Category talk:Liberation Domain: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
Deities would go in the discussion section I think. So not them. Rather for spells. That could eventually include D&D spells, but for the immediate term it would be for spells unique to Ravenloft and//or for spell lists unique to Ravenloft. The [[Weave Domain]] is probably the best example for the moment, although it is not complete.[[User:Cure|Cure]] 08:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC) | Deities would go in the discussion section I think. So not them. Rather for spells. That could eventually include D&D spells, but for the immediate term it would be for spells unique to Ravenloft and//or for spell lists unique to Ravenloft. The [[Weave Domain]] is probably the best example for the moment, although it is not complete.[[User:Cure|Cure]] 08:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC) | ||
On further consideration the use of categories here may get revised. I want to work on it a little more before deciding.[[User:Cure|Cure]] 18:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 12:15, 15 March 2010
Re: Domains as categories... are you planning to put the spells of the domain in the category? Or deities who grant the domain? In short, why category and not page? I don't think we need pages for standard d&d spells, do we? -- Gonzoron 02:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Deities would go in the discussion section I think. So not them. Rather for spells. That could eventually include D&D spells, but for the immediate term it would be for spells unique to Ravenloft and//or for spell lists unique to Ravenloft. The Weave Domain is probably the best example for the moment, although it is not complete.Cure 08:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
On further consideration the use of categories here may get revised. I want to work on it a little more before deciding.Cure 18:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
