Template:Teleportato_Things history
Basically it is minor change in " • " to small in-line icons, yet it was undone.
Template:Teleportato_Things history
Basically it is minor change in " • " to small in-line icons, yet it was undone.
Here are the bigger problems that I see with the proposal:
Minor and easily fixable problem:
"Factual error: wooden things are not portals. Teleportato is the "portal", which is constructed on the wooden thing applying all the things on it."I think this is because of "Teleportato Pieces" title, I didn't touch it during changes.
I think it is quicker change title to "Portals" and "their pieces".
BTW Category:Portal was created by me and was defined for "anything that travels a player between world". At least one article out of "things" is a portal.
First row is a set of items which have mixed DLCsWe should provide better name or continue split per every DLC, but not opposite (mix everything in single row "Things")
visual association with icons around them.Do dots " • " have such association?. Definitely not worse than it was. " • " are useless for links to the left and right.
We can agree to place them first/last - so that readers get used to where meaningful icon is located.
As another option, in this case with small list - it can be solved by
lists.
Mix and match between using the DLC icons and acronyms, which is inconsistent.This is very easy to solve but editing all templates once in the one way, nothing to discuss, really.
Stl1234 wrote: Here are the bigger problems that I see with the proposal:
Wooden Thing: The Wooden Thing (commonly referred as the Teleportato, when completed)
Dots are the separators, the visual association is needed with related things, like the icon and the title. There is no need for dots to be associated with anything. Lack of association looks like the following. It isn't clear, by looking at it (thus "visual"), whether the icon is associated to link1 or link2.
As an example, if that dot is used as a separator, the association can be made looking at it:
D1g wrote: Please always read wiki first:
Wooden Thing: The Wooden Thing (commonly referred as the Teleportato, when completed)
I don't know what is it with you and not reading sentences entirely. Does bold face help?
Wooden Thing: The Wooden Thing (commonly referred as the Teleportato, when completed)
Maybe size increase as well, as you are constantly doing it in your messages?
Wooden Thing: The Wooden Thing (commonly referred as the Teleportato, when completed)
I don't know what is it with you and not reading sentences entirely. Does bold face help?
"Teleportato is a portal" - as YOU say Thread:162427#3:
Teleportato is the "portal"
Teleportato leads to Wooden Thing page.
So, "portal" is described at Wooden Thing page. Your emphasis not able to show it.
Stl1234 wrote: Dots are the separators, the visual association is needed with related things, like the icon and the title. There is no need for dots to be associated with anything. Lack of association looks like the following. It isn't clear, by looking at it (thus "visual"), whether the icon is associated to link1 or link2.
As an example, if that dot is used as a separator, the association can be made looking at it:
We discuss different topic:
I have no preference where to use ANY of:
as long they are consistent.
Personally, I don't have preference what exact style would be used. Maybe just #1 is the simplest option. Maybe #3 is less ugly.
Stl1234 wrote: Here are the bigger problems that I see with the proposal:
Minor and easily fixable problem:
Is there anything wrong with current version of User:D1g/Teleportato_pieces?
Stl1234 wrote:
There needs to be a distinctive separator between titles.Images are separators or is there anything wrong with ony of 4 ways described in Thread:162427#8?
The icons are not necessarily a good separator, they just serve as an illustration. The dots do a better job than them in separation.
I'd say we go with the following if we implement this:
Wooden Thing • Crank Thing • Box Thing • Etc...
But I prefer to stick with the current layout and just add the icons without changing other things in the template. It's just simple enough to be easy and quick to read.
But I prefer to stick with the current layout and just add the icons without changing other things in the template.
I agree with this.