Difference between revisions of "User talk:CommanderC/Test"
Ion frigate (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
:::I'd say this is a huge step up from our current state of affairs. Still, could we remove the "Spells: Lich" header? We're on the Lich page looking at the Spells section; it seems pretty redundant to me. --[[User:MoogleDan|MoogleDan]] 02:44, 24 January 2013 (CET) | :::I'd say this is a huge step up from our current state of affairs. Still, could we remove the "Spells: Lich" header? We're on the Lich page looking at the Spells section; it seems pretty redundant to me. --[[User:MoogleDan|MoogleDan]] 02:44, 24 January 2013 (CET) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ::::Definitely. I think it should still have a header, but perhaps it can just say "Spell set", and for monsters with multiple sets, "Spell set I", Spell set II", etc. Do people like that idea? -[[User:Ion frigate|Ion frigate]] 09:41, 24 January 2013 (CET) | ||
Revision as of 09:41, 24 January 2013
Looks pretty bad. --CommanderC 22:53, 23 January 2013 (CET)
- Using the clear template from NetHackWiki seems to help. Another option might be to make a separate template for monsters that have multiple spell sets. This might have to be done manually, but there are definitely not that many monsters that fall into that category. -Ion frigate 23:56, 23 January 2013 (CET)
- Playing with the width and margins on the templates actually seems to help a lot. Do you think it looks workable as is? -Ion frigate 00:05, 24 January 2013 (CET)
- I'd say this is a huge step up from our current state of affairs. Still, could we remove the "Spells: Lich" header? We're on the Lich page looking at the Spells section; it seems pretty redundant to me. --MoogleDan 02:44, 24 January 2013 (CET)
- Definitely. I think it should still have a header, but perhaps it can just say "Spell set", and for monsters with multiple sets, "Spell set I", Spell set II", etc. Do people like that idea? -Ion frigate 09:41, 24 January 2013 (CET)
