Difference between revisions of "Source talk:True rumors"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
:IMHO, people who are looking for a specific rumour will use the search facility and won't care about the order, while people who are just browsing would prefer the more logical order. Having said that, I am not an admin here, just a veteran Nethacker. [[User:Ekaterin|Ekaterin]] 10:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC) | :IMHO, people who are looking for a specific rumour will use the search facility and won't care about the order, while people who are just browsing would prefer the more logical order. Having said that, I am not an admin here, just a veteran Nethacker. [[User:Ekaterin|Ekaterin]] 10:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Some rumours are tough to explain. I have been using three question marks (???) as an indication that I'm not happy with the explanation of a rumour. I suggest that people not delete them unless they also replace the explanation with something more convincing. [[User:Ekaterin|Ekaterin]] 19:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 19:54, 26 September 2006
Are we ordering this within the categories based on rumor number or resistance type? I think we should stick with rumor number. Lotte 01:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- IMHO, people who are looking for a specific rumour will use the search facility and won't care about the order, while people who are just browsing would prefer the more logical order. Having said that, I am not an admin here, just a veteran Nethacker. Ekaterin 10:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Some rumours are tough to explain. I have been using three question marks (???) as an indication that I'm not happy with the explanation of a rumour. I suggest that people not delete them unless they also replace the explanation with something more convincing. Ekaterin 19:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
