Difference between revisions of "Template talk:Project Completeness0"
Dr Platypus (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
:I dunno, but that homebrew disclaimer is rather horrid looking, not to mention.... why? I hear it was from someone's complaint in GtiP, but it sounds like a pretty nonsensical argument. Course, I'm going off 3rd hand information here so I just need to figure out what happened to have that come up. -- [[User:Eiji-kun|Eiji-kun]] 08:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC) | :I dunno, but that homebrew disclaimer is rather horrid looking, not to mention.... why? I hear it was from someone's complaint in GtiP, but it sounds like a pretty nonsensical argument. Course, I'm going off 3rd hand information here so I just need to figure out what happened to have that come up. -- [[User:Eiji-kun|Eiji-kun]] 08:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :: Because if someone who is relatively new to the whole D&D thing comes along to dnd-wiki and sees a piece of homebrew and does not know what homebrew, he is potentially liable to assume that it is real material from Wizards of the Coast and use it, whether broken or not. It is catering to the lowest common denominator, in order to make the site more user friendly towards everyone and, by such an extent, an attempt to grow the community. --[[User:Dr Platypus|Dr Platypus]] 12:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 12:02, 2 May 2012
Okay, this was created as a testbed since the current project completeness template looks like ass with the homebrew disclaimer. I've got it currently showing here, but I'm still not happy with it. Attempts to incorporate it into the author template to tweak the order were unsuccessful, for reasons I'm not actually clear on. So I'm looking for ideas on making this functional and not ugly with the homebrew disclaimer.
My current thought is to just scrap the template entirely, and run the functionality out of the author box so that it lists the completion at the bottom of the box. It makes for a potentially long author block on projects though. I don't have a mockup of this yet, but I think the old style author block used to do this and it wasn't awesome. So I'd appreciate some alternative thoughts. - Tarkisflux Talk 05:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- I dunno, but that homebrew disclaimer is rather horrid looking, not to mention.... why? I hear it was from someone's complaint in GtiP, but it sounds like a pretty nonsensical argument. Course, I'm going off 3rd hand information here so I just need to figure out what happened to have that come up. -- Eiji-kun 08:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- Because if someone who is relatively new to the whole D&D thing comes along to dnd-wiki and sees a piece of homebrew and does not know what homebrew, he is potentially liable to assume that it is real material from Wizards of the Coast and use it, whether broken or not. It is catering to the lowest common denominator, in order to make the site more user friendly towards everyone and, by such an extent, an attempt to grow the community. --Dr Platypus 12:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
