Template talk:Spell/old: Difference between revisions
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Remove 'notes' field, split template== |
==Remove 'notes' field, split template== |
||
As I mentioned on the project page, I think the 'notes' field should be removed, as I believe this is an unusual and non-intuitive way to edit a wiki article. Keeping the <nowiki>"==Notes=="</nowiki> part of the template (and perhaps adding other subsection headers) however is a good idea to maintain a consistent look to all spell articles. Then I suppose this template would be split into two parts: an infobox, and an article template that would be copy/pasted into new articles. --[[User:Farman|Farman]] 22:16, 27 March 2007 (CDT) |
As I mentioned on the project page, I think the 'notes' field should be removed, as I believe this is an unusual and non-intuitive way to edit a wiki article. Keeping the <nowiki>"==Notes=="</nowiki> part of the template (and perhaps adding other subsection headers) however is a good idea to maintain a consistent look to all spell articles. Then I suppose this template would be split into two parts: an infobox, and an article template that would be copy/pasted into new articles. --[[User:Farman|Farman]] 22:16, 27 March 2007 (CDT) |
||
==Other problems== |
|||
I've also noticed that for some reason if you append anything after the template call in an individual spell article, the text ends up as if it were within <nowiki><pre></nowiki> tags. I haven't yet figured out why this is, but it's a problem for future editors. --[[User:Farman|Farman]] 12:20, 26 April 2007 (CDT) |
|||
Revision as of 11:20, 26 April 2007
Remove 'notes' field, split template
As I mentioned on the project page, I think the 'notes' field should be removed, as I believe this is an unusual and non-intuitive way to edit a wiki article. Keeping the "==Notes==" part of the template (and perhaps adding other subsection headers) however is a good idea to maintain a consistent look to all spell articles. Then I suppose this template would be split into two parts: an infobox, and an article template that would be copy/pasted into new articles. --Farman 22:16, 27 March 2007 (CDT)
Other problems
I've also noticed that for some reason if you append anything after the template call in an individual spell article, the text ends up as if it were within <pre> tags. I haven't yet figured out why this is, but it's a problem for future editors. --Farman 12:20, 26 April 2007 (CDT)