![]() | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
please correct list under similar attacks. 1993 WTC along with attack in Spain should be added.
Why are there links to pages that don't exist? You can't just expect that people will create them. joturner 04:48, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
My thinking on future splits for the article runs to these: a "before" events article; an "after" events article; possibly a split-off of the investigation article; an "effects" article; and eventually, I suppose, a "rumors & misinfo" article. At this time I think that will cover what people are interested (by what I see being added to the main article). -- Dhartung | Talk 06:32, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
The table version is:
violet/riga (t) 12:24, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Violet/riga that the table layout is better, primarily for its compactness and organisation of information, meaning you can read it at a glance and it doesn't overwhelm the articles. To me it is clear that the layout is in a grid, partly because the contents doesn't make sense otherwise, and it doesn't imply that there is a heirachy of article importance. The grouping of the links in the areas of the table also express the grouping of the articles. Thryduulf 13:17, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
John, if someone objects to an edit, the usual thing is to take it to talk, not to keep on reverting to the new version. The image is clearly relevant and powerful. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 18:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Powerfull? It's embarrassing, imagine if there was one for the 9/11 attacks with a picture of some guy with a rag on his mouth. (w/ poor quality and lighting) It summing up every 9/11 article... John Cengiz talk 18:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
please correct list under similar attacks. 1993 WTC along with attack in Spain should be added.
Why are there links to pages that don't exist? You can't just expect that people will create them. joturner 04:48, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
My thinking on future splits for the article runs to these: a "before" events article; an "after" events article; possibly a split-off of the investigation article; an "effects" article; and eventually, I suppose, a "rumors & misinfo" article. At this time I think that will cover what people are interested (by what I see being added to the main article). -- Dhartung | Talk 06:32, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
The table version is:
violet/riga (t) 12:24, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Violet/riga that the table layout is better, primarily for its compactness and organisation of information, meaning you can read it at a glance and it doesn't overwhelm the articles. To me it is clear that the layout is in a grid, partly because the contents doesn't make sense otherwise, and it doesn't imply that there is a heirachy of article importance. The grouping of the links in the areas of the table also express the grouping of the articles. Thryduulf 13:17, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
John, if someone objects to an edit, the usual thing is to take it to talk, not to keep on reverting to the new version. The image is clearly relevant and powerful. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 18:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Powerfull? It's embarrassing, imagine if there was one for the 9/11 attacks with a picture of some guy with a rag on his mouth. (w/ poor quality and lighting) It summing up every 9/11 article... John Cengiz talk 18:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)