Difference between revisions of "User talk:Greys"

From Kerbal Space Program Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Your userpage)
(Your userpage)
Line 21: Line 21:
 
|}
 
|}
 
Main reason I suggest this here, is to avoid normal text to be in &lt;pre&gt; tags. — [[User:XZise|xZise]] <small>&#91;[[User talk:XZise|talk]]&#93;</small> 06:22, 1 September 2013 (CDT)
 
Main reason I suggest this here, is to avoid normal text to be in &lt;pre&gt; tags. — [[User:XZise|xZise]] <small>&#91;[[User talk:XZise|talk]]&#93;</small> 06:22, 1 September 2013 (CDT)
 +
 +
=== Yo ===
 
I'll keep the namespace in mind
 
I'll keep the namespace in mind
  

Revision as of 17:31, 1 September 2013

Your userpage

Hi, I guess you rewrite CFG File Documentation and test it on your userpage. In theory a great concept, although I would recommend (when you want to do something like this again) to use a page in your namespace. For example User:Greys/CFG File Documentation. Now I got another question: What do those ø mean? A reminder for you to check them later again?

Also how do you want to handle suggestions? For example that list in the first section:

  • /Flags/: Flags must go here or they won't be loaded as flags, Capitalization Matters
  • /Parts/Aero/: Aerodynamic parts
  • […]

Or when you really want to have that the note to each directory is indented to the same depth:

Directory Description
/Flags/ Flags must go here or they won't be loaded as flags, Capitalization Matters
/Parts/Aero/ Aerodynamic parts
[…]

Main reason I suggest this here, is to avoid normal text to be in <pre> tags. — xZise [talk] 06:22, 1 September 2013 (CDT)

Yo

I'll keep the namespace in mind

the ø are inline comments about specific things that are inaccurate or inadequate, where the Outdated tags are general section wide concerns. If you look at the page history, I did most of the notation in the first version of the page, and then started deleting stuff over the next few; well more than half of the original page is so outdated as to be worthless, or entirely and originally wrong that it could be considered harmful.

I don't want to use a table for that information because it's depicting a structure, not a set; but at this point I'm far more concerned with getting rid of outdated or incorrect things, and getting good useful information back in, rather than formatting. --Greys (talk) 12:30, 1 September 2013 (CDT)