I also like the new look a lot.
I have some minor improvement suggestions, but they can wait.
Here is one that I would like to ask right now:
can we modify the text that is displayed for a part as heading
- for the required files
- for its parent files?
Currently, the PT displays the texts
- "Required (unofficial) subfiles:" and
- "Related (unofficial) subfiles:"
, and both do not make sense. I would like to see that changed to:
- "Required Files:"
- "Parent Files:"
The reasoning is this:
1. nowadays, not all required files are "subparts" anymore. For example, for aliases, the required file is a normal part. See 55707c as example. So the wording "subfiles" for the required files is wrong IMHO.
2. the addition "(unofficial)" is completely unnecessary, because only such files are displayed. Official ones are not shown on the PT as dependency. The word only adds clutter.
3. for parent files, the wording "subfiles" makes no sense at all, it never did. We all just got used to the ever same text on the PT pages.
I have some minor improvement suggestions, but they can wait.
Here is one that I would like to ask right now:
can we modify the text that is displayed for a part as heading
- for the required files
- for its parent files?
Currently, the PT displays the texts
- "Required (unofficial) subfiles:" and
- "Related (unofficial) subfiles:"
, and both do not make sense. I would like to see that changed to:
- "Required Files:"
- "Parent Files:"
The reasoning is this:
1. nowadays, not all required files are "subparts" anymore. For example, for aliases, the required file is a normal part. See 55707c as example. So the wording "subfiles" for the required files is wrong IMHO.
2. the addition "(unofficial)" is completely unnecessary, because only such files are displayed. Official ones are not shown on the PT as dependency. The word only adds clutter.
3. for parent files, the wording "subfiles" makes no sense at all, it never did. We all just got used to the ever same text on the PT pages.