Difference between revisions of "Category talk:WpPages"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Seeking good replacement page) |
|||
Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
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 phrenzy 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) |
Revision as of 19:49, 5 April 2012
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 phrenzy 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)