Talk:Verb:AMBUSH: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(question about stylistic edit) |
No edit summary |
||
| 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) |
|||
Revision as of 12:43, 29 March 2008
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. 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. Adam talk 14:43, 29 March 2008 (EDT)