Difference between revisions of "Category talk:Beltline Templates"

From AmtWiki
 
(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:
  
 
It's there to make it easier to find. --[[User:Linden|Linden]] 16:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 
It's there to make it easier to find. --[[User:Linden|Linden]] 16:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 +
 +
I don't understand how that makes it easier to find. It's also a bit misleading since the category lists non-knights. Perhaps it would be better suited in another category to make it "easier to find." [[User:Itsari|Itsari]] 16:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 +
 +
 +
Fixed templates so the members of each template do not show up. If there is a page that isn't in the Template namespace in this category, it is in the wrong spot. Make sure <nowiki><noinclude></nowiki> tages are used around the category link in each template. [[User:Ricken|Ricken]] 01:25, 30 March 2015 (EDT)

Latest revision as of 05:25, 30 March 2015

Is there a reason why this category is in the Knights category? Itsari 16:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

It's there to make it easier to find. --Linden 16:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand how that makes it easier to find. It's also a bit misleading since the category lists non-knights. Perhaps it would be better suited in another category to make it "easier to find." Itsari 16:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


Fixed templates so the members of each template do not show up. If there is a page that isn't in the Template namespace in this category, it is in the wrong spot. Make sure <noinclude> tages are used around the category link in each template. Ricken 01:25, 30 March 2015 (EDT)