imported>CJ (Reply to Shady) |
imported>CJ m |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Looks nice so far. IMO you should cut "Location By Date" and also replace the static list in "Local Geohashers" with a link to the dynamic [[Geohashers_in_-33%2C151|category page]] - and encourage everyone to add the ASG template. --[[User:Shady|Shady]] 21:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC) | Looks nice so far. IMO you should cut "Location By Date" and also replace the static list in "Local Geohashers" with a link to the dynamic [[Geohashers_in_-33%2C151|category page]] - and encourage everyone to add the ASG template. --[[User:Shady|Shady]] 21:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC) | ||
| − | : Yep, the 'Location By Date' is definitely getting the chop (or more accurately - worked into a new section that details the '''upcoming''' locations). I like your thinking | + | : Yep, the 'Location By Date' is definitely getting the chop (or more accurately - worked into a new section that details the '''upcoming''' locations). I like your thinking on encouraging people to use the a/s/g template and then generating a dynamic list. Will work on getting that in too...--[[User:CJ|CJ]] 01:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 02:00, 2 August 2008
Looks nice so far. IMO you should cut "Location By Date" and also replace the static list in "Local Geohashers" with a link to the dynamic category page - and encourage everyone to add the ASG template. --Shady 21:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- Yep, the 'Location By Date' is definitely getting the chop (or more accurately - worked into a new section that details the upcoming locations). I like your thinking on encouraging people to use the a/s/g template and then generating a dynamic list. Will work on getting that in too...--CJ 01:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
