Talk:Classes: Difference between revisions
From Unforgotten Realms Wiki
Latest comment: 10 years ago by Rob in topic Archived discussion from Archive 1
Recover restored legacy discussion archive content from XML history |
Normalize legacy talk signatures for DiscussionTools |
||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
{{Archive for converted wikitext talk page|from=Talk:Classes|date=2015-06-25}} | {{Archive for converted wikitext talk page|from=Talk:Classes|date=2015-06-25}} | ||
Should we keep using tables for this page or would it be better to use a template? --[[User:Razorhead|Razorhead]] ([[User talk:Razorhead|talk]]) | Should we keep using tables for this page or would it be better to use a template? --[[User:Razorhead|Razorhead]] ([[User talk:Razorhead|talk]]) 13:53, 5 June 2015 (UTC) | ||
:I don't like the format of this page in general. It will get really clustered with that character information. Might be better to put those tables on the specific class pages. Template is not necessary I suppose. But we need some generic table style in the css. But I don't have a good eye for color so I don't want to request that. [[User:Skydivizer|Skydivizer]] ([[User talk:Skydivizer|talk]]) | :I don't like the format of this page in general. It will get really clustered with that character information. Might be better to put those tables on the specific class pages. Template is not necessary I suppose. But we need some generic table style in the css. But I don't have a good eye for color so I don't want to request that. [[User:Skydivizer|Skydivizer]] ([[User talk:Skydivizer|talk]]) 14:09, 5 June 2015 (UTC) | ||
::I personally don't think the tables look very good right now. They should be used when conveying large amounts of information about many things, like the cards, but I don't think we need tables just to say the characters and what campaigns they're from. I think the previous format of text worked just fine for that purpose. I also think templates should be left for characters, mobs, and locations as they work well there. --[[User:Petertwnsnd|Petertwnsnd]] ([[User talk:Petertwnsnd|talk]]) | ::I personally don't think the tables look very good right now. They should be used when conveying large amounts of information about many things, like the cards, but I don't think we need tables just to say the characters and what campaigns they're from. I think the previous format of text worked just fine for that purpose. I also think templates should be left for characters, mobs, and locations as they work well there. --[[User:Petertwnsnd|Petertwnsnd]] ([[User talk:Petertwnsnd|talk]]) 16:48, 5 June 2015 (UTC) | ||
Until it has cards, it shouldn't be listed as a class imo, even more so when it's just an NPC "class". How do you tell the difference on what's used a Title and what's a class then? Seer is a bit weird since Deadbones "created" it, but I would keep that information on Blinkys character page that he was a class built up of other classes. I'll avoid using Seer for the near future. [[User:Rob|Rob]] ([[User talk:Rob|talk]]) | Until it has cards, it shouldn't be listed as a class imo, even more so when it's just an NPC "class". How do you tell the difference on what's used a Title and what's a class then? Seer is a bit weird since Deadbones "created" it, but I would keep that information on Blinkys character page that he was a class built up of other classes. I'll avoid using Seer for the near future. [[User:Rob|Rob]] ([[User talk:Rob|talk]]) 06:05, 17 June 2015 (UTC) | ||
<!-- /URWIKI_CONSOLIDATED_SOURCE: Talk:Classes/Archive 1 --> | <!-- /URWIKI_CONSOLIDATED_SOURCE: Talk:Classes/Archive 1 --> | ||
Revision as of 03:40, 28 April 2026
Legacy discussion notice: This talk page was consolidated from restored legacy discussion pages for compatability with DiscussionTools.
Source pages:
Archived discussion from Archive 1
Should we keep using tables for this page or would it be better to use a template? --Razorhead (talk) 13:53, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- I don't like the format of this page in general. It will get really clustered with that character information. Might be better to put those tables on the specific class pages. Template is not necessary I suppose. But we need some generic table style in the css. But I don't have a good eye for color so I don't want to request that. Skydivizer (talk) 14:09, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- I personally don't think the tables look very good right now. They should be used when conveying large amounts of information about many things, like the cards, but I don't think we need tables just to say the characters and what campaigns they're from. I think the previous format of text worked just fine for that purpose. I also think templates should be left for characters, mobs, and locations as they work well there. --Petertwnsnd (talk) 16:48, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Until it has cards, it shouldn't be listed as a class imo, even more so when it's just an NPC "class". How do you tell the difference on what's used a Title and what's a class then? Seer is a bit weird since Deadbones "created" it, but I would keep that information on Blinkys character page that he was a class built up of other classes. I'll avoid using Seer for the near future. Rob (talk) 06:05, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
