Category talk:Obsolete Spells - Revision history

CARAAMON: Redirected page to Category talk:Obsolete spells

2014-12-18T21:40:16Z

Redirected page to Category talk:Obsolete spells

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:40, 18 December 2014
Line 1:		Line 1:
	#REDIRECT [[Category talk:Obsolete ~~Spells~~]]		#REDIRECT [[Category talk:Obsolete spells]]

CARAAMON: Redirected page to Category talk:Obsolete Spells

2014-12-18T21:40:00Z

Redirected page to Category talk:Obsolete Spells

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:40, 18 December 2014
Line 1:		Line 1:
			#REDIRECT [[Category talk:Obsolete Spells]]
	==Are obsolete spells, spells?==
	Should these spells be removed from [[:Category:Spells]]? I'm inclined to say yes. There are a bunch of articles in this category based on proposed spells that never made it into the game at all, and including them in Spells with the live spells is IMO confusing. --[[User:Farman\|Farman]] 00:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
	: The template should remove them from listing in the main categories if they're marked obsolete. -Moderator [[User:Caraamon\|Caraamon Makdasi]]<sup>([[User talk:Caraamon\|talk]])</sup> 00:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

	It appears there was a test in {{tlink\|spell}} that put it in cat:spells if it is not a bard cyclic. I added yet another nested test there to not do that if status = obsolete. --[[User:Farman\|Farman]] 01:00, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
	: I cleaned it up a little bit, I think. -Moderator [[User:Caraamon\|Caraamon Makdasi]]<sup>([[User talk:Caraamon\|talk]])</sup> 01:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

	Eh, it's doing it again... {{tlink\|spell}} is hella complex isn't it --[[User:Farman\|Farman]] 02:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
	: Oh I see what you mean. Yes, I intended it to be included in [[:Category:Spells]] even if they're obsolete or planned. It's a general category for all spells, regardless of status. The specific categories do not contain planned or obsolete, though. -Moderator [[User:Caraamon\|Caraamon Makdasi]]<sup>([[User talk:Caraamon\|talk]])</sup> 02:59, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
	Ah, I suppose I misunderstood your first response here. I guess it's good enough now that the obsolete ones are so clearly marked on each article.

	I was also pondering whether it would be useful to add two more categories, critter spells and mythical or NPC spells... in looking at a few obsolete spells I came across one that seemed to have only been cast by an NPC once but I can't recall which that was... --[[User:Farman\|Farman]] 03:14, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
	:I don't particularly have any objections if you want. -Moderator [[User:Caraamon\|Caraamon Makdasi]]<sup>([[User talk:Caraamon\|talk]])</sup> 03:17, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

CARAAMON at 03:17, 9 December 2012

2012-12-09T03:17:52Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:17, 8 December 2012
Line 11:		Line 11:

	I was also pondering whether it would be useful to add two more categories, critter spells and mythical or NPC spells... in looking at a few obsolete spells I came across one that seemed to have only been cast by an NPC once but I can't recall which that was... --[[User:Farman\|Farman]] 03:14, 9 December 2012 (UTC)		I was also pondering whether it would be useful to add two more categories, critter spells and mythical or NPC spells... in looking at a few obsolete spells I came across one that seemed to have only been cast by an NPC once but I can't recall which that was... --[[User:Farman\|Farman]] 03:14, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
			:I don't particularly have any objections if you want. -Moderator [[User:Caraamon\|Caraamon Makdasi]]<sup>([[User talk:Caraamon\|talk]])</sup> 03:17, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Maintenance script: /* Are obsolete spells, spells? */

2012-12-09T03:14:05Z

Are obsolete spells, spells?

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:14, 8 December 2012
Line 8:		Line 8:
	Eh, it's doing it again... {{tlink\|spell}} is hella complex isn't it --[[User:Farman\|Farman]] 02:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)		Eh, it's doing it again... {{tlink\|spell}} is hella complex isn't it --[[User:Farman\|Farman]] 02:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
	: Oh I see what you mean. Yes, I intended it to be included in [[:Category:Spells]] even if they're obsolete or planned. It's a general category for all spells, regardless of status. The specific categories do not contain planned or obsolete, though. -Moderator [[User:Caraamon\|Caraamon Makdasi]]<sup>([[User talk:Caraamon\|talk]])</sup> 02:59, 9 December 2012 (UTC)		: Oh I see what you mean. Yes, I intended it to be included in [[:Category:Spells]] even if they're obsolete or planned. It's a general category for all spells, regardless of status. The specific categories do not contain planned or obsolete, though. -Moderator [[User:Caraamon\|Caraamon Makdasi]]<sup>([[User talk:Caraamon\|talk]])</sup> 02:59, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
			Ah, I suppose I misunderstood your first response here. I guess it's good enough now that the obsolete ones are so clearly marked on each article.

			I was also pondering whether it would be useful to add two more categories, critter spells and mythical or NPC spells... in looking at a few obsolete spells I came across one that seemed to have only been cast by an NPC once but I can't recall which that was... --[[User:Farman\|Farman]] 03:14, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

CARAAMON at 02:59, 9 December 2012

2012-12-09T02:59:55Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:59, 8 December 2012
Line 7:		Line 7:

	Eh, it's doing it again... {{tlink\|spell}} is hella complex isn't it --[[User:Farman\|Farman]] 02:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)		Eh, it's doing it again... {{tlink\|spell}} is hella complex isn't it --[[User:Farman\|Farman]] 02:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
			: Oh I see what you mean. Yes, I intended it to be included in [[:Category:Spells]] even if they're obsolete or planned. It's a general category for all spells, regardless of status. The specific categories do not contain planned or obsolete, though. -Moderator [[User:Caraamon\|Caraamon Makdasi]]<sup>([[User talk:Caraamon\|talk]])</sup> 02:59, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Maintenance script: /* Are obsolete spells, spells? */

2012-12-09T02:52:42Z

Are obsolete spells, spells?

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:52, 8 December 2012
Line 5:		Line 5:
	It appears there was a test in {{tlink\|spell}} that put it in cat:spells if it is not a bard cyclic. I added yet another nested test there to not do that if status = obsolete. --[[User:Farman\|Farman]] 01:00, 9 December 2012 (UTC)		It appears there was a test in {{tlink\|spell}} that put it in cat:spells if it is not a bard cyclic. I added yet another nested test there to not do that if status = obsolete. --[[User:Farman\|Farman]] 01:00, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
	: I cleaned it up a little bit, I think. -Moderator [[User:Caraamon\|Caraamon Makdasi]]<sup>([[User talk:Caraamon\|talk]])</sup> 01:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)		: I cleaned it up a little bit, I think. -Moderator [[User:Caraamon\|Caraamon Makdasi]]<sup>([[User talk:Caraamon\|talk]])</sup> 01:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

			Eh, it's doing it again... {{tlink\|spell}} is hella complex isn't it --[[User:Farman\|Farman]] 02:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

CARAAMON: /* Are obsolete spells, spells? */

2012-12-09T01:45:13Z

Are obsolete spells, spells?

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:45, 8 December 2012
Line 4:		Line 4:

	It appears there was a test in {{tlink\|spell}} that put it in cat:spells if it is not a bard cyclic. I added yet another nested test there to not do that if status = obsolete. --[[User:Farman\|Farman]] 01:00, 9 December 2012 (UTC)		It appears there was a test in {{tlink\|spell}} that put it in cat:spells if it is not a bard cyclic. I added yet another nested test there to not do that if status = obsolete. --[[User:Farman\|Farman]] 01:00, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
			: I cleaned it up a little bit, I think. -Moderator [[User:Caraamon\|Caraamon Makdasi]]<sup>([[User talk:Caraamon\|talk]])</sup> 01:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Maintenance script at 01:00, 9 December 2012

2012-12-09T01:00:29Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:00, 8 December 2012
Line 2:		Line 2:
	Should these spells be removed from [[:Category:Spells]]? I'm inclined to say yes. There are a bunch of articles in this category based on proposed spells that never made it into the game at all, and including them in Spells with the live spells is IMO confusing. --[[User:Farman\|Farman]] 00:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)		Should these spells be removed from [[:Category:Spells]]? I'm inclined to say yes. There are a bunch of articles in this category based on proposed spells that never made it into the game at all, and including them in Spells with the live spells is IMO confusing. --[[User:Farman\|Farman]] 00:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
	: The template should remove them from listing in the main categories if they're marked obsolete. -Moderator [[User:Caraamon\|Caraamon Makdasi]]<sup>([[User talk:Caraamon\|talk]])</sup> 00:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC)		: The template should remove them from listing in the main categories if they're marked obsolete. -Moderator [[User:Caraamon\|Caraamon Makdasi]]<sup>([[User talk:Caraamon\|talk]])</sup> 00:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

			It appears there was a test in {{tlink\|spell}} that put it in cat:spells if it is not a bard cyclic. I added yet another nested test there to not do that if status = obsolete. --[[User:Farman\|Farman]] 01:00, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

CARAAMON at 00:09, 9 December 2012

2012-12-09T00:09:31Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:09, 8 December 2012
Line 1:		Line 1:
	==Are obsolete spells, spells?==		==Are obsolete spells, spells?==
	Should these spells be removed from [[:Category:Spells]]? I'm inclined to say yes. There are a bunch of articles in this category based on proposed spells that never made it into the game at all, and including them in Spells with the live spells is IMO confusing. --[[User:Farman\|Farman]] 00:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)		Should these spells be removed from [[:Category:Spells]]? I'm inclined to say yes. There are a bunch of articles in this category based on proposed spells that never made it into the game at all, and including them in Spells with the live spells is IMO confusing. --[[User:Farman\|Farman]] 00:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
			: The template should remove them from listing in the main categories if they're marked obsolete. -Moderator [[User:Caraamon\|Caraamon Makdasi]]<sup>([[User talk:Caraamon\|talk]])</sup> 00:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Maintenance script: Created page with "==Are obsolete spells, spells?== Should these spells be removed from :Category:Spells? I'm inclined to say yes. There are a bunch of articles in this category based on p..."

2012-12-09T00:02:33Z

Created page with "==Are obsolete spells, spells?== Should these spells be removed from Category:Spells? I'm inclined to say yes. There are a bunch of articles in this category based on p..."

New page

==Are obsolete spells, spells?==
Should these spells be removed from [[:Category:Spells]]? I'm inclined to say yes. There are a bunch of articles in this category based on proposed spells that never made it into the game at all, and including them in Spells with the live spells is IMO confusing. --[[User:Farman|Farman]] 00:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:52, 8 December 2012
Line 5:		Line 5:
	It appears there was a test in {{tlink\|spell}} that put it in cat:spells if it is not a bard cyclic. I added yet another nested test there to not do that if status = obsolete. --[[User:Farman\|Farman]] 01:00, 9 December 2012 (UTC)		It appears there was a test in {{tlink\|spell}} that put it in cat:spells if it is not a bard cyclic. I added yet another nested test there to not do that if status = obsolete. --[[User:Farman\|Farman]] 01:00, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
	: I cleaned it up a little bit, I think. -Moderator [[User:Caraamon\|Caraamon Makdasi]]<sup>([[User talk:Caraamon\|talk]])</sup> 01:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)		: I cleaned it up a little bit, I think. -Moderator [[User:Caraamon\|Caraamon Makdasi]]<sup>([[User talk:Caraamon\|talk]])</sup> 01:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

			Eh, it's doing it again... {{tlink\|spell}} is hella complex isn't it --[[User:Farman\|Farman]] 02:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)