Difference between revisions of "Category talk:Beltline Templates"
From AmtWiki
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
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) | 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)
