Talk:YSTV People: Difference between revisions
Dummy User (talk | contribs) |
Dummy User (talk | contribs) m (→Page Structure) |
||
Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
No worries - that's definitely the clearest layout IMHO too - great stuff! [[User:Kate|Kate]] 09:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC) | No worries - that's definitely the clearest layout IMHO too - great stuff! [[User:Kate|Kate]] 09:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC) | ||
Yeah, I don't think having the full listing as the people page is a good idea. What it looks like now is nice. [[User:Rowan|Rowan]] 11:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
== Going through the minutes in the documents folder... == | == Going through the minutes in the documents folder... == |
Revision as of 11:42, 25 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)
Can the 'People' A-Z page go here instead of the Station Director List? Kate 21:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Your wish is my command (maybe) Richardash1981 21:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Cheers me dears Kate 21:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Would it make more sense for the A-Z to be the first thing you see on the People page? The Honorary Members at the top, although perfectly valid, feels a bit confusing... Kate 21:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Can't do, I'm afraid. The A-Z is generated by the wiki, based on pages listed as part of the category "People". It can only be shown on that page. Technically we can edit the header of the category page, but then the A-Z would still be at the bottom. I've added a link to the page, best I can do for now I'm afraid. Oh, and the Honorary Members have been moved down again, as it does make more sense to have the officers above IMHO. Rick 22:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
No worries - that's definitely the clearest layout IMHO too - great stuff! Kate 09:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't think having the full listing as the people page is a good idea. What it looks like now is nice. Rowan 11:42, 25 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)
Wouldn't have happened in my day... This Wiki is ace! All should know of it! Vanky 13:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
What time of year is the AGM? I'm trying to put together the list of all the jobs I did in YSTV, but can't quite make them fit... I was Station Engineer in my first year (99-00) and became Technical Director at some point. Then after the Big Constitutional Reorganisation (a small panel of us re-wrote the constitution from fresh, creating the present team structure - I actually wrote most of the text - that was in 2001, I think) I was the first Commercial Director. Then I was Studio Manager and then Training Manager. MichaelP-J 12:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
It's mid-May at the moment, and from the minutes folder, appears to have been that way since at least '98. Rick 12:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay, that makes sense. There were, of course, many occasions during which people resigned in midterm - I'll try and remember some of these. MichaelP-J 16:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
2004 is missing because Matthew (David) Platts did them! Kate 21:25, 24 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... --Matthew Tole 13:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree mostly, but I think leaving the older sections at the top would be better in this case - after all, it's the HistoryWiki, not PresentWiki. It'll bring the gaps in information to people's attention more. Hopefully. Rick 16:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)