shouldn't this be called specialists?
I create the page for the Goalkeeper coach and i use the term specialist. I think Specialist is the right term.
A good general page, with links now to articles on each particular specialist, where theories of each can be expounded. (OgtheDim)
Staff definitely seems the right name for the page, with specialist being used inside the article to refer to the different types of coach etc. (Rob)
- that can be changed. I suggest we request such changes at: MediaWiki_Talk:Sidebar --GM-Lau 23:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Do we need a category:staff page to be created. I think so, but was asked to create no extra pages> Dancing rob 11:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
This link was added to the third paragraph by me. I considered simply copying the information on hattriX but in my view it's not ok to copy such information if it's sufficiently available through a link. But I'm interested in the views of others. We shouldn't want to make a site like hattriX-files redundant because we blatantly copy all the information down there. Or am I wrong? --Oligarf 10:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- I see that Jhattara already fixed some of my concerns. But the question remains. What do we prefer: direct information here, or external links? --Oligarf 10:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- To the extent that X-Files is a collection of data, then yes, we will be making a site like that redundant. However, we're not obsoleting their calculation and management tools, nor any collections of original research that they may have. --Mr Wednesday 20:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)