User talk:Ms2ger
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Welcome
Welcome!
Hello, Ms2ger, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
Sincerely, Ryan 10:20, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Otto Zobel side box
Was your objection because of the code tags or because it is a different font? I used the code tags as a quick and dirty means of getting a contrasting font to mke the layout interesting. If I were to use span tags and an appropriate html parameter would you find that acceptable? SpinningSpark 18:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- The code tags, because the text in the side box obviously isn't a code snippet. Adding a
style="font-family:monospace;"(←Look! code! ;)) wouldn't bother me. —Ms2ger (talk) 08:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Template:Template category (2)
Hi again.
I'm wondering if your edit summary means you might've misunderstood the purpose of the "By default..." message; it doesn't mean that subcategories are also all navbox categories as well. (Hence "...the pages in this category...") Sardanaphalus (talk) 03:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- That isn't my point. I just do not see why you think a template category would be navbox category by default. —Ms2ger (talk) 15:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- Because the majority of templates are navboxes? Sardanaphalus (talk) 10:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- That may be true, but I still don't think that's reason enough to make them the default. Also, from the text you added, I understand that you think other template categories, e.g. for infoboxes, should be subcategories of the category used for navboxes. I don't think that makes sense, because IMO, a page in a category should fit in any of the parent categories. —Ms2ger (talk) 12:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Well, how about this: Without navbox as the default template type, I figure every template category will require at least two levels, i.e. "X templates" with subcategory "X navbox templates", rather than many template categories needing only one: "X templates" with default type navbox. The latter seems more user-friendly to me (one click rather than two to reach the majority if not all templates on a topic) and easier to maintain.
- I don't see a problem with infobox/inline/etc template categories being subcategories of a category that takes navbox template pages as a default. Also, a word like "navbox" doesn't/wouldn't appear in the category's name ("X templates") and give the idea that the category is only meant to carry navbox pages and subcategories. Hope you can see what I'm getting at. Sardanaphalus (talk) 14:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- ...Have reinstated a milder form of the default note. Sardanaphalus (talk) 10:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] question about the sf 49ers template
Hi, Ms2ger. I hope you have been well since our paths last crossed. I see that back in December you converted {{San Francisco 49ers}} into the Navbox format. Did you get any negative feedback about doing that? I'm starting to wonder why these the majority of nfl team templates are using the fb format instead of the more vertical space friendly Navbox. Would appreciate your thoughts before I dive into converting one of these. --Gwguffey (talk) 04:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Userpage impersonation
You may want to do something about this. Relates to this. Regards. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
