Template talk:Spell/old: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Remove 'notes' field== |
==Remove 'notes' field== |
||
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. --[[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) |
||
Revision as of 21:18, 27 March 2007
Remove 'notes' field
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)