Difference between revisions of "Category talk:Dragons"
m (Edited page to remove red links) |
|||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | I know it would be a serious pain to do, and if people think it's a good idea I volunteer to make a start as I've been daft enough to suggest it, but should articles be placed in two categories, when the second is a sub-category of the first? To make this clear with an example should [[Accendare]] be in both the category | + | I know it would be a serious pain to do, and if people think it's a good idea I volunteer to make a start as I've been daft enough to suggest it, but should articles be placed in two categories, when the second is a sub-category of the first? To make this clear with an example should [[Accendare]] be in both the category ''Dragons'' and it's subcategory ''Individual Dragons''? My though was that if entry directly into the Dragons category was restricted to items with no subcategory then these articles would stand out more. --[[User:Andrew|Andrew]] 03:25, 15 February 2007 (PST) |
Hmm, I don't seem to be able to link directly to the Category pages within the text of these comments. --[[User:Andrew|Andrew]] 03:28, 15 February 2007 (PST) | Hmm, I don't seem to be able to link directly to the Category pages within the text of these comments. --[[User:Andrew|Andrew]] 03:28, 15 February 2007 (PST) | ||
| − | [[Category:Dragons]] | + | Andrew -- no, articles shouldn't be placed into both categories in that situation -- that's exactly why the subcategories exist, as you suggest. |
| − | [[Category: | + | |
| + | [[:Category:Dragons]] should only include topical articles about dragons and any dragon subcatgegories. Individual dragons only go into [[:Category:Individual Dragons]] -- same with breed articles, which should only go into [[:Category:Dragon Breeds]]. | ||
| + | |||
| + | (To link to categories, use <nowiki>[[:Category:Dragons]]</nowiki>) | ||
| + | |||
| + | -[[User:Whitearrow|whitearrow]] 16:46, 2 May 2007 (PDT) | ||
Latest revision as of 08:18, 31 March 2011
I know it would be a serious pain to do, and if people think it's a good idea I volunteer to make a start as I've been daft enough to suggest it, but should articles be placed in two categories, when the second is a sub-category of the first? To make this clear with an example should Accendare be in both the category Dragons and it's subcategory Individual Dragons? My though was that if entry directly into the Dragons category was restricted to items with no subcategory then these articles would stand out more. --Andrew 03:25, 15 February 2007 (PST)
Hmm, I don't seem to be able to link directly to the Category pages within the text of these comments. --Andrew 03:28, 15 February 2007 (PST)
Andrew -- no, articles shouldn't be placed into both categories in that situation -- that's exactly why the subcategories exist, as you suggest.
Category:Dragons should only include topical articles about dragons and any dragon subcatgegories. Individual dragons only go into Category:Individual Dragons -- same with breed articles, which should only go into Category:Dragon Breeds.
(To link to categories, use [[:Category:Dragons]])
-whitearrow 16:46, 2 May 2007 (PDT)
