Difference between revisions of "Table:Affiliates icons"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Created page with '<!-- do not remove this. --> {{conference table thread}} <!-- Please always sign your comments with four tildes --> == Discussion == Taking the discussion from [[Talk:Main Page...') |
(→Discussion: Hope I'm explaining that better...) |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
The other part of the discussion - the 90 degree turns part - was not really a favourite of mine. It seemed odd at best. I cannot really see what purpose it would serve. --[[User:Svip|Svip]] 13:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC) | The other part of the discussion - the 90 degree turns part - was not really a favourite of mine. It seemed odd at best. I cannot really see what purpose it would serve. --[[User:Svip|Svip]] 13:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC) | ||
:I didn't intend that the whole list be rotated, only the images, and the list be changed to an inline list. Thus, the list would be no more than three images wide, and probably two rows. I just think it would use the space better (the whitespace to the right of the images bothers me a bit). This way, it won't expand the width at all, just fill the space better. --[[User:Buddy13|Buddy]] 16:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 18:46, 16 August 2009
Discussion
Taking the discussion from here, as to remain somewhat on topic. I am personally a big fan of the muted icons idea. That could most definitely work. It would obviously require some rewriting for how the affiliates links work, but I'd say it is doable.
The other part of the discussion - the 90 degree turns part - was not really a favourite of mine. It seemed odd at best. I cannot really see what purpose it would serve. --Svip 13:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't intend that the whole list be rotated, only the images, and the list be changed to an inline list. Thus, the list would be no more than three images wide, and probably two rows. I just think it would use the space better (the whitespace to the right of the images bothers me a bit). This way, it won't expand the width at all, just fill the space better. --Buddy 16:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)