Re: Template Alloy3
- For most templates there's no reason making a change similar to mine would break anything. Just don't do it to [[category:foo]] links. Emi [T] 20:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 deletion requests (etc.)
Done. And that was perfect, np by me. Readya later, --Albedo 18:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks forthe heads up. GiantTiger11 00:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 More and yet more Categories
There is a point when a new category really achieves nothing productive. "Physics"?--Albedo 21:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- I fail to see how this is non-productive. If you take a look through the category pages you can see the result I am trying to achieve with the numerous edits that I have done to try to reorganize things. I posted notes about what I was attempting to do in multiple places and received no feedback whatsoever until this point. If you have a better suggestion for organization I would be happy to implement it.
- My general plan of attack was to segregate each category so that it ends up something like Category:Creatures where you have a 'plain' category that links to a sub-category for each version of DF. It is almost like assigning each category to a namespace (like the articles are) only without actual namespaces. This way when a reader clicks on a category link, they can rest assured that they will only get pages belonging to that version of DF.
- You are correct in that it does create three times the categories (four once more pages are added for 23a), however it was the best solution for organization that I could come up with. --Soy(T-C) 21:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- A wiki is a collective process, so the fact that I fail to see how it is productive is not grounds for me to tell you to stop. But nor do I see any explanation or defense for why it is productive. Organization for organization's sake? Okay, there is a point at which more organization really achieves nothing productive. Who will look at the Physics category and find useful info there that isn't found in links from one of the pages? One user? Ten? Is that sufficient grounds? I dunno - if you're excited about it, knock yourself out - maybe I'm just being dense, and just because there is such a point doesn't mean you've reached it, my opinion notwithstanding. Readya later.--Albedo 10:15, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 Category automatic thingymabob
Sorry, I'm rather dense and didn't notice you left a talk page message about this until now. I think it's a good idea personally, but I'm not sure how much organization (or meta-organization) we should be doing or not. However, that's not my place to decide that. Feel free to use your bot to categorize (if you haven't already) the namespaces appropriately. --Briess 17:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)