Talk:Portal:Extensions directory: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
switching talk & article formats |
move alternative format to separate page so it's clearer. |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Alternative format to what's currently in the article== | ==Alternative format to what's currently in the article== | ||
#Look at [[Extension directory/temp]]. | |||
#Compare with the format of what's currently in the article. | |||
#Read "Comparisons", below, and add additional notes if desired. | |||
#Vote and comment on which you prefer. | |||
# | |||
# | |||
# | |||
Thanks. [[User:Elf|Elf]] 19:00, 12 May 2007 (PDT) | |||
===Comparisons=== | ===Comparisons=== | ||
Format | Format mentioned above: | ||
* Pro: If there are a lot of companies registering extensions, will make it easier to find extensions by each of the different categories. | * Pro: If there are a lot of companies registering extensions, will make it easier to find extensions by each of the different categories. | ||
* Con: Same link appears in multiple places, so takes longer to insert a new one and harder to maintain. | * Con: Same link appears in multiple places, so takes longer to insert a new one and harder to maintain. | ||
Current article format: | Current article format (single table): | ||
* Pro: Link in only one place, so faster and easier to insert new one and to maintain list | * Pro: Link in only one place, so faster and easier to insert new one and to maintain list. | ||
* Pro: Easier to read. | |||
* Con: Table is arranged only by company name, so if there are a lot of companies with extensions, it's harder to view the list of profile names and of extensions by element. | * Con: Table is arranged only by company name, so if there are a lot of companies with extensions, it's harder to view the list of profile names and of extensions by element. | ||
Line 49: | Line 21: | ||
Which do you prefer, and why?? | Which do you prefer, and why?? | ||
*Current article format ( | *Current article format (single table) | ||
**Easier to read. Simpler to add to. [[User:Elf|Elf]] 19:27, 12 May 2007 (PDT) | |||
**Because blah. signherewithfourtildes | **Because blah. signherewithfourtildes | ||
*Format | *Format mentioned above (3 separate sections) | ||
**Because blah. signherewithfourtildes | **Because blah. signherewithfourtildes | ||
Revision as of 02:27, 13 May 2007
Alternative format to what's currently in the article
- Look at Extension directory/temp.
- Compare with the format of what's currently in the article.
- Read "Comparisons", below, and add additional notes if desired.
- Vote and comment on which you prefer.
Thanks. Elf 19:00, 12 May 2007 (PDT)
Comparisons
Format mentioned above:
- Pro: If there are a lot of companies registering extensions, will make it easier to find extensions by each of the different categories.
- Con: Same link appears in multiple places, so takes longer to insert a new one and harder to maintain.
Current article format (single table):
- Pro: Link in only one place, so faster and easier to insert new one and to maintain list.
- Pro: Easier to read.
- Con: Table is arranged only by company name, so if there are a lot of companies with extensions, it's harder to view the list of profile names and of extensions by element.
Votes and comments
Which do you prefer, and why??
- Current article format (single table)
- Easier to read. Simpler to add to. Elf 19:27, 12 May 2007 (PDT)
- Because blah. signherewithfourtildes
- Format mentioned above (3 separate sections)
- Because blah. signherewithfourtildes