User talk:Exuwon: Difference between revisions
→Cppcheck: new section |
→Use of templates for Planck units and such...: new section |
||
Line 110: | Line 110: | ||
Hi. As requested, I've restored the article. You can find it at [[User:Exuwon/Cppcheck]]. When the software becomes notable, feel free to move it back from [[User:Exuwon/Cppcheck]] to [[Cppcheck]]. — [[User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] <sup>[[User talk:Malik Shabazz|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|Stalk]]</sub> 04:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC) |
Hi. As requested, I've restored the article. You can find it at [[User:Exuwon/Cppcheck]]. When the software becomes notable, feel free to move it back from [[User:Exuwon/Cppcheck]] to [[Cppcheck]]. — [[User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] <sup>[[User talk:Malik Shabazz|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|Stalk]]</sub> 04:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC) |
||
== Use of templates for [[Planck units]] and such... == |
|||
Hi Exuwon, |
|||
I realize that these are good faith edits, but when you changed the Planck units table in [[Natural units]] to the template, it affected the appearance of the article in a way that decreased consistency of format. |
|||
I am certainly not opposed to putting common information into templates and making use of the templates, but not at the expense of making the articles look worse. Then what's the point? If you can somehow use these templates in such a way that they do not compromize article quality, feel free. But don't make use of a tool, just because that tool exists, unless such use '''improves''' articles. [[Special:Contributions/64.223.106.185|64.223.106.185]] ([[User talk:64.223.106.185|talk]]) 16:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:50, 29 April 2010
Welcome temp
|