Talk:VeteranSpeed

If you're going to change N/A back to None, then why not change ALL of the N/As? According to Template:Flag, if there is no value, one should put "None" in the slot. Applicable To still has N/A. I thought N/A would be better since it is completely different than any value that would ever be used for a flag, but you 'da boss. Vinifera7 21:31, 3 September 2006 (CEST)

Your revision comment was "methinks "N/A" is more appropriate for the absence of Special Values", so I concentrated on Special Values and overlooked Applicable To; that's the only reason. The point is, it's "None" everywhere else, and works just fine. No reason to reinvent the wheel, never touch a running system, if it ain't broke, don't fix it - take your pick. Fact is, while N/A may or may not be better, "None" is not bad enough to all of a sudden start confusing the users.

This is not about "being the boss" (not to mention that I am, in fact, not the boss, and not trying to be...there's just nobody but me and D managing stuff here), this is about simple operating procedures: If hundreds of pages have "None" for "there exists nothing to put here", and the template page says "put 'None' for nothing", what does the placement of "N/A" suggest?

Right. That "N/A" is an actual special value. No matter what your intention might be, and no matter how many get it.

This is slightly similar to the TS/FS topic, regarding the question what should be there, and what is there - it's a simple question of scope. If you can single handedly convert every single flag template in operation to using "N/A" instead of "None", go right ahead - no opposition. But if there are two distinct values for the same situation, while one is declared official and the other isn't, that doesn't help anyone.

Which brings me back to my initial point: In the case of TS/FS, the omission leads to a factual error that exists. In this case, a misinterpretation is potential. "None" stood there for months, and nobody complained. So, the options I see are:

• Change a value on hundreds of pages because it might, perhaps, be misinterpreted, although past experience shows no indication it happened before, or
• Just leave everything as is, working fine

Don't get me wrong, I do get your point - but as long as there's no indication this is actually generating problems for readers, I find it more efficient to stick with an established practice.

Then again, like I said - I'm not trying to play boss here. Rally your squads, gain the majority, fix it. Your call. I just don't want a public mess under my domain.

~ Renegade (SysOp) 22:29, 3 September 2006 (CEST)

P.S.: By the way, the word "Values" in the flag template is also a link to Help:Values, making your linking of "float" on the other page rather redundant. Just so you know. (And yes, we do know it's rather disguised, we're working on a "best of both worlds" - nevertheless, recent discussions made the linking quite obvious.)

I understand your position. It would be horrendous to change "None" to "N/A" on every page. I figured that it could be another over-time change like the addition of "FS" where applicable. Your point of it being understood by the general public is valid, though the general puplic never questioned The Guide either, when there are in fact MANY errors. Don't misunderstand me, it's honestly NOT a big deal, it's just that I'm a perfectionist and am inclined to call on things like this. No problem. I DO find it disheartening that no one else in the C&C modding community cares to contribute to ModEnc. Vinifera7 23:06, 3 September 2006 (CEST)

For me it's not important: "N/A" or "None".
But "None" better.
CnCVK 14:52, 5 September 2006 (CEST)