User talk:Cobalt327
(Clearify) |
|||
| Line 71: | Line 71: | ||
::::::Red actually might not be a bad idea. If it's possible, we might also try some sort of template, even if it's just for a boilerplate explanatory sentence at the top of each main category, that describes the Undeveloped category.--[[User:Jon|Jon]] 11:29, 20 June 2012 (MDT) | ::::::Red actually might not be a bad idea. If it's possible, we might also try some sort of template, even if it's just for a boilerplate explanatory sentence at the top of each main category, that describes the Undeveloped category.--[[User:Jon|Jon]] 11:29, 20 June 2012 (MDT) | ||
:::::::That could work. I'll give some thought to the template contents unless you already have something in mind.--[[User:Cobalt327|Cobalt327]] 11:52, 20 June 2012 (MDT) | :::::::That could work. I'll give some thought to the template contents unless you already have something in mind.--[[User:Cobalt327|Cobalt327]] 11:52, 20 June 2012 (MDT) | ||
| − | ::::::::A few ideas | + | ::::::::A few ideas can be seen [http://www.crankshaftcoalition.com/wiki/File:Undev_4.jpg here]. The Undeveloped sub-cat would appear just below the text. Still up in the air about how to word the sub-cat, but leaning towards a simple "Undeveloped [engine or whatever] articles". Is this even in the ballpark? I can also do a link, formatted similarly except directing the attention to the entire Undeveloped category, not to a sub-cat below the text. But that will take them to ALL the undeveloped articles, not just ones that match the selected category. That is, unless I divided up the Undeveloped category into separate categories... but that seems a bit convoluted. Input? Thanks.--[[User:Cobalt327|Cobalt327]] 12:04, 23 June 2012 (MDT) |
Your Privacy Choices