Difference between revisions of "Category talk:Canon-in-training"
(→Category is Inconsistent) |
|||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
::::Well, that's the point of the CiT template, so that we can distinguish between what's canon (regular font) and what's canon-in-training (font from template). The template just needs to be modified to make the font more distinguishable. I propose that we use purple to distinguish the CiT parts of the articles. It's close to blue, but different and can't be confused with links. What do you think? --[[User:M m hawk|Moeen]] 01:26, 6 September 2007 (CDT) | ::::Well, that's the point of the CiT template, so that we can distinguish between what's canon (regular font) and what's canon-in-training (font from template). The template just needs to be modified to make the font more distinguishable. I propose that we use purple to distinguish the CiT parts of the articles. It's close to blue, but different and can't be confused with links. What do you think? --[[User:M m hawk|Moeen]] 01:26, 6 September 2007 (CDT) | ||
| + | :::::So, would a completely CiT entry, such as [[True]], be entirely colored/bolded text or would it be in normal text but listed under the CiT category? --[[User:Matt|Matt]] 05:14, 6 September 2007 (CDT) | ||
===Template=== | ===Template=== | ||
Okay, I'm not a big Wiki genius, so someone explain to me this: When the "[[London Clan]]" CiT template was first shown, the CiT parts were written in blue. I thought this was fine. Now everyone is updating all the entries to say [[CiT|... and yet the entries still look exactly the same to me. Why are they still in white? What exactly is changing? --[[User:Matt|Matt]] 16:35, 5 September 2007 (CST) | Okay, I'm not a big Wiki genius, so someone explain to me this: When the "[[London Clan]]" CiT template was first shown, the CiT parts were written in blue. I thought this was fine. Now everyone is updating all the entries to say [[CiT|... and yet the entries still look exactly the same to me. Why are they still in white? What exactly is changing? --[[User:Matt|Matt]] 16:35, 5 September 2007 (CST) | ||
Revision as of 02:14, 6 September 2007
Category is Inconsistent
(yes, I restored the deleted discussion, because the problem being discussed was never resolved and is still there)
Some of the articles here are all in bold, some are not in bold, and some are partly in bold and partly in regular type. Is this deliberate? I had thought bold text was used mainly to distinguish canon-in-training information in mostly canon articles. - Vaevictis Asmadi
- I've noticed that too. I can only assume that it is not deliberate, but because there is no guideline or consensus for canon-in-training articles. Shall we establish one? -- Supermorff 04:00, 5 March 2007 (CST)
- Yes, I think we should. Obviously partly bold and partly not makes no sense since C-i-T articles are wholly CiT with no canon parts. So entries should either be entirely marked or entirely unmarked. On the onehand, blue text may be slightly harder to read. On the other hand, unmarked text could easily lead somebody to mistake the article for canon if they don't look down at the categories. -- Vaevictis Asmadi 18:23, 5 September 2007 (CDT)
- Most entries contain both canon and CiT information. Therein lies the problem. --Matt 20:48, 5 September 2007 (CDT)
- Well, that's the point of the CiT template, so that we can distinguish between what's canon (regular font) and what's canon-in-training (font from template). The template just needs to be modified to make the font more distinguishable. I propose that we use purple to distinguish the CiT parts of the articles. It's close to blue, but different and can't be confused with links. What do you think? --Moeen 01:26, 6 September 2007 (CDT)
Template
Okay, I'm not a big Wiki genius, so someone explain to me this: When the "London Clan" CiT template was first shown, the CiT parts were written in blue. I thought this was fine. Now everyone is updating all the entries to say [[CiT|... and yet the entries still look exactly the same to me. Why are they still in white? What exactly is changing? --Matt 16:35, 5 September 2007 (CST)
- Because the color was removed from the CiT Template during the change-over to prevent the Wiki from looking inconsistent and weird. I think Supermorff or whoever created the Template temporarily changed it. -- Vaevictis Asmadi 18:08, 5 September 2007 (CDT)
- I assume that once every single page in the entire wiki is coded with the new template, the color will be added back in, so it appears on all pages at once. -- Vaevictis Asmadi 18:09, 5 September 2007 (CDT)
