Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, Moderators, move, protect, rollback, Administrators
27,336
edits
Changes
Conservapedia talk:Article Improvement Drive (view source)
Revision as of 04:44, March 17, 2007
, 04:44, March 17, 2007→Voting
:: If we have a full article about something like [[Criticism of the Bible]], then wouldn't it be appropriate to have a short summary in the [[Bible]] article (say, one or two paragraphs) with a link to the full article? And yes, I agree, too much sidetracking would be bad. But anything relevant should be added. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 23:38, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:: If we have a full article about something like [[Criticism of the Bible]], then wouldn't it be appropriate to have a short summary in the [[Bible]] article (say, one or two paragraphs) with a link to the full article? And yes, I agree, too much sidetracking would be bad. But anything relevant should be added. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 23:38, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::One suggested a "see also" subheading in the article, and this could contain the links to the articles in question. In my experience with Wikipedia (regretably!) there's always someone who's got to take the "one or two" paragraphs and turn them into an embarrassment. But I think we're planning ahead for things like this, which means more control, more quality, better results...it's going to make Wikipedia quite mad, but that's ok! :) [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:44, 17 March 2007 (EDT)