Actually, I think it's more powerful and attention getting than the previous - and I have no problem with "must" either.Fix: product amount in cart gets incremented past inventory valueįix: error thrown from One Step Checkout code when updating cart.Uncle G ( talk) 01:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC) Reply ? Please work out what style parameter should be used. – Luna Santin ( talk) 04:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC) Reply Div fix ![]() Per consensus above, I'm altering the page with this edit starting a new section to hopefully make chronology clear to anybody reviewing this discussion later. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 15:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC) Reply New page version It doesn't even fit half the reasons people come here. ( talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC) Reply ![]() Admins/editors at ANI can refactor as needed to "align" things as needed. Wading through a template slows that down. Skomorokh 11:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC) Reply I see ANI as a place to get urgent things done. It is confusing, onerous and puts yet another barrier between less experienced editors and administrators. While I understand and sympathise with the desire to streamline submissions so that everything goes to the appropriate forum and those issues that are raised at AIN are done so in a clear and proper fashion, I agree with removing the template. – Luna Santin ( talk) 07:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC) Reply Formal process can keep things in line, but it's also time-consuming and confusing, both of which are probably counter-productive here. Pre-emptively breaking discussion down into those pseudo-sections breaks a lot of threaded discussion, which in turn makes it more difficult to comment, and makes it very difficult to break off new subsections - all of which strike me as bad things on a noticeboard that tends to move faster than the blink of an eye. Indeed, users should be notified when they're under discussion, but requiring confirmation diffs is probably overboard. Encouraging a listing of involved parties and pages under discussion is probably helpful, but some of those suggestions are a lot more formal than people here are used to. Looks like somebody wanted AN/I to run a bit more like arbcom.Propaniac ( talk) 16:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC) Reply When I'm browsing ANI and I see a post formatted like that I usually just skip reading that topic rather than wade through it. Oh, so this is why some ANI posts are formatted all weird and clunky. Protonk ( talk) 03:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC) Reply Not sure where else it needs to be linked from. ![]() Jehochman Talk 02:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC) Reply Hers fold ( t/ a/ c) 03:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC) Reply Ĭan we move this discussion to a page where people will see it? We're not going to get enough participation here to develop a consensus. ANI is by nature unstructured and dramatastic and nothing short of a miracle is going to make it otherwise an edit notice certainly won't do the job. Some tips on what information to provide would be good, but the template we have is more suited for better-structured areas like SPI or RFAR. Most people, as Mazca pointed out, don't use it, and when someone does it makes responding to a request awkward. Jclemens ( talk) 02:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC) Reply The formatting templates really need to go. but it's really not directly for users like you and I, is it? It's for newbies or people who've only ever figured out one place to post complaints. ~ ma zc a talk 23:31, 16 August 2009 (UTC) Reply It certainly doesn't help me. The only people that seem to follow it are the people that are already conscientious enough to provide the relevant info - the people who it most applies to are those that are least likely to bother reading it. ![]() Protonk ( talk) 22:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC) Reply I've found it distinctly unhelpful most of the time, I'd support removing that formatting suggestion.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |