WikiIndex:ProposalArchive: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
MarkDilley (talk | contribs) |
MarkDilley (talk | contribs) (→Proposal: 2006-02-17 ordering on this page: like original better) |
||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
I re-ordered this page to put newest at the bottom to encourge us to deal with the older ones first, and move them off this page. Also, don't know if you know about this feature, but there is a + item next to the "edit" link at the top of talk pages. That feature adds a new section, without having to edit the whole page. Since that new section goes at the bottom, this re-organization allows that feature to be used on this page. [[TedErnst]] | <small>[[User talk:TedErnst|talk]]</small> 12:10, 18 Feb 2006 (EST) | I re-ordered this page to put newest at the bottom to encourge us to deal with the older ones first, and move them off this page. Also, don't know if you know about this feature, but there is a + item next to the "edit" link at the top of talk pages. That feature adds a new section, without having to edit the whole page. Since that new section goes at the bottom, this re-organization allows that feature to be used on this page. [[TedErnst]] | <small>[[User talk:TedErnst|talk]]</small> 12:10, 18 Feb 2006 (EST) | ||
* I think that the page should be added to the top, not withstanding the section editing function. It is more friendly to read new proposals at the top. [[MarkDilley]] | <small>[[User talk:MarkDilley|talk]]</small> | |||
'''Yes''', and I propose that we make an area for the proposals we've moved off this list, perhaps "ProposalArchive" or something like that --[[Raymond King]] | <small>[[User talk:Rathbone|talk]]</small> 18:40, 18 Feb 2006 (EST) | '''Yes''', and I propose that we make an area for the proposals we've moved off this list, perhaps "ProposalArchive" or something like that --[[Raymond King]] | <small>[[User talk:Rathbone|talk]]</small> 18:40, 18 Feb 2006 (EST) | ||
Revision as of 08:47, 19 February 2006
Proposal: 2006-01-28: Coding comments for more transparent clarity
- More transparent wiki conversation/work. We start to code our page work in the summary as much as possilbe, as to model transparent conversation on the recent changes page, for newbies, and really ourselves. I just think it will only help to do as much coding as possible :-) MarkDilley
- I agree and will try to do this --Raymond King | talk 20:49, 17 Feb 2006 (EST)
- I propose that we are now doing this and this proposal can be moved to a completed proposals area. --Raymond King | talk 18:37, 18 Feb 2006 (EST)
- We should put this in the Guidelines, agreed upon area, if I understand that area correctly.
Proposal: 2006-02-17: Tag and category use
- Tags would be used in the description field of the page, either inline or as a bulleted list, whatever the editor wishes, using the tag template.
- Categories would be used as media wiki currently understands them for the footer grouping. They would be placed above the template code for two reasons:
- cleaner for the site/newbies
- put them infront of template categories in the footer section, to highlight them.
Please indicate your approval (or not) here:
- yes TedErnst | talk 11:53, 18 Feb 2006 (EST)
- yes Christophe Ducamp | talk 11:55, 18 Feb 2006 (EST)
Proposal: 2006-02-17 ordering on this page
I re-ordered this page to put newest at the bottom to encourge us to deal with the older ones first, and move them off this page. Also, don't know if you know about this feature, but there is a + item next to the "edit" link at the top of talk pages. That feature adds a new section, without having to edit the whole page. Since that new section goes at the bottom, this re-organization allows that feature to be used on this page. TedErnst | talk 12:10, 18 Feb 2006 (EST)
- I think that the page should be added to the top, not withstanding the section editing function. It is more friendly to read new proposals at the top. MarkDilley | talk
Yes, and I propose that we make an area for the proposals we've moved off this list, perhaps "ProposalArchive" or something like that --Raymond King | talk 18:40, 18 Feb 2006 (EST)