great the way it is. That it is a bit confusing is due to the confusing facts. This is the first time I have understood how all the ambiguity concerning the terms "Saxon" and "Saxony" came about. I think the article should be left intact. As a comment to the "drift of 500 miles!" I'd like to point out that there still is a state that is called Lower Saxony in roughly the same place as the "Old Saxony". malte h. 21 April 2008

P.S.: Ah, and by the way, Saxony didn't start out at the Rhine but north of the Elbe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.180.12.141 (talk) 19:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)