Difference between revisions of "Talk:Camelback Riding (sage study)"
Tao alexis (talk | contribs) |
|||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
[[User:Maxwell|Maxwell]] ([[User talk:Maxwell|talk]]) Here is an example of how I resolved this on another study page: [[Logic & Ethics (sage study)]] | [[User:Maxwell|Maxwell]] ([[User talk:Maxwell|talk]]) Here is an example of how I resolved this on another study page: [[Logic & Ethics (sage study)]] | ||
+ | |||
+ | [[User:Tao alexis|Tao alexis]] ([[User talk:Tao alexis|talk]]) Eventually, I want to make a page called "Wilderland (field)" that you would link to. Therefore, you wouldn't be linking to the "Ranger Sage Abilities" page at all; the Wilderland page would do to. I've corrected the logic and ethics page example you gave the way I want it done. |
Latest revision as of 00:03, 29 June 2022
Maxwell (talk) Normally when I link a sage field in a study description, I do it like this:Wilderland. When it comes to sage fields which are shared by multiple classes, how should I link the phrase "a study within [insert field here]" when that field link might go to the ranger or the fighter or the paladin or the assassin? ( in the case of animal training).
Maxwell (talk) If the fields differ between the different classes, of course, then the sensible thing is " a study within the fields of [field], [field], and [field]".
Maxwell (talk) Here is an example of how I resolved this on another study page: Logic & Ethics (sage study)
Tao alexis (talk) Eventually, I want to make a page called "Wilderland (field)" that you would link to. Therefore, you wouldn't be linking to the "Ranger Sage Abilities" page at all; the Wilderland page would do to. I've corrected the logic and ethics page example you gave the way I want it done.