Difference between revisions of "Talk:Ruby"
From The Gemology Project
(Article Organization Acknowledgement) |
|||
Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
:We have been discussing it this week and are searching for a logical format for the gem pages. The site is still in its infant days, so we are still learning how to do it best. When we feel comfortable with a specific format, we will make an example page. Thanks for the input. --[[User:Doos|Doos]] 14:51, 18 January 2007 (PST) | :We have been discussing it this week and are searching for a logical format for the gem pages. The site is still in its infant days, so we are still learning how to do it best. When we feel comfortable with a specific format, we will make an example page. Thanks for the input. --[[User:Doos|Doos]] 14:51, 18 January 2007 (PST) | ||
− | + | * Very good. An example page will serve us all well! [[User:Tom Goodwin, G.G.|Tom Goodwin, G.G.]] 15:06, 18 January 2007 (PST) |
Revision as of 14:27, 16 February 2007
Pectolite Page Example For Organizing this Article?
I just took a look at the article on Pectolite and found that the information seems to be nicely organized in 10 categories. In my opinion, we ought to adopt a standard where all of the articles are categorized in the same way. Then, we would have a measure of uniformity where information could be added with a focus on specialization of fact. I think the Pectolite page just about sums everything up in a nice format. Anybody else think that this would be efficacious? Tom Goodwin, G.G. 14:40, 18 January 2007 (PST)
- We have been discussing it this week and are searching for a logical format for the gem pages. The site is still in its infant days, so we are still learning how to do it best. When we feel comfortable with a specific format, we will make an example page. Thanks for the input. --Doos 14:51, 18 January 2007 (PST)
- Very good. An example page will serve us all well! Tom Goodwin, G.G. 15:06, 18 January 2007 (PST)