This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
I thought it was important to add a section on Architecture, so I have done so. This meant moving some items from "Places" and adding new links and banners within Wikipedia. I hope this meets with approval Peter Clarke 01:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
This is an excellent page, especially for a new editor. Just wondering if there are any guidelines for such, though, as I have ideas as to pages to add, and there are some gaps and inconsistencies, but don't want to over-do, as could make it unusable. SeoR 09:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Sometime recently this page was reorganised to use table structures to reduce the length of the list. And it achieved that goal. However, in doing so, it is now quite a bit harder to follow. In particular, the "indentation" used previously to denote a hierarchy of topics is now almost impossible to discern. I recognise that precedence does not make a rule, and I appreciate why this "tabling" was done, but I'm not sure it was a good idea. I've had a quick look at some other Lists, and in general, no matter how long they get, they remain linear in form. Beyond the readability on the actual page, this new tabling structure also makes it very difficult (for a newbie in particular) to add something new into the "right" place. Personally I think this should go back to being a "linear" list. But would obviously welcome other thoughts before reverting. Guliolopez ( talk) 19:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
I thought it was important to add a section on Architecture, so I have done so. This meant moving some items from "Places" and adding new links and banners within Wikipedia. I hope this meets with approval Peter Clarke 01:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
This is an excellent page, especially for a new editor. Just wondering if there are any guidelines for such, though, as I have ideas as to pages to add, and there are some gaps and inconsistencies, but don't want to over-do, as could make it unusable. SeoR 09:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Sometime recently this page was reorganised to use table structures to reduce the length of the list. And it achieved that goal. However, in doing so, it is now quite a bit harder to follow. In particular, the "indentation" used previously to denote a hierarchy of topics is now almost impossible to discern. I recognise that precedence does not make a rule, and I appreciate why this "tabling" was done, but I'm not sure it was a good idea. I've had a quick look at some other Lists, and in general, no matter how long they get, they remain linear in form. Beyond the readability on the actual page, this new tabling structure also makes it very difficult (for a newbie in particular) to add something new into the "right" place. Personally I think this should go back to being a "linear" list. But would obviously welcome other thoughts before reverting. Guliolopez ( talk) 19:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)