Talk:Akrafena

RfC: Should Akrafena be merged with Akofena
Should the Akrafena article be merged with the Akofena article? Which English version should be used in the article? Adamdaley (talk) 06:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Survey
Robert (talk) 03:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Merge. I support a merge of the two articles. Which I feel that a specific English should be written. To me it doesn't matter if it's either American English or British English. Adamdaley (talk) 00:17, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - per Adamdaley. United States Man (talk) 02:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Support, to remove redundant information. Kaldari (talk) 20:25, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Merge. I oppose the merge, since one discusses weapons ("arms", "armaments") and the other emblems ("armorials").  Whilst the swords do have symbolic uses in ceremony, they are also, and foremost, weapons of war.  The emblem, however, which only contains an image of swords, has only symbolic functions.  yoyo (talk) 08:44, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Merge There is a section in Akofena that has info about Akrafena, it would reduce redundant infomation.

Threaded discussion

 * If both articles were to be merged as one article, I feel that the single article should have a high quality of information. With the information it should also be made as American English and have the grammar and spelling as of American English with the suitable referencing and citation so there isn't any confusion or doubts with information and users who are not that familiar with the article. If they remain as two separate articles, further referencing and citations need to be addressed as well as a specific English, as American english. Adamdaley (talk) 06:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * On the (minor) language issue: Adamdaley, you can't have it both ways! You wrote under the "Survey" heading:

To me it doesn't matter if it's either American English or British English.
 * but here you seem to be arguing for American English. Perhaps you're really just saying that they should both use the same variety of English?  I'd go along with that, if the two articles remain separate and cross-reference each other, on your grounds of reducing confusion.  I don't care which variety of English is used.


 * Still, supposing the decision is to merge the two articles, then the resulting article obviously should use only one variety of English; and, per usual practice, that variety should be the variety used by the original author.


 * On the substantive issue: Should the two articles be merged?, I oppose a merge, for reasons given above under the "Survey" heading. yoyo (talk) 08:58, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * They should probably merge, but naturally should retain the use of British English. Basket Feudalist 12:45, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Both articles were created by the same editor, so there shouldn't be any issue with national spelling. Kaldari (talk) 20:25, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Removed sections referenced to 'Davidson'
I've removed two sections for which the reference was incomplete, and which seem dubious. As a result of removing these sections I'm also going to remove the hoax tag as everything else seems verifiable. Landscape repton (talk) 08:36, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

This source seems to incorporate a decent amount of information on the topic that could replace some references if the Davidson source can't be located.Landscape repton (talk) 08:49, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Electric Eels do not Live in Africa
There are no electric eels in Africa, how can the sheathes be made of them? There are electric catfish, but no eels. 47.220.160.48 (talk) 14:31, 11 September 2023 (UTC)