User talk:Stalegum: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
Delete "2009 Topps Unique" and re-name "2009 Unique" as "2009 Topps Unique" -- SG | Delete "2009 Topps Unique" and re-name "2009 Unique" as "2009 Topps Unique" -- SG | ||
Done. -CT | |||
=Thoughts on the long pages= | =Thoughts on the long pages= | ||
Revision as of 15:32, 4 February 2010
>Thanks for cleaning up the '07 Goudey article.
No problem. Now there's two articles on 2009 Unique. We should delete one, which one? -Chris
Delete "2009 Topps Unique" and re-name "2009 Unique" as "2009 Topps Unique" -- SG Done. -CT
Thoughts on the long pages
My preference is for shorter cover articles with links to the checklists. Kinda like what I was doing for 2006 Bowman Heritage. I just worry that the really long sets like 2005 Prime Patches or 2007 UD Black would have really, really long pages. Now for pages like 1949 Bowman - it makes sense to just go ahead and put the checklist on the front page. What do you think? Big Mamou 00:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
For most of the longer, game-used-intensive, sets, this would be the way to go. But for most sets (like Topps and Upper Deck's flagships) everything on one page would suffice. --Stalegum 06:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)