We are still actively working on the spam issue.
Difference between revisions of "Help talk:Editing"
m (→Redlinks Gone Wild!) |
m (→Redlinks Gone Wild!) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
:I think we've addressed it in [[Help:Editing#Creating pages]] of what page will be worthy of our standards. And about linking in [[Help:Style#Hypertext metaphor]]. | :I think we've addressed it in [[Help:Editing#Creating pages]] of what page will be worthy of our standards. And about linking in [[Help:Style#Hypertext metaphor]]. | ||
| − | + | :: Awesome! These rules both seem reasonable to me, and also give me the confidence to make edits knowing I'm backed up by the consensus. [[User:Mrsnooze|Mrsnooze]] ([[User talk:Mrsnooze|talk]]) 05:57, 27 February 2016 (EST) | |
By my reckoning, anything that a /g/entooman has an opinionated angle on, or anything that can be crassly simplified deserves a page on our wiki. Boring/Obvious/Clearly Defined stuff like [[MMORPG]] or [[Zork]] are probably better off either unlinked, or linked to an appropriate page (e.g. Wikipedia). /g/ents ''may'' have something to say about them, but I reckon it's unlikely to be a fleshed-out article anytime soon. | By my reckoning, anything that a /g/entooman has an opinionated angle on, or anything that can be crassly simplified deserves a page on our wiki. Boring/Obvious/Clearly Defined stuff like [[MMORPG]] or [[Zork]] are probably better off either unlinked, or linked to an appropriate page (e.g. Wikipedia). /g/ents ''may'' have something to say about them, but I reckon it's unlikely to be a fleshed-out article anytime soon. | ||
Latest revision as of 11:57, 27 February 2016
Redlinks Gone Wild!
Where should we draw the line between redlinks ("Hopefully someone will write an article about this topic!") and offsite links ("here's more info on this topic")?
- I think we've addressed it in Help:Editing#Creating pages of what page will be worthy of our standards. And about linking in Help:Style#Hypertext metaphor.
By my reckoning, anything that a /g/entooman has an opinionated angle on, or anything that can be crassly simplified deserves a page on our wiki. Boring/Obvious/Clearly Defined stuff like MMORPG or Zork are probably better off either unlinked, or linked to an appropriate page (e.g. Wikipedia). /g/ents may have something to say about them, but I reckon it's unlikely to be a fleshed-out article anytime soon.
Furthermore, if an externally linked article later becomes a fleshed out article, it's easy to relink to the IGW article. In the meantime, the externally linked article will let anons learn more, whereas a redlink will stop them in their tracks.
- Okay, I'll address this later in Help:Editing, if you think redlinks should be eradicated, *but* it's not worthy of the standards, make an interwiki link or external links instead.
- EDIT: See Help:Style#Hypertext metaphor, point 3. Morpheus talk 10:54, 26 February 2016 (EST)
p.s. Not picking on the MUD article at all - it's a great article. I've just been going through Special:WantedPages and most of the wanted articles are single reference affairs.
