9
edits
Changes
From Warhammer 40k - Lexicanum
New section: Replacing minor races list with link to category
Hmm, I have to check this issue. You might be completly right. In my defense let me tell you that I am not an native English speaker. I will check this and if needed correct this article. [[User:Irulan|Irulan]] 02:27, 8 May 2007 (CEST)
== Replacing minor races list with link to category ==
Quoting from change log as written by [[User:Irulan]]: ''If you had read the races listed in the article you would realize that they include several races listed a bit above. Categories aren't articles and we shouldn't link the two.''
Well, I thought I'd give you some more room to explain this. Since I don't lean towards implicit insults like "you haven't read the articles" and putting them into change logs (instead of user pages, which imho are a great place to insult people), I'll give you some pointers what parts of this I don't understand.
First: What is meant with 'a bit above'? One might think this refers to the text above, but since there are no references to any of the minor races anywhere above, it may mean some dark and terrible secret hidden elsewhere 'above'. Even more so, I am troubled to see any reason to exclude some races and include other. And --this shall be my last point-- an article about "Xenos", not linking to the list containing 'minor xenos races' is complete?
Second: What makes you believe that "one does not link articles and categories"? This must be some rule, maybe from that same 'above' mentioned previously, that I completely missed. This must have happened sometime after the invention of the :category:name linking scheme, which obviously was invented by some heretics to imply that linking articles and categories might be done.
Conclusion: To me, this seems a typical case of list cruft(meaning a fondness of a unnecessary list) and content cruft (meaning "but there was more content before this edit!"), maybe in combination with more modern reference cruft (meaning "oh my, we actually got those nifty footnotes that are totally like scientific, so we gotta keep this!"). I thought I'll post this before having a revert war. [[User:Tierlieb|Tierlieb]] 18:22, 12 May 2008 (CEST)
