Talk:Distribution/OnlineVendors

From FedoraProject

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Symbols)
Line 7: Line 7:
  
 
Are these the best symbols to use to designate features,<br>
 
Are these the best symbols to use to designate features,<br>
and shouldn't they be distinguishable?
+
and shouldn't they be distinguishable? --[[User:Fgrose|Fgrose]] 13:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
: --[[User:Fgrose|Fgrose]] 13:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
+
 
 +
: I think the idea was that we should be moving away from a 5-admonition-level model (note, tip, important, caution, warning) and rather using the 3-level model (note, important, warning) since it gets very hard to distinguish between what distinguishes "caution" vs. "warning".  If one could redirect templates... not sure if that works, but if not I'd recommend rewriting all Template:Caution to Template:Warning. --[[User:Pfrields|pfrields]] 20:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 +
 
 
== Misc. ==
 
== Misc. ==
 
The following metadata was found in MoinMoin that could not be converted
 
The following metadata was found in MoinMoin that could not be converted

Revision as of 20:36, 19 July 2010

Symbols

The Important.png ({{Template:Important}})

and Warning.png ({{Template:Caution}})

are currently (18 July 2010) indistinguishable.

Are these the best symbols to use to designate features,
and shouldn't they be distinguishable? --Fgrose 13:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the idea was that we should be moving away from a 5-admonition-level model (note, tip, important, caution, warning) and rather using the 3-level model (note, important, warning) since it gets very hard to distinguish between what distinguishes "caution" vs. "warning". If one could redirect templates... not sure if that works, but if not I'd recommend rewriting all Template:Caution to Template:Warning. --pfrields 20:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Misc.

The following metadata was found in MoinMoin that could not be converted to a useful value in MediaWiki:

  • acl: DistributionGroup:read,write,delete,revert All:read