On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 12:50 PM, Angela Anuszewski
wrote:
> Personally, I've given up on talk pages. The reason is many of them don't
> have actual "talk". I see a blue talk link and go there and all that is there
> is a template "this page is part of wiki project xyz". I'd really like it if
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 6:11 PM, Ian Woollard wrote:
> That's the way it's supposed to work, but I've never seen an external links
> section that big, because if it got a tenth that size it would be put up on
> the noticeboard and then get gratuitously chopped. And I'm not talking about
> spam li
On 10/12/11 4:50 AM, Angela Anuszewski wrote:
> Personally, I've given up on talk pages. The reason is many of them don't
> have actual "talk". I see a blue talk link and go there and all that is there
> is a template "this page is part of wiki project xyz". I'd really like it if
> that kind o
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 10:40 AM, Bod Notbod wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 9:05 PM, Gwern Branwen wrote:
>
>> It would be a service to our readers to end this practice entirely: if
>> a link is good enough to be hidden on a talk page (supposedly in the
>> interests of incorporating it in the f
On 12 October 2011 18:42, Charles Matthews
wrote:
> Reminds me - we should at some stage do something about "noticeboards". Not
> that they all need stamping out, but as unchartered processes, the more
> useful ones should graduate to having some sort of charter.
>
Yes, and starting with WP:ANI;
On 12 October 2011 18:11, Ian Woollard wrote:
> On 12 October 2011 06:56, Carcharoth wrote:
>
> > I agree absolutely that external links and further reading should be
> > used far more than they are.
>
>
> Nah.
>
> As in yes, but there's an entire noticeboard on Wikipedia devoted entirely
> to s
Ian Woollard:
do You know their motivation?
I see this oversensitivity to the external links in czech Wikipedia too. I
am not that much hurt by their removal, what is hurting me is that the
cleaners are sometimes treating (in my opinion) well-intentioned outsiders
as spammers.
Reo
On Wed, Oct
On 12 October 2011 06:56, Carcharoth wrote:
> I agree absolutely that external links and further reading should be
> used far more than they are.
Nah.
As in yes, but there's an entire noticeboard on Wikipedia devoted entirely
to systematically stamping out external links, whether they're usefu
Not so bad idea,
I like the templates and those informations very much.
However, if such info could be on some third tab I might be happy.
regards
Petr Skupa [[u:Reo On]]
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Angela Anuszewski <
angela.anuszew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Personally, I've given up on tal
Personally, I've given up on talk pages. The reason is many of them don't
have actual "talk". I see a blue talk link and go there and all that is there
is a template "this page is part of wiki project xyz". I'd really like it if
that kind of information about a page was somewhere other than "t
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 9:05 PM, Gwern Branwen wrote:
> It would be a service to our readers to end this practice entirely: if
> a link is good enough to be hidden on a talk page (supposedly in the
> interests of incorporating it in the future*), then it is good enough
> to put at the end of Exte
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 9:05 PM, Gwern Branwen wrote:
> Pondering the utility of talk page edits recently, I've begun to
> wonder: how many of our readers actually look at the talk page as
> well? I know some writers writing articles on Wikipedia have mentioned
> or rhapsodized at length on the in
Pondering the utility of talk page edits recently, I've begun to
wonder: how many of our readers actually look at the talk page as
well? I know some writers writing articles on Wikipedia have mentioned
or rhapsodized at length on the interest of the talk pages for
articles, but they are rare birds
13 matches
Mail list logo
