Difference between revisions of "Pensapedia talk:Image Hub"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Joe, et al, if you don't like this idea, or the name, feel free to tinker/abolish. '''[[User:Dcosson|dcosson]]''' ··· '''[[User talk:Dcosson|talk]]''' 22:52, 12 November 2007 (CST) | Joe, et al, if you don't like this idea, or the name, feel free to tinker/abolish. '''[[User:Dcosson|dcosson]]''' ··· '''[[User talk:Dcosson|talk]]''' 22:52, 12 November 2007 (CST) | ||
:I definitely like the idea (that are plenty of images I have that warrant/demand further discussion), but I wonder if a single page could get unwieldy, and if we'll realistically be updating throughout the long-run. What do you think of this alternative: Maybe we can tag these images with a template (e.g. {{tl|imagehub}}) that sorts them into a category called "Images requiring discussion." (Related templates & subcategories could be made for images requiring specific attention to subject, date, copyright status, etc.) Does that accomplish the same goals? --[[User:Admin|Admin]] 11:29, 13 November 2007 (CST) | :I definitely like the idea (that are plenty of images I have that warrant/demand further discussion), but I wonder if a single page could get unwieldy, and if we'll realistically be updating throughout the long-run. What do you think of this alternative: Maybe we can tag these images with a template (e.g. {{tl|imagehub}}) that sorts them into a category called "Images requiring discussion." (Related templates & subcategories could be made for images requiring specific attention to subject, date, copyright status, etc.) Does that accomplish the same goals? --[[User:Admin|Admin]] 11:29, 13 November 2007 (CST) | ||
| + | ::Hmm... it definitely accomplishes the same goals, seemingly, but I like the idea of a single page, a forum, a la the Community portal or something. With categorisation they are definitely tagged and organised but there is no central access point. Maybe we could do subpages, a la [[Pensapedia:Image Hub/people]], or /places, etc.? I appreciate your concerns but fear your alternative might be too decentralised. I don't feel incredibly strongly either way, though. Just an idea. '''[[User:Dcosson|dcosson]]''' ··· '''[[User talk:Dcosson|talk]]''' 15:16, 13 November 2007 (CST) | ||
Revision as of 21:16, 13 November 2007
Joe, et al, if you don't like this idea, or the name, feel free to tinker/abolish. dcosson ··· talk 22:52, 12 November 2007 (CST)
- I definitely like the idea (that are plenty of images I have that warrant/demand further discussion), but I wonder if a single page could get unwieldy, and if we'll realistically be updating throughout the long-run. What do you think of this alternative: Maybe we can tag these images with a template (e.g. {{imagehub}}) that sorts them into a category called "Images requiring discussion." (Related templates & subcategories could be made for images requiring specific attention to subject, date, copyright status, etc.) Does that accomplish the same goals? --Admin 11:29, 13 November 2007 (CST)
- Hmm... it definitely accomplishes the same goals, seemingly, but I like the idea of a single page, a forum, a la the Community portal or something. With categorisation they are definitely tagged and organised but there is no central access point. Maybe we could do subpages, a la Pensapedia:Image Hub/people, or /places, etc.? I appreciate your concerns but fear your alternative might be too decentralised. I don't feel incredibly strongly either way, though. Just an idea. dcosson ··· talk 15:16, 13 November 2007 (CST)
