Difference between revisions of "Category talk:Cursed Connectors"

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Jump to: navigation, search
(noinclude)
 
(β†’β€Žnoinclude)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
 
== noinclude ==
 
== noinclude ==
 
I think the noinclude tags are wrong (there are two "noinclude" tags but no "/noinclude" ones), but I don't know what's intended with them so it's hard to fix them. [[User:DKMell|DKMell]] ([[User talk:DKMell|talk]]) 20:29, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
 
I think the noinclude tags are wrong (there are two "noinclude" tags but no "/noinclude" ones), but I don't know what's intended with them so it's hard to fix them. [[User:DKMell|DKMell]] ([[User talk:DKMell|talk]]) 20:29, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
 +
:I suspect that the first noinclude was intended to facilitate some transclusion of the initial category description into some other page(s)... Which ones, I'm not sure, without working out what "Special:What links to this page"-type query to use to save a bit of logical but potentially inconclusive manual searching of other page sources.
 +
:As it currently is, the second noinclude should do nothing more given we're already "noincluding" by that point. So I removed that.
 +
:If that was supposed to be an end-noinclude (i.e. start including things again, just before the end - which is going to add cats to pages that transclude this particular cat as text), then the lack of it clearly hasn't been noted as a problem. But you could also restore it with the added "/" and then check if that does something useful! [[Special:Contributions/82.132.246.87|82.132.246.87]] 03:27, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 03:27, 30 December 2025

noinclude[edit]

I think the noinclude tags are wrong (there are two "noinclude" tags but no "/noinclude" ones), but I don't know what's intended with them so it's hard to fix them. DKMell (talk) 20:29, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

I suspect that the first noinclude was intended to facilitate some transclusion of the initial category description into some other page(s)... Which ones, I'm not sure, without working out what "Special:What links to this page"-type query to use to save a bit of logical but potentially inconclusive manual searching of other page sources.
As it currently is, the second noinclude should do nothing more given we're already "noincluding" by that point. So I removed that.
If that was supposed to be an end-noinclude (i.e. start including things again, just before the end - which is going to add cats to pages that transclude this particular cat as text), then the lack of it clearly hasn't been noted as a problem. But you could also restore it with the added "/" and then check if that does something useful! 82.132.246.87 03:27, 30 December 2025 (UTC)