Talk:Verb:AMBUSH - Revision history

GS4-XERAPHINA: GS4-XERAPHINA moved page Talk:Verb: AMBUSH to Talk:Verb:AMBUSH: fixing space issue

2021-07-16T03:51:42Z

GS4-XERAPHINA moved page Talk:Verb: AMBUSH to Talk:Verb:AMBUSH: fixing space issue

← Older revision	Revision as of 22:51, 15 July 2021
(No difference)

GS4-XERAPHINA: GS4-XERAPHINA moved page Talk:AMBUSH (verb) to Talk:Verb: AMBUSH: moving to updated naming convention, name space

2021-07-07T23:09:14Z

GS4-XERAPHINA moved page Talk:AMBUSH (verb) to Talk:Verb: AMBUSH: moving to updated naming convention, name space

← Older revision	Revision as of 18:09, 7 July 2021
(No difference)

VANKRASN39 at 18:48, 11 February 2016

2016-02-11T18:48:38Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:48, 11 February 2016
Line 1:		Line 1:
	I prefer it when the "Overview" section is untitled, that way it comes before the table of contents, and is kind of like an abstract (see [[IMBED (verb)]], [[CONVERT (verb)]], and [[~~TRANSFE~~ (verb)]]). However, if the change adding the "Overview" section brings this in line with the accepted standard here (implying the three previously mentioned articles are not to spec.), then I suppose it should look how it looks now. [[User:SLEATH1\|Dan]] 12:30, 28 March 2008 (EDT)		I prefer it when the "Overview" section is untitled, that way it comes before the table of contents, and is kind of like an abstract (see [[IMBED (verb)]], [[CONVERT (verb)]], and [[TRANSFER (verb)]]). However, if the change adding the "Overview" section brings this in line with the accepted standard here (implying the three previously mentioned articles are not to spec.), then I suppose it should look how it looks now. [[User:SLEATH1\|Dan]] 12:30, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

	: My only reason for doing that was to put the "table of contents" thing at the top of the page. Instead of someone reading the general overview and then having to scroll past the table of contents to read the rest of the article. Off the top of my head I can't think of another way to move the table of contents part to the top without doing it in that way. But then I'm not the best with wiki code. I would not be opposed to changing it back the other day though, Dan. [[User:DRIZZT-12\|Adam]] <sup>[[User talk:DRIZZT-12\|talk]]</sup> 14:43, 29 March 2008 (EDT)		: My only reason for doing that was to put the "table of contents" thing at the top of the page. Instead of someone reading the general overview and then having to scroll past the table of contents to read the rest of the article. Off the top of my head I can't think of another way to move the table of contents part to the top without doing it in that way. But then I'm not the best with wiki code. I would not be opposed to changing it back the other day though, Dan. [[User:DRIZZT-12\|Adam]] <sup>[[User talk:DRIZZT-12\|talk]]</sup> 14:43, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

GS4-KEIOS: 4 revisions: Krakiipedia Import

2015-01-01T01:32:19Z

4 revisions: Krakiipedia Import

← Older revision	Revision as of 20:32, 31 December 2014
(No difference)

Maintenance script at 12:14, 2 April 2008

2008-04-02T12:14:08Z

← Older revision	Revision as of 07:14, 2 April 2008
(No difference)

Maintenance script at 12:14, 2 April 2008

2008-04-02T12:14:08Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:14, 2 April 2008
Line 2:		Line 2:

	: My only reason for doing that was to put the "table of contents" thing at the top of the page. Instead of someone reading the general overview and then having to scroll past the table of contents to read the rest of the article. Off the top of my head I can't think of another way to move the table of contents part to the top without doing it in that way. But then I'm not the best with wiki code. I would not be opposed to changing it back the other day though, Dan. [[User:DRIZZT-12\|Adam]] <sup>[[User talk:DRIZZT-12\|talk]]</sup> 14:43, 29 March 2008 (EDT)		: My only reason for doing that was to put the "table of contents" thing at the top of the page. Instead of someone reading the general overview and then having to scroll past the table of contents to read the rest of the article. Off the top of my head I can't think of another way to move the table of contents part to the top without doing it in that way. But then I'm not the best with wiki code. I would not be opposed to changing it back the other day though, Dan. [[User:DRIZZT-12\|Adam]] <sup>[[User talk:DRIZZT-12\|talk]]</sup> 14:43, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

			:: The <nowiki>__TOC__</nowiki> magic word will be replaced by the table of contents in an article if its found. In any case, the opening paragraph of the article, providing a general overview of the contents, should always come before the TOC in an article. There's a reason the TOC shows up where it does by default. ;) [[User:Anshou\|Oliver]] <sup>[[User talk:Anshou\|Talk]]</sup> 08:14, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

	: I think that kind of behavior (having the overview prior to the table of contents) is actually by design. The vast majority of entries on Wikipedia seem to be formatted that way, as are many of the articles here (''e.g.'', [[Rogue]], [[Wizard]], [[Griffin Sword Saga]]); I prefer it that way. I'm going to change it back, with a slight modification, keeping the overview as short as possible. [[User:SLEATH1\|Dan]] 16:46, 29 March 2008 (EDT)		: I think that kind of behavior (having the overview prior to the table of contents) is actually by design. The vast majority of entries on Wikipedia seem to be formatted that way, as are many of the articles here (''e.g.'', [[Rogue]], [[Wizard]], [[Griffin Sword Saga]]); I prefer it that way. I'm going to change it back, with a slight modification, keeping the overview as short as possible. [[User:SLEATH1\|Dan]] 16:46, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

Maintenance script at 20:46, 29 March 2008

2008-03-29T20:46:52Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:46, 29 March 2008
Line 2:		Line 2:

	: My only reason for doing that was to put the "table of contents" thing at the top of the page. Instead of someone reading the general overview and then having to scroll past the table of contents to read the rest of the article. Off the top of my head I can't think of another way to move the table of contents part to the top without doing it in that way. But then I'm not the best with wiki code. I would not be opposed to changing it back the other day though, Dan. [[User:DRIZZT-12\|Adam]] <sup>[[User talk:DRIZZT-12\|talk]]</sup> 14:43, 29 March 2008 (EDT)		: My only reason for doing that was to put the "table of contents" thing at the top of the page. Instead of someone reading the general overview and then having to scroll past the table of contents to read the rest of the article. Off the top of my head I can't think of another way to move the table of contents part to the top without doing it in that way. But then I'm not the best with wiki code. I would not be opposed to changing it back the other day though, Dan. [[User:DRIZZT-12\|Adam]] <sup>[[User talk:DRIZZT-12\|talk]]</sup> 14:43, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

			: I think that kind of behavior (having the overview prior to the table of contents) is actually by design. The vast majority of entries on Wikipedia seem to be formatted that way, as are many of the articles here (''e.g.'', [[Rogue]], [[Wizard]], [[Griffin Sword Saga]]); I prefer it that way. I'm going to change it back, with a slight modification, keeping the overview as short as possible. [[User:SLEATH1\|Dan]] 16:46, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

DRIZZT-12 at 18:43, 29 March 2008

2008-03-29T18:43:24Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:43, 29 March 2008
Line 1:		Line 1:
	I prefer it when the "Overview" section is untitled, that way it comes before the table of contents, and is kind of like an abstract (see [[IMBED (verb)]], [[CONVERT (verb)]], and [[TRANSFE (verb)]]). However, if the change adding the "Overview" section brings this in line with the accepted standard here (implying the three previously mentioned articles are not to spec.), then I suppose it should look how it looks now. [[User:SLEATH1\|Dan]] 12:30, 28 March 2008 (EDT)		I prefer it when the "Overview" section is untitled, that way it comes before the table of contents, and is kind of like an abstract (see [[IMBED (verb)]], [[CONVERT (verb)]], and [[TRANSFE (verb)]]). However, if the change adding the "Overview" section brings this in line with the accepted standard here (implying the three previously mentioned articles are not to spec.), then I suppose it should look how it looks now. [[User:SLEATH1\|Dan]] 12:30, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

			: My only reason for doing that was to put the "table of contents" thing at the top of the page. Instead of someone reading the general overview and then having to scroll past the table of contents to read the rest of the article. Off the top of my head I can't think of another way to move the table of contents part to the top without doing it in that way. But then I'm not the best with wiki code. I would not be opposed to changing it back the other day though, Dan. [[User:DRIZZT-12\|Adam]] <sup>[[User talk:DRIZZT-12\|talk]]</sup> 14:43, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

Maintenance script: question about stylistic edit

2008-03-28T16:30:20Z

question about stylistic edit

New page

I prefer it when the "Overview" section is untitled, that way it comes before the table of contents, and is kind of like an abstract (see [[IMBED (verb)]], [[CONVERT (verb)]], and [[TRANSFE (verb)]]). However, if the change adding the "Overview" section brings this in line with the accepted standard here (implying the three previously mentioned articles are not to spec.), then I suppose it should look how it looks now. [[User:SLEATH1|Dan]] 12:30, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:14, 2 April 2008
Line 2:		Line 2:

	: My only reason for doing that was to put the "table of contents" thing at the top of the page. Instead of someone reading the general overview and then having to scroll past the table of contents to read the rest of the article. Off the top of my head I can't think of another way to move the table of contents part to the top without doing it in that way. But then I'm not the best with wiki code. I would not be opposed to changing it back the other day though, Dan. [[User:DRIZZT-12\|Adam]] <sup>[[User talk:DRIZZT-12\|talk]]</sup> 14:43, 29 March 2008 (EDT)		: My only reason for doing that was to put the "table of contents" thing at the top of the page. Instead of someone reading the general overview and then having to scroll past the table of contents to read the rest of the article. Off the top of my head I can't think of another way to move the table of contents part to the top without doing it in that way. But then I'm not the best with wiki code. I would not be opposed to changing it back the other day though, Dan. [[User:DRIZZT-12\|Adam]] <sup>[[User talk:DRIZZT-12\|talk]]</sup> 14:43, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

			:: The <nowiki>__TOC__</nowiki> magic word will be replaced by the table of contents in an article if its found. In any case, the opening paragraph of the article, providing a general overview of the contents, should always come before the TOC in an article. There's a reason the TOC shows up where it does by default. ;) [[User:Anshou\|Oliver]] <sup>[[User talk:Anshou\|Talk]]</sup> 08:14, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

	: I think that kind of behavior (having the overview prior to the table of contents) is actually by design. The vast majority of entries on Wikipedia seem to be formatted that way, as are many of the articles here (''e.g.'', [[Rogue]], [[Wizard]], [[Griffin Sword Saga]]); I prefer it that way. I'm going to change it back, with a slight modification, keeping the overview as short as possible. [[User:SLEATH1\|Dan]] 16:46, 29 March 2008 (EDT)		: I think that kind of behavior (having the overview prior to the table of contents) is actually by design. The vast majority of entries on Wikipedia seem to be formatted that way, as are many of the articles here (''e.g.'', [[Rogue]], [[Wizard]], [[Griffin Sword Saga]]); I prefer it that way. I'm going to change it back, with a slight modification, keeping the overview as short as possible. [[User:SLEATH1\|Dan]] 16:46, 29 March 2008 (EDT)