Category talk:WpPages

July 2012 Modifications

You'll notice I've just had a review of these pages, using the upgraded Form for the purpose. The main aim was to distill what we have here into a concentrated form, one that will encourage new users to stick around. Several of the stubs got replaced by #REDIRECTs. I thought I'd summarise some of my thoughts here:

1. A full WP:* page is not needed to use the WP+ software, a redirect is enough
2. Where the WP:* page offers nothing much to the reader, a #REDIRECT is preferable
3. The full WP:* page allows for a brief comment on both the WP and WS pages. I'm aiming to have comments in both fields.
4. Use of icons is also recommended, though I am planning to upgrade these soon.
5. Page titles must match WP titles, so I've moved a few pages to track WP title changes

Robin 05:55, 4 July 2012 (IST)

That's a whole lot of impressive work completed Robin. Much appreciated and, right now, no criticism or suggestions to make. I also agree all the above points. All-in-all the last few days work represent a big useability and general enhancement to the site.

--Peter P 08:05, 4 July 2012 (IST)

Replacement Page example

I'm looking for an example of a solid replacement page. i.e. finished to a high standard and comprehensive, not just an adjunct to a WP page. I'll include it on http://www.wikipediaplus.org/wiki/WikipediaPlus_enabling_a_Website Any suggestions?

I keep getting people telling me that Balfour Declaration of 1917 hits the spot. This is dangerous, since it can set me off into a frenzy of modifications and improvements, potentially rendering the thing worse and not better. The only part I'm convinced is good is the photograph.

Of course, it's no good to you, because it's deliberately been written not to be comprehensive. However, I'm currently pleased with the wording included there which runs as follows: "This article is intended to be read as an adjunct to the Wikipedia version of the same thing, but without repetition of non-contentious material. See details of Wikipedia omissions and bias in the section below." I think it expresses one direction that editors can take but I'm more than a little nervous that it will fit some articles very well and others rather poorly. Toolbox 20:49, 5 April 2012 (IST)