Difference between revisions of "Category talk:WpPages"

From Wikispooks
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)