User talk:Sethile: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
:: Lacking a Name Stamp, being able to identify a pipe from it's Logo alone would be useful. Pipephil does have a means of searching with criteria such as a Star or an Anchor or a Dot, etc., but it is lacking a couple of such criteria to search by, last I checked.--[[User:Frank|Frank]] - 3/26/09 | :: Lacking a Name Stamp, being able to identify a pipe from it's Logo alone would be useful. Pipephil does have a means of searching with criteria such as a Star or an Anchor or a Dot, etc., but it is lacking a couple of such criteria to search by, last I checked.--[[User:Frank|Frank]] - 3/26/09 | ||
Scott, Earlier on I checked on that item in Cyrillic that you deleted. I found a translation, and it is pipe related..--[[User:Frank|Frank]] - 4/13/09 | |||
Revision as of 01:34, 14 April 2009
As per my other suggestion, perhaps it would be better to completely remove the Marks/Logo page altogether and just have a link at the bottom of each Brand/Maker's page to the Pipephil website for that particular Brand or Maker? --Frank - 3/26/09
- Sure, that would work fine too. 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 15:41, 26 March 2009 (CDT)
- Lacking a Name Stamp, being able to identify a pipe from it's Logo alone would be useful. Pipephil does have a means of searching with criteria such as a Star or an Anchor or a Dot, etc., but it is lacking a couple of such criteria to search by, last I checked.--Frank - 3/26/09
Scott, Earlier on I checked on that item in Cyrillic that you deleted. I found a translation, and it is pipe related..--Frank - 4/13/09