Difference between revisions of "Table:NNYC wikipedia layout?"

From The Infosphere, the Futurama Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Discussion)
(Discussion: now i don't have to navigate to it the hard way)
Line 4: Line 4:
  
 
== Discussion ==
 
== Discussion ==
Hi, I'm new to the Infosphere, but I have been a member of the Wikipedia for several years. What caught my eye was the New New York article, in particular the layout. Right now it is more like a gallery with many beautiful screenshots. I observe the previous versions and  realized that it has always been that way.  
+
Hi, I'm new to the Infosphere, but I have been a member of the Wikipedia for several years. What caught my eye was the [[New New York]] article, in particular the layout. Right now it is more like a gallery with many beautiful screenshots. I observe the previous versions and  realized that it has always been that way.  
 
Would it be possible to imitate the original New York City article to meet the quality standards? I would not erase those achievements, just restructure. But before I would do that, I think I should ask whether it is okay. There is still the possibility to reverse it. --[[User:Trickymaster|Trickymaster]] 18:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 
Would it be possible to imitate the original New York City article to meet the quality standards? I would not erase those achievements, just restructure. But before I would do that, I think I should ask whether it is okay. There is still the possibility to reverse it. --[[User:Trickymaster|Trickymaster]] 18:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 
:We have been discussing revising the layout of that article, but could not really find an appropriate solution.  Your solution seems decent, but I guess what we feared were more specifically the lack of content to write on the subject.  But I guess it may actually be doable. --'''[[User:Svip|Svip]]'''<sup>[[User talk:Svip|talk]]</sup> 19:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 
:We have been discussing revising the layout of that article, but could not really find an appropriate solution.  Your solution seems decent, but I guess what we feared were more specifically the lack of content to write on the subject.  But I guess it may actually be doable. --'''[[User:Svip|Svip]]'''<sup>[[User talk:Svip|talk]]</sup> 19:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:20, 6 February 2010

Discussion

Hi, I'm new to the Infosphere, but I have been a member of the Wikipedia for several years. What caught my eye was the New New York article, in particular the layout. Right now it is more like a gallery with many beautiful screenshots. I observe the previous versions and realized that it has always been that way. Would it be possible to imitate the original New York City article to meet the quality standards? I would not erase those achievements, just restructure. But before I would do that, I think I should ask whether it is okay. There is still the possibility to reverse it. --Trickymaster 18:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

We have been discussing revising the layout of that article, but could not really find an appropriate solution. Your solution seems decent, but I guess what we feared were more specifically the lack of content to write on the subject. But I guess it may actually be doable. --Sviptalk 19:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Okay, done. It is still just an idea and you can reverse it, if it does not fit. But I think these categories would give users an idea of what has to be added. E.g. I think it would be good to incorporate the article about pests into the environment section.--Trickymaster 20:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Maybe if you boldface the names to make it show better? (e.g. Little Bitaly) 99.245.211.102 21:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Hey, I was intentionally avoiding to boldface names as I read about plans to rearrange those images. But I agree with you that the Boroughs should be boldface.--Trickymaster 23:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, I like where this is headed. Certainly more room to change things up though. - Quolnok 12:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I hope others can contribute to the change. I don't know that much about Futurama.--Trickymaster 06:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)