User talk:LpSamuelm: Difference between revisions
Tiddlywinks (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tag: bad formatting |
No edit summary |
||
Line 53: | Line 53: | ||
::In lots of text, it's certainly worth setting apart the hex values. But in those tables, it's ''not'' (at all) hard to identify the relevant values, even with "to" in the same font. Can I ask you to just do ''something'' so that the code tags aren't used in the table? Either setting the whole row monospace again, or making from/to columns, or something. (Honestly, I tried from/to columns before and didn't like it. But...) I'll leave it to you, but those code tag formats are just too out of place in a table. | ::In lots of text, it's certainly worth setting apart the hex values. But in those tables, it's ''not'' (at all) hard to identify the relevant values, even with "to" in the same font. Can I ask you to just do ''something'' so that the code tags aren't used in the table? Either setting the whole row monospace again, or making from/to columns, or something. (Honestly, I tried from/to columns before and didn't like it. But...) I'll leave it to you, but those code tag formats are just too out of place in a table. | ||
::(P.S. If you removed the welcome template on purpose: [[Bulbapedia:Talk page policy#My user talk page|please don't]].) [[User:Tiddlywinks|Tiddlywinks]] ([[User talk:Tiddlywinks|talk]]) 21:26, 19 April 2016 (UTC) | ::(P.S. If you removed the welcome template on purpose: [[Bulbapedia:Talk page policy#My user talk page|please don't]].) [[User:Tiddlywinks|Tiddlywinks]] ([[User talk:Tiddlywinks|talk]]) 21:26, 19 April 2016 (UTC) | ||
:::I really liked code tags in the table, at least. Felt consistent, and was pretty enough. But sure, if it makes you happy it can't be that bad. [[User:LpSamuelm|LpSamuelm]] ([[User talk:LpSamuelm|talk]]) 21:32, 19 April 2016 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:32, 19 April 2016
Welcome
| |||||
|
Monospace/Gen II save data
Do you actually have some "real" reason the tables under checksum shouldn't have the whole cells in monospace? Is there a actually some significant problem with "to" being in the same font? It's the easiest solution; it looks fine. I get that your intention is to put the font on the hex values, but I don't know any reason why it's so terrible that "to" be in the same font. In other cases, I'd be happy to leave "to" out; and that's possible here, but doing it is just more trouble than it's worth (AFAIK). Tiddlywinks (talk) 21:07, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- Well, the reason they're in monospace at all is to set the hex values apart.
tags are for just that - setting apart code. Having the entire sentence (which "[x] to [y]" is) in monospace makes it seem like it was taken straight from a .txt. Honestly I would've kept the
tags even in the code-only cells in order to keep the formatting uniform, but it doesn't really matter as much there. So basically, to separate text content and code content.
- Another formatting that would work, I suppose, would be to split the table up into a table with a "from" column and a "to" column - that'd be fine too, as the code and text would be separated in style in that case too. LpSamuelm (talk) 21:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- In lots of text, it's certainly worth setting apart the hex values. But in those tables, it's not (at all) hard to identify the relevant values, even with "to" in the same font. Can I ask you to just do something so that the code tags aren't used in the table? Either setting the whole row monospace again, or making from/to columns, or something. (Honestly, I tried from/to columns before and didn't like it. But...) I'll leave it to you, but those code tag formats are just too out of place in a table.
- (P.S. If you removed the welcome template on purpose: please don't.) Tiddlywinks (talk) 21:26, 19 April 2016 (UTC)