I disagree with calling it External resource when only one link is present. I think it should always be called External resources. This will look more consistent, and avoid problems when people forget to add the s when adding a second link. --Rune 11:51, 11 Jun 2005 (GMT)
- Hm, "external resource" headlining a list of two links doesn't look wrong to you? That sort of problem stands out to me. It's not a big deal -- just fix it if you happen to notice it's wrong. Like a missing comma. --Graue 12:19, 11 Jun 2005 (GMT)
- "External resource" headlining a list of two links looks wrong, but I don't think that's what Rune said - it's that "External resources" headlining a list of one link looks OK, and is preferable from a consistency standpoint. (I would agree btw) --Chris Pressey 17:32, 12 Jun 2005 (GMT)
- Fair enough. My point was that "External resource" headlining a list of two links looks wrong and is therefore easy to spot (for me). We can just use "resources" consistently though. --Graue 18:12, 12 Jun 2005 (GMT)
"Categories are discussed at Esolang:Categorization. Please don't make a new category without discussing it at that category's talk page first."
- So one is meant to start a discussion at Category talk:Yellow languages before creating Category:Yellow languages? Seems counter-intuitive. Normally talk pages belong to articles that already exist. Do many people here subscribe to the recent changes feed or any other that mean they will actually see it? Smjg 00:33, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- Most active talkers in the IRC channel read recent changes once every day or so, or at least that's the impression I get. I agree it's awkward; everyone seems to use Esolang talk:Categorization in practice. —ehird 00:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)