Template talk:RPCSites: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Spiraldoor (talk | contribs) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
:No, that's never done. Navboxes are solely for the bidirectional navigation of articles. External links are generally confined to an "External links" section at the bottom of some articles. | :No, that's never done. Navboxes are solely for the bidirectional navigation of articles. External links are generally confined to an "External links" section at the bottom of some articles. | ||
:That's not to say that we can't do it here, but it's certainly unusual. It strikes me as particularly odd that this template freely mixes article links with external ones though... —[[User:Spiraldoor|Spiraldoor]] [[File:IconSpiralDoor.png|link=User:Spiraldoor]] 02:27, 30 April 2014 (CEST) | :That's not to say that we can't do it here, but it's certainly unusual. It strikes me as particularly odd that this template freely mixes article links with external ones though... —[[User:Spiraldoor|Spiraldoor]] [[File:IconSpiralDoor.png|link=User:Spiraldoor]] 02:27, 30 April 2014 (CEST) | ||
::As I suspected, should we create articles for these affiliates also then? It seems like the best option to rectify the external linking --[[File:Sig5 2TEST.png|150px|link=User:Master]] 09:11, 30 April 2014 (CEST) | |||
Revision as of 07:11, 30 April 2014
External Links
I don't know standard Wiki procedure, but I'd assume it's not good practice to have external links on Nav template, right? --
01:25, 29 April 2014 (CEST)
- No, that's never done. Navboxes are solely for the bidirectional navigation of articles. External links are generally confined to an "External links" section at the bottom of some articles.
- That's not to say that we can't do it here, but it's certainly unusual. It strikes me as particularly odd that this template freely mixes article links with external ones though... —Spiraldoor
02:27, 30 April 2014 (CEST)
- As I suspected, should we create articles for these affiliates also then? It seems like the best option to rectify the external linking -- 09:11, 30 April 2014 (CEST)
- As I suspected, should we create articles for these affiliates also then? It seems like the best option to rectify the external linking --