Difference between revisions of "Category talk:WpPages"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Notes on Wikipedia:* pages) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | == 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: | ||
| + | # A full WP:* page is ''not'' needed to use the WP+ software, a redirect is enough | ||
| + | # Where the WP:* page offers nothing much to the reader, a #REDIRECT is preferable | ||
| + | # 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. | ||
| + | # Use of icons is also recommended, though I am planning to upgrade these soon. | ||
| + | # Page titles must match WP titles, so I've moved a few pages to track WP title changes | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[User:Robin|Robin]] 05:55, 4 July 2012 (IST) | ||
| + | |||
== Replacement Page example == | == Replacement Page example == | ||
| Line 4: | Line 15: | ||
I'll include it on http://www.wikipediaplus.org/wiki/WikipediaPlus_enabling_a_Website | I'll include it on http://www.wikipediaplus.org/wiki/WikipediaPlus_enabling_a_Website | ||
Any suggestions? | 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 | + | :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. [[User:Toolbox|Toolbox]] 20:49, 5 April 2012 (IST) | :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. [[User:Toolbox|Toolbox]] 20:49, 5 April 2012 (IST) | ||
Revision as of 04:55, 4 July 2012
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:
- A full WP:* page is not needed to use the WP+ software, a redirect is enough
- Where the WP:* page offers nothing much to the reader, a #REDIRECT is preferable
- 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.
- Use of icons is also recommended, though I am planning to upgrade these soon.
- 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)
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)
