Difference between revisions of "Template talk:Controversial"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(→Category:Conservapedia Administration: That angle is covered.) |
m (→Category:Conservapedia Administration: Two cats need to be merged.) |
||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
:Yes, I think these were discussion pages a previous administrator wanted to keep an eye on rather than outright delete. We just haven't found a better category for them yet. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:50, 17 July 2011 (EDT) | :Yes, I think these were discussion pages a previous administrator wanted to keep an eye on rather than outright delete. We just haven't found a better category for them yet. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:50, 17 July 2011 (EDT) | ||
::Actually, we have. This template ''also'' adds articles to [[:Category:Controversial articles]], so that angle is covered. The template (and ONLY the template) is apparently supposed to go into the "CP Administration" category, so it should be "noinclude". --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:55, 17 July 2011 (EDT) | ::Actually, we have. This template ''also'' adds articles to [[:Category:Controversial articles]], so that angle is covered. The template (and ONLY the template) is apparently supposed to go into the "CP Administration" category, so it should be "noinclude". --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:55, 17 July 2011 (EDT) | ||
| + | :::Done. That Category is a mess; there are two large Categories, Template and Templates, that need to be merged, I think. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:19, 17 July 2011 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 23:19, July 17, 2011
</div>
- Could somebody add one at the end of the template? Without it, the template messes up the entire page. -CSGuy 20:31, 16 November 2008 (EST)
- Fixed. Philip J. Rayment 20:48, 19 November 2008 (EST)
Category:Conservapedia Administration
I think the last line should be changed from
- [[Category:Conservapedia Administration]]
to
- <noinclude>[[Category:Conservapedia Administration]]</noinclude>
because otherwise, all pages this template is used on will be included in that category. This is the case for Talk:Church of Satan and Talk:Homosexuality and Genetics at the moment. --Sid 3050 18:47, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
- Yes, I think these were discussion pages a previous administrator wanted to keep an eye on rather than outright delete. We just haven't found a better category for them yet. Rob Smith 18:50, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
- Actually, we have. This template also adds articles to Category:Controversial articles, so that angle is covered. The template (and ONLY the template) is apparently supposed to go into the "CP Administration" category, so it should be "noinclude". --Sid 3050 18:55, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
- Done. That Category is a mess; there are two large Categories, Template and Templates, that need to be merged, I think. Rob Smith 19:19, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
- Actually, we have. This template also adds articles to Category:Controversial articles, so that angle is covered. The template (and ONLY the template) is apparently supposed to go into the "CP Administration" category, so it should be "noinclude". --Sid 3050 18:55, 17 July 2011 (EDT)