Template talk:118Fleet: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Inactive/Decom. ships from fleet) |
No edit summary |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
== Inactive/Decom. ships from fleet == | == Inactive/Decom. ships from fleet == | ||
Should we have a seperate footer for these, or use this boiler plate as I've done so far? - [[User:Salak|Salak]] | *Should we have a seperate footer for these, or use this boiler plate as I've done so far? - [[User:Salak|Salak]] | ||
**I would say a seperate footer, since this Template is really useful for navigation and we wouldn't want it to get too cluttered. [[User:Meekohi|Meekohi]] 07:28, 14 Jul 2005 (CDT) | |||
***So far, I've only put the boiler plate on the pages, I'd not edited the plate or anything. I'll probably get the histories done first... It'll take a while - [[User:Salak|Salak]] | |||
Latest revision as of 07:56, 15 July 2005
Admiral, I take it you meant "added Aurora" rather than "added Atlantis" which I sorted out on the Boiler a while ago? Salak 10:36, 29 May 2005 (EDT)
Inactive/Decom. ships from fleet
- Should we have a seperate footer for these, or use this boiler plate as I've done so far? - Salak
- I would say a seperate footer, since this Template is really useful for navigation and we wouldn't want it to get too cluttered. Meekohi 07:28, 14 Jul 2005 (CDT)
- So far, I've only put the boiler plate on the pages, I'd not edited the plate or anything. I'll probably get the histories done first... It'll take a while - Salak
- I would say a seperate footer, since this Template is really useful for navigation and we wouldn't want it to get too cluttered. Meekohi 07:28, 14 Jul 2005 (CDT)