Difference between revisions of "Talk:Sylphrena"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
::: No comment :P, though I also missed that XD [[User:Fbstj|Joe ST]] 05:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC) |
::: No comment :P, though I also missed that XD [[User:Fbstj|Joe ST]] 05:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC) |
||
:::: Well what I did was try to add it to Characters, but then I wrote "Spren" instead. So of course it didn't add to characters. I AM GOODLY ON WIKIS! - Chaos |
:::: Well what I did was try to add it to Characters, but then I wrote "Spren" instead. So of course it didn't add to characters. I AM GOODLY ON WIKIS! - Chaos |
||
| + | |||
| + | ==Ideas for Expansion== |
||
| + | At the very least this requires many awesome quotes of Syl's. That said this article is less crappy than some other articles, what else would be required to promote this to Good? -- [[User:Chaos2651|Chaos2651]] ([[User talk:Chaos2651|talk]]) 02:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 02:27, 15 November 2013
I noticed that spren were marked as Characters in the SprenInfobox template. This shouldn't be, so I removed it. Obviously, Flamespren aren't characters. I think the putting the categories embedded within templates could be too user unfriendly for specific exceptions. Case in point, I can't add Syl to Characters. This is a serious flaw.
It's a nice idea to have things categorized hierarchically, but there needs to be a way to keep it flexible, too. -Chaos
- Aye makes sense, just add Cat:Characters to the bottom of this article? Joe ST 05:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- Oops, I'm just a moron. - Chaos
- No comment :P, though I also missed that XD Joe ST 05:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- Well what I did was try to add it to Characters, but then I wrote "Spren" instead. So of course it didn't add to characters. I AM GOODLY ON WIKIS! - Chaos
- No comment :P, though I also missed that XD Joe ST 05:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- Oops, I'm just a moron. - Chaos
Ideas for Expansion
At the very least this requires many awesome quotes of Syl's. That said this article is less crappy than some other articles, what else would be required to promote this to Good? -- Chaos2651 (talk) 02:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC)