Difference between revisions of "User talk:Tazuras"
From Discovery Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
:::Also, I find that generalities and metaphors are frequently flawed and generally do not fully apply to specific situations. I dont like seeing creativity stifled simply because it's not done that way other places. This doesnt mean that they dont have some validity, but I think discussing the specifics of the situation at hand is much more useful. | :::Also, I find that generalities and metaphors are frequently flawed and generally do not fully apply to specific situations. I dont like seeing creativity stifled simply because it's not done that way other places. This doesnt mean that they dont have some validity, but I think discussing the specifics of the situation at hand is much more useful. | ||
:::--[[User:Tazuras|Tazuras]] 14:31, 25 June 2009 (MDT) | :::--[[User:Tazuras|Tazuras]] 14:31, 25 June 2009 (MDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | No problem, I had intended to fix the renders, the current ones are simply placeholders until I have something better than paint. The Gallic gunboat, for instance, worked like a charm unlike the others. | ||
Revision as of 16:30, 3 July 2009
I would be interested to access the Skype chat. I would need to reinstall Skype first. My ID is Canadian12345678.
Article revert Fighters resp. Table:Very Heavy Fighters
Putting aside that using custom namespaces unnecessarly transcludes and complicates a wiki structure, why would you need to put that table into another article? There's no good reason to. And even if, why are only the VHS in a seperate template? (Why should the ship specs be on two different pages? That's pointless.) --TsaryuTalk 05:51, 23 June 2009 (MDT)
- See Talk:Table:Very_Heavy_Fighters. If you think the placement of this table in VHF Combat Tips is "pointless" then it may be best to discuss it there. --Tazuras 10:22, 23 June 2009 (MDT)
- The reasons I moved the content from the seperate article is that first, transcluding pages is usually to be avoided because it makes the wiki structure unnecessarily complicated. Next, why using an arbitrary namespace, when you can use a template? Furthermore, why do you did this only for VHFs, and not for LFs, HFs and SVHFs? You can easily link to the Fighters page from the Combat Tips page. In dictionaries you won't find data (especially lists) twice either. You'll always find a "see (relatedarticle)". Be consistent. --TsaryuTalk 00:50, 25 June 2009 (MDT)
- Please explain how having to edit in one place instead of two make it more complicated. As for the arbitrary namespace, sure, it can go in the template namespace. I didnt put it there because it is not what i would consider or a dictionary would define as a template, it's a table. I only did it for VHF's because that is the only table that is in the wiki twice. I originally included it in the tactics article because i thought the author probably referred to it frequently, warranting it's placement there instead of on a separate page. Having seen he does not, I will now remove it.
- Also, I find that generalities and metaphors are frequently flawed and generally do not fully apply to specific situations. I dont like seeing creativity stifled simply because it's not done that way other places. This doesnt mean that they dont have some validity, but I think discussing the specifics of the situation at hand is much more useful.
- --Tazuras 14:31, 25 June 2009 (MDT)
No problem, I had intended to fix the renders, the current ones are simply placeholders until I have something better than paint. The Gallic gunboat, for instance, worked like a charm unlike the others.
