Template talk:MarioChess: Difference between revisions
Time Turner (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Time Turner (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
This seems rather unnecessary. It's a huge departure from all the other templates, in [[MarioWiki:Navigation_Templates#Colouration|colourization]], basic design and subject matter. No matter what we do with it (putting it at the bottom or placing it chronologically like we're supposed to do for all the other templates), it's going to stick out like a sore thumb and wreck the uniformity we're supposed to be aiming for. Seeing as this is pretty much as minor an appearance as you can get (most pages don't even have a History section for the chess game), I don't think it's worth breaking the nav template standards over this. Not to mention the fact that we're [[Category talk:Chess Pieces|getting rid of the chess category]]: if it's not important enough for a category, why would we give it a template? - {{User:Walkazo/sig}} 16:09, 27 July 2012 (EDT) | This seems rather unnecessary. It's a huge departure from all the other templates, in [[MarioWiki:Navigation_Templates#Colouration|colourization]], basic design and subject matter. No matter what we do with it (putting it at the bottom or placing it chronologically like we're supposed to do for all the other templates), it's going to stick out like a sore thumb and wreck the uniformity we're supposed to be aiming for. Seeing as this is pretty much as minor an appearance as you can get (most pages don't even have a History section for the chess game), I don't think it's worth breaking the nav template standards over this. Not to mention the fact that we're [[Category talk:Chess Pieces|getting rid of the chess category]]: if it's not important enough for a category, why would we give it a template? - {{User:Walkazo/sig}} 16:09, 27 July 2012 (EDT) | ||
:I agree. {{User:Master R.O.B/sig}} | :I agree. {{User:Master R.O.B/sig}} | ||
::Like you said, if a category's unnecessary, | ::Like you said, if a category's unnecessary, why should we make a template for it? [[User:GreenDisaster|GreenDisaster]] ([[User talk:GreenDisaster|talk]]) 20:59, 27 July 2012 (EDT) | ||
Latest revision as of 20:59, July 27, 2012
This seems rather unnecessary. It's a huge departure from all the other templates, in colourization, basic design and subject matter. No matter what we do with it (putting it at the bottom or placing it chronologically like we're supposed to do for all the other templates), it's going to stick out like a sore thumb and wreck the uniformity we're supposed to be aiming for. Seeing as this is pretty much as minor an appearance as you can get (most pages don't even have a History section for the chess game), I don't think it's worth breaking the nav template standards over this. Not to mention the fact that we're getting rid of the chess category: if it's not important enough for a category, why would we give it a template? - Walkazo 16:09, 27 July 2012 (EDT)
- I agree.
Master R.O.B.
- Like you said, if a category's unnecessary, why should we make a template for it? GreenDisaster (talk) 20:59, 27 July 2012 (EDT)
