Difference between revisions of "Template talk:WPAdjunct"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(New categories welcome) |
|||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
[[User:Robin|Robin]] 16:44, 10 April 2012 (IST) | [[User:Robin|Robin]] 16:44, 10 April 2012 (IST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Icons == | ||
| + | |||
| + | I just added icons, which feels right to me, giving regular readers a quick fix on what the problem is. We might want to look at Wikipedia for inspiration about which icons to use. Maybe make a list here: | ||
| + | |||
| + | * Bias - A distorted WP logo with some pieces much bigger than others? | ||
| + | * Omissions - A WP logo with lots of holes | ||
Revision as of 05:18, 6 June 2012
The Idea Is...
To use this as a way to help standardise our assessment of/relationships to Wikipedia pages. A taxonomy of Wikipedia Problems would help. In the meantime, feel free to adjust this template e.g. by adding extra reasons, or modifying the reason text. I feel like leaving the option to use custom text is a good choice, but the aim is to categorise the problems. Maybe later add fancy icons etc. to help regular readers.
Robin 16:44, 10 April 2012 (IST)
Icons
I just added icons, which feels right to me, giving regular readers a quick fix on what the problem is. We might want to look at Wikipedia for inspiration about which icons to use. Maybe make a list here:
- Bias - A distorted WP logo with some pieces much bigger than others?
- Omissions - A WP logo with lots of holes
