Difference between revisions of "Talk:Enlightenment"
(New page: This is great. I noticed that in giving descriptions of a lot of the attributes as well as their names, it duplicates a lot of the content of the excellent-at-first-glance work at [[Prope...) |
(→Change to resistances presentation: new section) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
This is great. I noticed that in giving descriptions of a lot of the attributes as well as their names, it duplicates a lot of the content of the excellent-at-first-glance work at [[Property]]. Is there a good way to merge the two, or at least make sure they correlate cleanly? -- [[User:Marcmagus|Marcmagus]] 19:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC) | This is great. I noticed that in giving descriptions of a lot of the attributes as well as their names, it duplicates a lot of the content of the excellent-at-first-glance work at [[Property]]. Is there a good way to merge the two, or at least make sure they correlate cleanly? -- [[User:Marcmagus|Marcmagus]] 19:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Change to resistances presentation == | ||
| + | |||
| + | I folded all the resistances in [[User:Fredil_Yupigo/Enlightenment | the enlightenment table]] into the same "attribute" (it's hard for me to explain clearly; compare my edit to the previous and it will be obvious what I mean). It occurred to me later that maybe that's not what you intended the "attribute" field to be used for, since each resistance is an on/off proposition. If you're not digging what I did I won't be offended if you revert it, but I think it does make the table a bit easier to read. | ||
| + | [[User:Thomag|Thomag]] 17:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 17:04, 15 July 2009
This is great. I noticed that in giving descriptions of a lot of the attributes as well as their names, it duplicates a lot of the content of the excellent-at-first-glance work at Property. Is there a good way to merge the two, or at least make sure they correlate cleanly? -- Marcmagus 19:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Change to resistances presentation
I folded all the resistances in the enlightenment table into the same "attribute" (it's hard for me to explain clearly; compare my edit to the previous and it will be obvious what I mean). It occurred to me later that maybe that's not what you intended the "attribute" field to be used for, since each resistance is an on/off proposition. If you're not digging what I did I won't be offended if you revert it, but I think it does make the table a bit easier to read. Thomag 17:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
