Battlestar Wiki talk:Think Tank/Random Templates: Difference between revisions
Discussion page of Battlestar Wiki:Think Tank/Random Templates
April Arcus (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
(I concur) |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
==Process== | ==Process== | ||
I dislike this. One proposal per major template, please. It will help us keep votes straight. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 01:14, 27 July 2006 (CDT) | I dislike this. One proposal per major template, please. It will help us keep votes straight. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 01:14, 27 July 2006 (CDT) | ||
: I concur with this. Like CalculatinAvatar said earlier and Peter said just now, this page really should be split into two different template proposals. --[[User:Homeworld616|Homeworld616]] 20:46, 27 July 2006 (CDT) | |||
Revision as of 01:46, 28 July 2006
Split?
Perhaps these should be separate pages, as they are separate issues. --CalculatinAvatar(C-T) 04:39, 24 July 2006 (CDT)
Ships Template
- All right, the Ships template looks excellent and would definitely increase effeciency here. However, a few new ships could be added to the Colonial section. Nothing superfluous, as I don't want a link to every ship in the Fleet, since most of them are just there and pretty much just serve as eye candy and the occasional sitting duck for an unfortunate explosion. But there should be links to ships that have played important parts in the series (i.e. Cloud 9, the Pan Galactic-type starliners, the Gemenon Traveller-type ships, etc.). What does everyone think? --Homeworld616 22:47, 26 July 2006 (CDT)
Process
I dislike this. One proposal per major template, please. It will help us keep votes straight. --Peter Farago 01:14, 27 July 2006 (CDT)
- I concur with this. Like CalculatinAvatar said earlier and Peter said just now, this page really should be split into two different template proposals. --Homeworld616 20:46, 27 July 2006 (CDT)