Difference between revisions of "Category talk:Apocrypha"
m |
Supermorff (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
:::Is "Apocrypha in canon articles" too long? It is somewhat clearer. -- [[User:Vaevictis Asmadi|Vaevictis Asmadi]] 21:23, 13 September 2007 (CDT) | :::Is "Apocrypha in canon articles" too long? It is somewhat clearer. -- [[User:Vaevictis Asmadi|Vaevictis Asmadi]] 21:23, 13 September 2007 (CDT) | ||
:::Labyrinth Clan also has Apocryphal information. -- [[User:Vaevictis Asmadi|Vaevictis Asmadi]] 21:31, 13 September 2007 (CDT) | :::Labyrinth Clan also has Apocryphal information. -- [[User:Vaevictis Asmadi|Vaevictis Asmadi]] 21:31, 13 September 2007 (CDT) | ||
+ | |||
+ | ::::I quite like that. [[:Category:Apocrypha in canon articles]] is probably the best name we're going to come up with. By the way, I probably should have mentioned this before, but there is no way to get a link in a category to go to a section of an article. You could theoretically categorise a redirect that goes to that section, but that isn't a good idea for other reasons. -- [[User:Supermorff|Supermorff]] 22:03, 13 September 2007 (CDT) | ||
Revision as of 19:03, 13 September 2007
I added a disclaimer to the description of this category, but I'm still not entirely sure articles like "Goliath" or even "Eye of Odin" should be listed here unless we can make the link jump directly to the apocrypha section. We don't want people who may be newer to the Gargoyles universe being totally confused about why seemingly canon characters are in here. -- Demonskrye 10:44, 13 September 2007
- That's a good idea. Can it be done? I mean, can the links be made to go directly to the Apocrypha sections of each article? Because including canon articles in the Apocrypha category just because they have an apocryphal section, is like putting them in the CiT category just because they have some CiT information. Perhaps the Apocrypha should have a sub-category "Canon articles with apocryphal information" or some less unwieldy name. -- Vaevictis Asmadi 13:08, 13 September 2007 (CDT)
- That sounds sensible. But you're right that we should try to find a shorter name. "Category:Apocrypha addenda" or something? -- Supermorff 16:22, 13 September 2007 (CDT)
- Is "Apocrypha in canon articles" too long? It is somewhat clearer. -- Vaevictis Asmadi 21:23, 13 September 2007 (CDT)
- Labyrinth Clan also has Apocryphal information. -- Vaevictis Asmadi 21:31, 13 September 2007 (CDT)
- I quite like that. Category:Apocrypha in canon articles is probably the best name we're going to come up with. By the way, I probably should have mentioned this before, but there is no way to get a link in a category to go to a section of an article. You could theoretically categorise a redirect that goes to that section, but that isn't a good idea for other reasons. -- Supermorff 22:03, 13 September 2007 (CDT)
This is a test Demona#Apocrypha Goliath#Apocrypha - The Goliath Chronicles