CZ Talk:Templates/Guidelines: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Robert W King No edit summary |
imported>Robert W King No edit summary |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
Sorry, I know I'm a negative Nellie lately, but I can't agree here. The categories & titles are unclear, and the layout is incredibly messy looking. It just doesn't help terribly much, as far as I can tell; it's make-work busywork, looks like to me. I'm open to refutation. I think we should document our templates, but I don't think this will help us do so particularly well. Is it better than nothing? Perhaps. Is it worth the while of template creators to fill it out? I'm not so sure. I think we could use a different approach. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 18:50, 11 February 2008 (CST) | Sorry, I know I'm a negative Nellie lately, but I can't agree here. The categories & titles are unclear, and the layout is incredibly messy looking. It just doesn't help terribly much, as far as I can tell; it's make-work busywork, looks like to me. I'm open to refutation. I think we should document our templates, but I don't think this will help us do so particularly well. Is it better than nothing? Perhaps. Is it worth the while of template creators to fill it out? I'm not so sure. I think we could use a different approach. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 18:50, 11 February 2008 (CST) | ||
:I'm sorry you disagree, but it IS better than nothing, and at least it gives the basics (what it looks like, how it's used, an example, who to contact, and a place to put any issues) and in that regard I do not believe it to be busywork. It is better to have this then to blindly create templates with no usage guidelines whatsoever. To make it any more complicated would end up having the appearance of many wikipedia help pages. --[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 19:24, 11 February 2008 (CST) | :I'm sorry you disagree, but it IS better than nothing, and at least it gives the basics (what it looks like, how it's used, an example, who to contact, and a place to put any issues) and in that regard I do not believe it to be busywork. It is better to have this then to blindly create templates with no usage guidelines whatsoever. To make it any more complicated would end up having the appearance of many wikipedia help pages. This way is, at least, minimally user-friendly. --[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 19:24, 11 February 2008 (CST) | ||
Latest revision as of 19:27, 11 February 2008
Awesome, great idea, Robert. :-) Stephen Ewen 14:04, 9 January 2008 (CST)
- I hope so; there is seriously a lot to do here and I'm not sure my sanity will hold out anymore for doing it on my own. --Robert W King 14:21, 9 January 2008 (CST)
- [chuckle], yea, I know what ya mean. Hopefully, the folks who made the templates will categorize them. Stephen Ewen 14:45, 9 January 2008 (CST)
Sorry, I know I'm a negative Nellie lately, but I can't agree here. The categories & titles are unclear, and the layout is incredibly messy looking. It just doesn't help terribly much, as far as I can tell; it's make-work busywork, looks like to me. I'm open to refutation. I think we should document our templates, but I don't think this will help us do so particularly well. Is it better than nothing? Perhaps. Is it worth the while of template creators to fill it out? I'm not so sure. I think we could use a different approach. --Larry Sanger 18:50, 11 February 2008 (CST)
- I'm sorry you disagree, but it IS better than nothing, and at least it gives the basics (what it looks like, how it's used, an example, who to contact, and a place to put any issues) and in that regard I do not believe it to be busywork. It is better to have this then to blindly create templates with no usage guidelines whatsoever. To make it any more complicated would end up having the appearance of many wikipedia help pages. This way is, at least, minimally user-friendly. --Robert W King 19:24, 11 February 2008 (CST)