Template talk:Skill box/Archive 1

The div style="clear:right;" is unnecessary I believe. If there are colisions with progression bar, we can plug it into progression. I don't see any other reason the clear:right is placed there. -PanSola 06:43, 4 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Blah, forgot the sectioning would be above the clear right if I put it inside progression template... -PanSola 06:47, 4 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Can you argue for the fake section please? Your reasons for it are entirely opaque to me. &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 06:51, 4 May 2006 (CDT)
 * So ppl avoid hitting that edit link altogether. I'm constantly underestimating how many ppl don't read directions so... -PanSola 07:09, 4 May 2006 (CDT)
 * But that is a matter of policy and we have enough eyes watching over the recent changes list to catch that quickly. After all, if someone breaks the skill box template, it will be noticed in a matter of seconds. &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 07:13, 4 May 2006 (CDT)
 * What is a matter of policy? I can't think of a reason WHY we would want that edit link there. o_O" -PanSola 07:14, 4 May 2006 (CDT)
 * That people shouldn't use the edit link there is a matter of policy. It is easily enforced, and your tinkertoy sections break the uniformity of the site. In particular, not all stylesheets follow a section heading with a horizontal rule. &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 07:24, 4 May 2006 (CDT)
 * I don't see it as a policy thing, but rather as an intention thing. We don't intend an edit link to be there.  People who see an edit link there and click on it intend to edit the article, not the template. Thus the edit link serves nobody. Though you have a very good point about the stylesheet.  Is there any other way to create a pseudo section that would work? or anyway to only disable edit subsection of the included document but doesn't affect the including document?  I'm still undecided which is the greater evil, but if there is a third way out I definitely welcome it.  -PanSola 07:33, 4 May 2006 (CDT)
 * How about now? &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 07:50, 4 May 2006 (CDT) Hmm... Didn't work