Category talk:Obsolete Spells: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
|||
| 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) |
|||
Revision as of 21:59, 8 December 2012
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. --Farman 00:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
- The template should remove them from listing in the main categories if they're marked obsolete. -Moderator Caraamon Makdasi(talk) 00:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
It appears there was a test in {{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. --Farman 01:00, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
- I cleaned it up a little bit, I think. -Moderator Caraamon Makdasi(talk) 01:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Eh, it's doing it again... {{spell}} is hella complex isn't it --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 Caraamon Makdasi(talk) 02:59, 9 December 2012 (UTC)