Difference between revisions of "Talk:Wiki Conventions"
From Geohashing
imported>Danatar |
imported>Robyn (Too much standardization is not required.) |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
:What about a) Link to peeron, b) About, c) Local Geohashers, d) Neighboring Graticule Geohashers, e) Expeditions, f) Upcoming Hashpoints/Planning, g) Useful links (public transport schedules...). [[User:Danatar|Danatar]] 22:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC) | :What about a) Link to peeron, b) About, c) Local Geohashers, d) Neighboring Graticule Geohashers, e) Expeditions, f) Upcoming Hashpoints/Planning, g) Useful links (public transport schedules...). [[User:Danatar|Danatar]] 22:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :Every graticule seems to have its own unique issues. I like the personalization that they've all taken on. In my home grat we rarely actually go to the geohash in our grat. We go all over. -[[User:Robyn|Robyn]] 22:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC) | ||
Latest revision as of 22:25, 4 October 2008
Proposed Conventions
Most graticule pages seem to contain 1) Local Geohashers, 2) Recent Points, and 3) Upcoming Points. I think we should encourage each graticule page to adopt these as the first three sections - it provides nice consistency, and allows outside apps to provide these data by tapping into the wiki. Hashpoint pages could have just have a description, people who attended, and a photo gallery. - ciel May 25, 2008, 23:13.
- What about a) Link to peeron, b) About, c) Local Geohashers, d) Neighboring Graticule Geohashers, e) Expeditions, f) Upcoming Hashpoints/Planning, g) Useful links (public transport schedules...). Danatar 22:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Every graticule seems to have its own unique issues. I like the personalization that they've all taken on. In my home grat we rarely actually go to the geohash in our grat. We go all over. -Robyn 22:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
