Talk:Martial arts: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>John Stephenson |
imported>Peter Schmitt (→Stupid page name: a Catalog is reasnable) |
||
Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
::Seems to be fine! I further suggest that [[Martial arts/Catalogs]] be deleted and its material moved to [[Martial arts/Related Articles] with appropriate <nowiki>{{r|...</nowiki> templating, unless someone can think of a reason not to. [[User:John Stephenson|John Stephenson]] 14:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC) | ::Seems to be fine! I further suggest that [[Martial arts/Catalogs]] be deleted and its material moved to [[Martial arts/Related Articles] with appropriate <nowiki>{{r|...</nowiki> templating, unless someone can think of a reason not to. [[User:John Stephenson|John Stephenson]] 14:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC) | ||
::: The Related Articles page could be deleted (it is bot generated). But a Catalog of martial arts is justified (though the current one is only a list). Related Articles is better confined to a few of the most important ones, I would say. --[[User:Peter Schmitt|Peter Schmitt]] 15:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 10:01, 8 December 2010
Stupid page name
Articles that are not about "Martial arts (General)" will be on specified pages - like karate or boxing or taekwondo. This suffix can be removed from the page name. Could a Constable do so after removing the redirect from "Martial arts". This will then ensure that page history is not lost. --Tom Morris 18:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- Moved as requested (I hope). Bruce M. Tindall 20:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- Seems to be fine! I further suggest that Martial arts/Catalogs be deleted and its material moved to [[Martial arts/Related Articles] with appropriate {{r|... templating, unless someone can think of a reason not to. John Stephenson 14:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- The Related Articles page could be deleted (it is bot generated). But a Catalog of martial arts is justified (though the current one is only a list). Related Articles is better confined to a few of the most important ones, I would say. --Peter Schmitt 15:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)