Talk:Theoretical biology: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Anthony.Sebastian (→Formatting: responding to Larry, and question re formatting blockquotes) |
imported>Tom Morris No edit summary |
||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
::[[User:Tom Morris|Tom Morris]] might object. --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 22:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC) | ::[[User:Tom Morris|Tom Morris]] might object. --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 22:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC) | ||
:::I most certainly will, and in the strongest possible terms. I removed all that formatting crapola from the article - it looks silly. If the ''Citizendium'' doesn't look right, it shouldn't be fixed by adding custom HTML to specific articles, but by getting the tech people to change the stylesheet globally. On the Web, it is good practice to follow the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_presentation_and_content separation of presentation and content]. This applies here. Blockquotes (marked with a blockquote element or not) should look consistent across the whole article. We just write the material for the pages - the style is site-wide. There's aboslutely no reason why the block quotes should be dark blue and larger on [[Theoretical biology]] and nowhere else. Consistency and content/style separation are important. --[[User:Tom Morris|Tom Morris]] 22:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:33, 12 October 2008
Article start
Starting independent article on 'theoretical biology'. Original page had no content, only a redirect to Mathematical biology. Methinks Theoretical biology encompasses more than Mathematical biology and warrants an independent article. --Anthony.Sebastian 23:15, 1 October 2008 (CDT)
Formatting
Please remove the spaces that precede footnotes. In proper style, there should be no such spaces. --Larry Sanger 14:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- I removed all the spaces preceding footnotes. --Anthony.Sebastian 22:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- Larry, regarding your remark that the inventor of <blockquote></blockquote> needs to brush up re whether to italicize indented blockquotes: In the Intro, I show an alternate form of blockquote, sans italics, font-size slightly larger than the miniscule one used by standard blockquote, and bolded. Any objections using that format throughout? --Anthony.Sebastian 22:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- Tom Morris might object. --Anthony.Sebastian 22:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- I most certainly will, and in the strongest possible terms. I removed all that formatting crapola from the article - it looks silly. If the Citizendium doesn't look right, it shouldn't be fixed by adding custom HTML to specific articles, but by getting the tech people to change the stylesheet globally. On the Web, it is good practice to follow the separation of presentation and content. This applies here. Blockquotes (marked with a blockquote element or not) should look consistent across the whole article. We just write the material for the pages - the style is site-wide. There's aboslutely no reason why the block quotes should be dark blue and larger on Theoretical biology and nowhere else. Consistency and content/style separation are important. --Tom Morris 22:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)