User talk:Pipephil: Difference between revisions

From Pipedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 20: Line 20:


Pipedia itself is only a couple of years old and is still a work in progress. There are still numerous Brands and Makers lacking information, so any contributions are greatly welcomed. I will refer this matter to Scott to get his feedback, since he is the person that initiated Pipedia. Frank - 3/26/09
Pipedia itself is only a couple of years old and is still a work in progress. There are still numerous Brands and Makers lacking information, so any contributions are greatly welcomed. I will refer this matter to Scott to get his feedback, since he is the person that initiated Pipedia. Frank - 3/26/09
:Thanks for all your help Pipephil! As Frank suggested I've added the Marks/Logos link to the sidebar navigation. I like Frank's idea of adding a Pipedia Page for any pipe brand/name you want to link to, then place a link from that page to Pipephil. That will also provide a ready place on Pipedia for additional information. --[[User:Sethile|sethile]] 14:02, 26 March 2009 (CDT)
:The advantage of the Marks/Logo page, assuming it were to get flushed out eventually, is for situations where someone is trying to identify a pipe with some sort of logo without knowing the maker. Regardless, I think relevant off site links should be added at the bottom of each article directly. --[[User:Sethile|sethile]] 15:42, 26 March 2009 (CDT)

Latest revision as of 20:42, 26 March 2009

Please do not attach external links to the Index of Brands And Makers' Names - these are reserved for internal Pipedia links only. External links can be placed directly into the Page of the individual Brand or Maker. If the page doesn't yet exist, you are welcome to create one. Thank you for your cooperation. Frank - 3/24/09

Answer to the message from Frank to Pipephil 3/24/09

Some entries in Pipedia appear immediately after they entered in "Pipes: Logos & markings" (PL&M).... http://www.pipephil.eu/logos/index-en.html

I think in these cases mention should be done on the only information about these brands by a link towards PL&M. In this situation pages cannot be created in pipedia since the only information avaliable is iconografic on PL&M.

This is done for some brands especially French ones (but not only) (Gardhill Gefapip Graco...) facing the name of the brand.

Could it be generalized?


Reply to Pipephil on the above matter:

I hadn't checked on the Pipes Marks & Logos page in awhile, so I hadn't noticed the changes until now. There used to be a link there to your Pipephil website, plus a couple of links to other Pipe Logo sites, but they somehow got removed. I will replace the link to Pipephil on that page. I will ask Scott (Site Administrator) to put a link to the Pipe Marks & Logos page in the Navigation Bar and also ask him what would be the best way to resolve this.

It is still possible to create a Pipedia Page for any pipe brand/name and place a link from that page to Pipephil, even if the Logo at Pipephil is the only information available for that pipe.

Pipedia itself is only a couple of years old and is still a work in progress. There are still numerous Brands and Makers lacking information, so any contributions are greatly welcomed. I will refer this matter to Scott to get his feedback, since he is the person that initiated Pipedia. Frank - 3/26/09


Thanks for all your help Pipephil! As Frank suggested I've added the Marks/Logos link to the sidebar navigation. I like Frank's idea of adding a Pipedia Page for any pipe brand/name you want to link to, then place a link from that page to Pipephil. That will also provide a ready place on Pipedia for additional information. --sethile 14:02, 26 March 2009 (CDT)
The advantage of the Marks/Logo page, assuming it were to get flushed out eventually, is for situations where someone is trying to identify a pipe with some sort of logo without knowing the maker. Regardless, I think relevant off site links should be added at the bottom of each article directly. --sethile 15:42, 26 March 2009 (CDT)