Talk:Afternic: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
should we be linking to the sites in the title as is done here? [[User:Andrew|Andrew]] | should we be linking to the sites in the title as is done here? [[User:Andrew|Andrew]] | ||
: I think it's ok, but not necessary since a link to the site should be in the company infobox [[User:Ray|Ray]] | |||
*also, a recent news section seems like it will date the site [[User:Andrew|Andrew]] | *also, a recent news section seems like it will date the site [[User:Andrew|Andrew]] | ||
: Agree, if we have news it should be the highlights and important stuff, not just something that's just "recent" [[User:Ray|Ray]] | |||
Latest revision as of 16:53, 21 January 2011
Balanced discussion is good, but can you cite where the concern came from?
Alex: Done
Can you cite the year and source for the 61 Mil in sales?
Alex: As the figure is for the parent company and I have been unable to find financial data that is seperate from the parent organization, I have removed that figure.
founder(s)?
Alex: No data, unfortunately :(
Please name citations (references)
Alex: Done
- That's great, thanks Ray
other
should we be linking to the sites in the title as is done here? Andrew
- I think it's ok, but not necessary since a link to the site should be in the company infobox Ray
- also, a recent news section seems like it will date the site Andrew
- Agree, if we have news it should be the highlights and important stuff, not just something that's just "recent" Ray