Talk:Character Page Sample: Difference between revisions
From Unforgotten Realms Wiki
Latest comment: 10 years ago by Razorhead in topic Order
Normalize legacy talk signatures for DiscussionTools |
m Add used discussion-page tracking category |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
{{Consolidated discussion notice | {{Consolidated discussion notice | ||
|sources= | |sources= | ||
* [ | * [{{fullurl:Talk:Character Page Sample/Archive 1|redirect=no}} Talk:Character Page Sample/Archive 1] | ||
}} | }} | ||
<!-- /URWIKI_DISCUSSION_CONSOLIDATION_NOTICE --> | <!-- /URWIKI_DISCUSSION_CONSOLIDATION_NOTICE --> | ||
__TOC__ | |||
<!-- URWIKI_CONSOLIDATED_SOURCE: Talk:Character Page Sample/Archive 1 --> | <!-- URWIKI_CONSOLIDATED_SOURCE: Talk:Character Page Sample/Archive 1 --> | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
<!-- Recovered from restored XML revision 7413 (2015-06-25T12:37:01Z). --> | <!-- Recovered from restored XML revision 7413 (2015-06-25T12:37:01Z). --> | ||
== Template == | |||
This page could probably be made a template for more people to be able to see and use it. [[User:Pcplague|Pcplague]] ([[User talk:Pcplague|talk]]) 05:02, 21 June 2015 (UTC) | This page could probably be made a template for more people to be able to see and use it. [[User:Pcplague|Pcplague]] ([[User talk:Pcplague|talk]]) 05:02, 21 June 2015 (UTC) | ||
: At this point it's not finalized. The mods were talking about making an update unified style for all the Character pages since some are disjointed and most have useless sections. Theoretically we could make it a template, however it'd tka e along time and have to be pretty intricate. Because we didn't have a campaign this week we have more time to re-do and fine tune a lot of the pages since we don't have to moderate the new ones so we'll probably work on it soon. --[[User:Petertwnsnd|Petertwnsnd]] ([[User talk:Petertwnsnd|Message a Mod]]) 05:11, 21 June 2015 (UTC) | : At this point it's not finalized. The mods were talking about making an update unified style for all the Character pages since some are disjointed and most have useless sections. Theoretically we could make it a template, however it'd tka e along time and have to be pretty intricate. Because we didn't have a campaign this week we have more time to re-do and fine tune a lot of the pages since we don't have to moderate the new ones so we'll probably work on it soon. --[[User:Petertwnsnd|Petertwnsnd]] ([[User talk:Petertwnsnd|Message a Mod]]) 05:11, 21 June 2015 (UTC) | ||
::I don't like the idea of making an entire page a template. Templates are for little sections that we often reuse, but an entire page should never be a template. What if we want to add some new sections to some character pages? What if we need different CSS? Template fields also really limit the options you have for both content and mark-up. Not to mention that it would be very confusing for new editors to edit, since it doesn't work the way normal MediaWiki mark-up does. I think we should style both the old and new character pages to this sample, sure, I'm all for consistency, I think it's a very good idea. But not making it a template. --[[User:Razorhead|Razorhead]] ([[User talk:Razorhead|Leave me a note]]) 11:45, 21 June 2015 (UTC) | ::I don't like the idea of making an entire page a template. Templates are for little sections that we often reuse, but an entire page should never be a template. What if we want to add some new sections to some character pages? What if we need different CSS? Template fields also really limit the options you have for both content and mark-up. Not to mention that it would be very confusing for new editors to edit, since it doesn't work the way normal MediaWiki mark-up does. I think we should style both the old and new character pages to this sample, sure, I'm all for consistency, I think it's a very good idea. But not making it a template. --[[User:Razorhead|Razorhead]] ([[User talk:Razorhead|Leave me a note]]) 11:45, 21 June 2015 (UTC) | ||
== Order == | |||
Personally I think History should be between Relationships and Notable Attributes. I think it fits more up top. --[[User:Razorhead|Razorhead]] ([[User talk:Razorhead|Leave me a note]]) 11:46, 21 June 2015 (UTC) | Personally I think History should be between Relationships and Notable Attributes. I think it fits more up top. --[[User:Razorhead|Razorhead]] ([[User talk:Razorhead|Leave me a note]]) 11:46, 21 June 2015 (UTC) | ||
<!-- /URWIKI_CONSOLIDATED_SOURCE: Talk:Character Page Sample/Archive 1 --> | <!-- /URWIKI_CONSOLIDATED_SOURCE: Talk:Character Page Sample/Archive 1 --> | ||
[[Category:Discussions]] | |||
Latest revision as of 16:01, 28 April 2026
Legacy discussion notice: This talk page was consolidated from restored legacy discussion pages for compatability with DiscussionTools.
Source pages:
Template
This page could probably be made a template for more people to be able to see and use it. Pcplague (talk) 05:02, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
- At this point it's not finalized. The mods were talking about making an update unified style for all the Character pages since some are disjointed and most have useless sections. Theoretically we could make it a template, however it'd tka e along time and have to be pretty intricate. Because we didn't have a campaign this week we have more time to re-do and fine tune a lot of the pages since we don't have to moderate the new ones so we'll probably work on it soon. --Petertwnsnd (Message a Mod) 05:11, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
- I don't like the idea of making an entire page a template. Templates are for little sections that we often reuse, but an entire page should never be a template. What if we want to add some new sections to some character pages? What if we need different CSS? Template fields also really limit the options you have for both content and mark-up. Not to mention that it would be very confusing for new editors to edit, since it doesn't work the way normal MediaWiki mark-up does. I think we should style both the old and new character pages to this sample, sure, I'm all for consistency, I think it's a very good idea. But not making it a template. --Razorhead (Leave me a note) 11:45, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Order
Personally I think History should be between Relationships and Notable Attributes. I think it fits more up top. --Razorhead (Leave me a note) 11:46, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
