This is a quick note to say that the (yawn!) on-topic page has been fixed up and made to look like the on-topic pages of other SE sites, rather than a jumbled beta mess (which was entirely my fault after my previous patch, I must admit). As we aren't really a beta-beta site any more (but rather more one of those perpetual beta sites) it seemed sensible to tidy it up.

Also, a recent CAD question raised some issues with the on-topic page, for not being particularly clear.

Obviously, it can still change a bit, and any suggestions or corrections will be whole-heartedly welcomed.

Personally, I feel that the off-topic section doesn't seem prominent enough to me, but it has the same "format" as the other sites have. However, the other sites don't have such a massive list of on-topic as us - their on- and off-topic sections are roughly the same size, whereas our off-topic section is about 5 % the size of our on-topic section. Hence why the off-topic section seems to be invisible, stuck down right at the bottom.

Also, the only weird bit left now is the large block of waffly <sub></sub> text. Firstly, links don't seem to work within that block, for some reason, so I stripped them out. Secondly, some of the waffle needs to go.

Apart from that... "Mission Accomplished"?

Apologies to all that it took so long to fix up and prettify.


1 Answer 1



These two "footnotes" don't exist.

The first of the two does not seem to link to the question in the supposed title... in fact most links seem to go... off sideways to the actual proper link. Might there be a numbering issue?!

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Ah, I thought I'd removed all the references (I did remove #1, didn't see the others). These footnotes are in Game plan - What is on-topic?. As to the sideways links, maybe the numbers of the links are messed up - actually, yes, probably. I'll look into it in the morning. Cheers for pointing them out. Actually the links probably shouldn't even be in a on-topic page. They are leftover comments from the "Game Plan" meta page, when the list was first being constructed. $\endgroup$
    – Greenonline Mod
    Commented Jan 17, 2021 at 19:01
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ OK, removed links and refs as well as a bit more tidying and expansion of examples. The trouble with providing examples, is that the list gets even longer. I think it is waaaay too long, IMHO. $\endgroup$
    – Greenonline Mod
    Commented Jan 18, 2021 at 6:39

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .