Difference between revisions of "Template talk:CompanyInfo"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(moving to community portal (move back if inappropriate)) |
|||
| (10 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | In most cases there will be multiple people, so I was thinking we could put people in a separate section and at the bottom. Example of separate section within infobox [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infoboxwatch here]. | ||
| + | [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_infoboxes/Proposed#Writers Some more examples here] | ||
| + | |||
| + | : These are awesome! And probably beyond my css skills, though if I knew which one you wanted, perhaps I could figure it out. I'd prefer to have one design we're going for, rather than try to use my own judgement, because it's so painful to figure it all out and definitely painful to switch if I start going down the wrong road. [[User:TedErnst|TedErnst]] 21:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :: I'm thinking a people section at the bottom, simple and clean (i.e. too fancy may deter people from editing and we can always make it fancier in the future). And that we should look hard at the basic fields; the less we change that the easier our lives will be. Thoughts? [[User:Ray|Ray]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | :: My thought on founder(s) is that if there are 2 or more, it will not be right if it says "founder", but "founder(s)" is always right ... ? | ||
| + | ::: That variable name is not viewable except when editing. I'll make sure the label says Founder(s) in view mode. How's that? | ||
| + | :::: Perfect, I didn't realize it was just a variable name | ||
| + | |||
| + | :: And how about having "Country" as a field separate from "Address". It's nice to see that right away and also we may want that data pulled out later. | ||
| + | ::: Okay. | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Founder / Founders == | ||
| + | * I think it might be confusing to have two similar fields? | ||
| + | ** It solves the (s) problem. We just need to have folks delete one and use the other. Elegant? Yes. Confusing. Probably. | ||
Latest revision as of 06:28, 13 October 2010
In most cases there will be multiple people, so I was thinking we could put people in a separate section and at the bottom. Example of separate section within infobox here.
- These are awesome! And probably beyond my css skills, though if I knew which one you wanted, perhaps I could figure it out. I'd prefer to have one design we're going for, rather than try to use my own judgement, because it's so painful to figure it all out and definitely painful to switch if I start going down the wrong road. TedErnst 21:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'm thinking a people section at the bottom, simple and clean (i.e. too fancy may deter people from editing and we can always make it fancier in the future). And that we should look hard at the basic fields; the less we change that the easier our lives will be. Thoughts? Ray
- My thought on founder(s) is that if there are 2 or more, it will not be right if it says "founder", but "founder(s)" is always right ... ?
- That variable name is not viewable except when editing. I'll make sure the label says Founder(s) in view mode. How's that?
- Perfect, I didn't realize it was just a variable name
- That variable name is not viewable except when editing. I'll make sure the label says Founder(s) in view mode. How's that?
- My thought on founder(s) is that if there are 2 or more, it will not be right if it says "founder", but "founder(s)" is always right ... ?
- And how about having "Country" as a field separate from "Address". It's nice to see that right away and also we may want that data pulled out later.
- Okay.
- And how about having "Country" as a field separate from "Address". It's nice to see that right away and also we may want that data pulled out later.
Founder / Founders
- I think it might be confusing to have two similar fields?
- It solves the (s) problem. We just need to have folks delete one and use the other. Elegant? Yes. Confusing. Probably.