Talk:YSTV People: Difference between revisions
Dummy User (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Dummy User (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
I'm finding a few grey areas I'm afraid - the '02 & '04 AGMs are missing, and we have a total of '''5''' minutes for 2001! | I'm finding a few grey areas I'm afraid - the '02 & '04 AGMs are missing, and we have a total of '''5''' minutes for 2001! | ||
[[User:Rick|Rick]] 11:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC) | [[User:Rick|Rick]] 11:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC) | ||
== Ordering of Dates == | |||
My preference is to have things ordered in descending chronological ordering, since we're always going to have better + more data for the recent years, and it's easier to see new things at the top... what are people's opinions? We need to have a consistent look I think... --[[User:Matthewtole|Matthewtole]] 13:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 13:44, 22 February 2007
Page Structure
I'd be inclined not to start listing every officership throughout the past 40 years... it'd get a bit unwieldy. Rick 18:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I see what you're saying, but I do think it would be a nice record. Maybe split into separate pages for each officership? Rowan
Yes, separate pages makes more sense! Rick 18:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Going through the minutes in the documents folder...
I'm finding a few grey areas I'm afraid - the '02 & '04 AGMs are missing, and we have a total of 5 minutes for 2001! Rick 11:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Ordering of Dates
My preference is to have things ordered in descending chronological ordering, since we're always going to have better + more data for the recent years, and it's easier to see new things at the top... what are people's opinions? We need to have a consistent look I think... --Matthewtole 13:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)