6,562
edits
Forum:Discontinuity revisited: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
→Formatting
m (→Formatting) |
|||
| Line 162: | Line 162: | ||
* This is point two. | * This is point two. | ||
::Well, no, I disagree with that. | ::Well, no, I disagree with that. | ||
:::Really? | :::Really? I think that first point makes good sense. | ||
... and so on. | ... and so on. | ||
| Line 172: | Line 172: | ||
*This is point two. | *This is point two. | ||
**Well, no, I disagree with that. | **Well, no, I disagree with that. | ||
***Really? | ***Really? I think that first point makes good sense. | ||
What do you guys think? --[[User:The Thirteenth Doctor|The Thirteenth Doctor]] 08:02, June 1, 2010 (UTC) | What do you guys think? --[[User:The Thirteenth Doctor|The Thirteenth Doctor]] 08:02, June 1, 2010 (UTC) | ||
::On the Cold Blood page it seems to be an issue with people failing to indent enough. | ::On the Cold Blood page it seems to be an issue with people failing to indent enough. | ||
::Having bullet points for each point of discussion helps to keep track of which point of contention is being discussed. If every counter-argument had a bullet point the discussion would get somewhat out of control as every bullet point would signify that comment as a 'main' discontinuity element rather than an discussion about it. --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] 09:32, June 1, 2010 (UTC) | ::Having bullet points for each point of discussion helps to keep track of which point of contention is being discussed. If every counter-argument had a bullet point the discussion would get somewhat out of control as every bullet point would signify that comment as a 'main' discontinuity element rather than an discussion about it. --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] 09:32, June 1, 2010 (UTC) | ||
| Line 182: | Line 182: | ||
:::I blame the RTE. (I don't suppose it's possible to disable the RTE only on the Forum namespace and leave it available elsewhere? On second thought, don't answer that; it just opens up an irrelevant argument....) | :::I blame the RTE. (I don't suppose it's possible to disable the RTE only on the Forum namespace and leave it available elsewhere? On second thought, don't answer that; it just opens up an irrelevant argument....) | ||
: This is a counter-argument to point one | |||
: this is another counter-argument to point one | |||
: this is a third counter-argument to point one | |||
:: this is a counter argument to the third counter-argument | |||
: This is a counter-argument to point two | |||
: this is another counter-argument to point two | |||
: this is a third counter-argument to point two | |||
: This is the present format. On the pages it is difficult to tell where one counter argument to the first point ends and another begins. | |||
: ::*This is point one | |||
::**This is a counter-argument to point one | |||
::**this is another counter-argument to point one | |||
::**this is a third counter-argument to point one | |||
::***this is a counter argument to the third counter-argument | |||
::*This is point two | |||
::**This is a counter-argument to point two | |||
::**this is another counter-argument to point two | |||
::**this is a third counter-argument to point two | |||
: With the bullet point version, you can tell easily where each counter argument begins and ends. And for people confusing them with being main discontinuities, that's why they are also indented. I'll tell you what. I'll create a couple of user pages to show you the difference between the two versions using the Cold Blood page. [[User:The Thirteenth Doctor|The Thirteenth Doctor]] 15:12, June 1, 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::But either way, I don't think bullet points would help solve the problem, at all. And, as Tangerineduel points out, it would take away the useful separation that we get from the bullets today. So, small harm for zero gain? I'd vote no. --[[User:Falcotron|Falcotron]] 09:58, June 1, 2010 (UTC) | :::But either way, I don't think bullet points would help solve the problem, at all. And, as Tangerineduel points out, it would take away the useful separation that we get from the bullets today. So, small harm for zero gain? I'd vote no. --[[User:Falcotron|Falcotron]] 09:58, June 1, 2010 (UTC) | ||
:::It's not just to do with the indenting. I'll make it clearer: | |||
:::*This is point one | |||
:::*This is point two | |||
