Talk:A User Friendly Index
User Friendly Index
Categorisation Thereof[edit source]
This will be a large change, as it affects some 910 pages!!! Which way do we create the category E.G.
Locomotives - FR
Locomotives - WHR
Locomotives - WHR (P)
Carriages - FR
Carriages - WHR
Carriages - WHR (P)
or do we go
FR - Locomotives
FR - Carriages
WHR(C) - Locomotives
WHR(C) - Carriages
Comments below please
Keith 20:28, 1 March 2007
- My opinion (which should not be regarded as definitive) is that we should have, for example, a category Locomotives with subcategories FR Locomotives and WHR Locomotives. --Peter_Harrison 14:08, 2 March 2007
- To add to my previous comment, one thing I'm pretty sure we don't want is both "Category:FR Carriages" and "Category:Carriages, FR". It means every FR carriage has to be placed in two categories, both of which are doing the same thing. Remember that it is possible to do clever things with sub-categories and sort keys if necessary. It may be that there is a genuine need for this but I am not convinced at the moment. --Peter_Harrison 00:24, 3 March 2007
No no no no - and I know its been a long day!! - didnt mean it that way - the reason I set up "FR Carrs" and "Carrs, FR" is in relation to original question - which way is preferred? - first OR second?? Not to use both. I've initially set up both (on carriages only) and am trying on a small scale to work out how to do it - dont intend to implement until some comment is recieved (apart from yours boss) Keith 00:42, 3 March 2007
- No problem. I was just a little surprised by what I saw! Thanks --Peter_Harrison 13:31, 3 March 2007
Page layout[edit source]
I don't know whether or not we are keeping this page, but I would suggest it should look something like this if we are:
- I would say yes, heck, perhaps even a centred version could go on the Main/Home Page. After all, it isn't really taking up much room. 22.214.171.124 19:35, 27 April 2007
- good point for the home page appearance - it also needs uprating from old table format to new one - I will, I will. --Keith 20:56, 27 April 2007
- Correction - I have!!! --Keith 20:56, 27 April 2007
The following was put out initially on the FestFam Group
Within the realms of the Welsh Highland, I feel, we have (or will have) 4 seperate entities as far as the wiki is concerned.
The reason behind me saying this is that I have recently had to go through the wiki files to hive off locos that have only visited for either short periods (events) , or long storage periods, from the main lists. ( i.e. - extreme case - a loco that was stored for 3 years some 25 years ago cannot be classified as "operated on the railway"!!). Although the bulk of information is related to rolling stock of any form , things did happen in other (legal) areas as well.
We have ..... (I have changed the dividing date to 1954 to bring it in line with the FR Old/New)
1) The railway as existed (including precursors NWNGR, etc.) upto 1954
2) What is now termed as the WHR(P) , from 1960ish creation, and onward.
3) WHR(C) - or from around 1995, whatever date the FR seriously decided on progressing with what is now underway (FRS AGM at BFf 1993?)
4) The new WHR completed from 2009 - which "I" envisage as being titled WHR(C) where "C" would stand for "Completed"! (The "C" also makes it easier to merger set 3 & 4)
As such, this split would allow for material relating to the original to be placed in set 1 with no problem or confusion. Material for the new WHR would obviously go into set 4. Its similarity with set 3 would mean some continuity without change.
Since, at this time, and for the forseeable future, the WHR(P) operation will remain seperate, then set 2 will continue to exist.
Your thoughts are requested --Keith 20:32, 1 July 2007
Removal from Page Bottom[edit source]
It has been suggested that the AUFI line is dropped from the See also section. This is on grounds that it is same link as "Content" on the side bar. This will leave the See also section for other pointers --Keith 2007-11-3T16:35:45