Template talk:SugHead
Suggestion
I think that one bit your supposed to copy and paste should be changed to something like this:
<nonclude> {{Suggestion Navigation}}
{{TOCright}}
<nclude>
===SugHead===
~~~ '''Suggestion type'''<br />
Skill, balance change, improvement, etc. <br />
'''Suggestion scope'''<br />
Who or what it applies to. <br />
'''Suggestion description'''<br />
Full description. Check spelling and be descriptive.
{{Subst:SuggestionVoting}} |
This would cut down on the bug when this happens: Zomg this isn't on a new line even though I started a new line lolwut? --Kaysakado 23:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Building off of this, I would actually suggest it be the following:
<nonclude> {{Suggestion Navigation}}
{{TOCright}}
<nclude>
===SugHead===
~~~
'''Suggestion type'''<br />
Skill, balance change, improvement, etc.
'''Suggestion scope'''<br />
Who or what it applies to.
'''Suggestion description'''<br />
Full description. Check spelling and be descriptive.
{{Subst:SuggestionVoting}} |
The <br /> tag actually generates a slightly smaller line break than a standard carriage return done in editing on this wiki, so it makes it look more consistent if you don't use it in some of those places, and it keeps the code cleaner for wikinoobs too. —Aichon— 22:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Change
This is part of my distant term project to fix up the stupid current suggestions submission system, but who else thinks we might be able to get rid of all that crap at the top of this template. Chances are if you've made the suggestion page already you aren't going to delete it simply because you've forced yourself to read Suggestion Do's and Don'ts for the 3rd time, it's already pushed heavily enough on Current Suggestions. And this way, people would be less daunted and less inclined to skip the instructions and fuck it up, leaving users like us to fix it all for them. Thoughts? --
07:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
- Amen to that. The process for creating a suggestion is far too complicated at the moment and needs to be greatly simplified. Folks that are going to ignore those warnings and pieces of advice are going to do so regardless of how many times we put it in front of them. —Aichon— 19:29, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
- The current system works, and has worked for years. You have no good reason for changing it. Just because the occasional idiot doesn't take the time to follow the very clear instructions does not mean the system is faulty. You change it and they'll still fuck up the new system in some way. At least this way we stand a chance of some idiot actually reading the advice. --
.
. <== DDR Approved Editor 19:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
- If the advice is presented in a less "block of text" way, it might sink in better, though. A rewording of the template to be more concise would be better than replacing the current system.
19:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with the "less block of text" idea. I also strongly believe that there is no reason to have them create a page with a template, only to replace the entire thing after following the instructions on that page. It's convoluted and bad design that confounds newbies and even some vets. There are other ways to present the advice without forcing them to stare at walls of text. The system needs streamlining, basically. —Aichon— 19:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
- Gimme a bit to sort out an RTS and some drinking and I'll see if I can make a new presentation for it. 19:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
- Gimme a bit to sort out an RTS and some drinking and I'll see if I can make a new presentation for it.
- I agree with the "less block of text" idea. I also strongly believe that there is no reason to have them create a page with a template, only to replace the entire thing after following the instructions on that page. It's convoluted and bad design that confounds newbies and even some vets. There are other ways to present the advice without forcing them to stare at walls of text. The system needs streamlining, basically. —Aichon— 19:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
- If the advice is presented in a less "block of text" way, it might sink in better, though. A rewording of the template to be more concise would be better than replacing the current system.
- Well, basically the current system hardly does work, because more people fuck up their formatting making suggestions than the amount of those who actually read everything and say "well, my suggestion DOES suck, I better not post it". This is proved by numerous things, namely the nonexistant amount of self-crit 1'd suggestions as well as the overwhelming number of shit spamtastic suggestions (which obviously could be avoided if they properly read the info provided on this template). No one reads it, and if they do, they definitely don't pay attention to it. I think that gives us justifiable reasoning behind removing the redundant information. -- 22:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
- The current system works, and has worked for years. You have no good reason for changing it. Just because the occasional idiot doesn't take the time to follow the very clear instructions does not mean the system is faulty. You change it and they'll still fuck up the new system in some way. At least this way we stand a chance of some idiot actually reading the advice. --
Right, aforementioned new presentation is (almost) done, and is here. I've used different colours for the different sections, but that's only as I didn't know which to use. The finished template should probably use one for all four, and I'm leaning towards either of the middle two (probably the second one). The coloured boxes are slightly reworded, and more eye-catching, which makes them easier to read at a glance and harder to straight-out ignore. If any changes to the system are to be made, I would suggest making DS mandatory for suggestions being brought to vote, but nothing beyond this. 23:14, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
- I like this template. I think the second one (paler with black lines) is most suitable, as the black line is more eye-grabbing than the red. The simplification's also good, and it's generally well done.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 23:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
- I still say remove 1 and 2 and merge 3 at the front of 4, but it's still much better than what we have now. -- 23:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, and keep the colours the way they are. The progression is more awesome (except obviously give the line uniform colour). -- 23:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
- Upon reading the above discussion, I agree that 1 and 2 seem superfluous, but if you remove them as suggested, that removes the margin for the colour progression. Is simplicity and helping newbies really worth losing the colour progression?--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 23:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
- Haha, are you kidding? Of course! >=D -- 23:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm kidding. :P However,a s for merging three and four, surely it would make more sense to split them up, to make it less text-wally? Then we could have newbie help AND Colour progression! :D--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 23:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
- Have a look now. Two boxes of three lines of text. 23:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
- Have a look now. Two boxes of three lines of text.
- Yes, I'm kidding. :P However,a s for merging three and four, surely it would make more sense to split them up, to make it less text-wally? Then we could have newbie help AND Colour progression! :D--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 23:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
- Haha, are you kidding? Of course! >=D -- 23:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
- Upon reading the above discussion, I agree that 1 and 2 seem superfluous, but if you remove them as suggested, that removes the margin for the colour progression. Is simplicity and helping newbies really worth losing the colour progression?--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 23:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
