On 11/27/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
So, anyone greatly improved an article lately?
Steve
I've deleted about 50 or so articles, does that count?
-humblefool
On 11/28/06, David Ashby humble.fool@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/27/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
So, anyone greatly improved an article lately?
Steve
I've deleted about 50 or so articles, does that count?
Yes, you can consider that an improvement to [[Special:Random]]. :)
Angela
I totally re-wrote [[Typhoon Shanshan (2006)]]... not like anyone cares though :P
--NSLE/Chacor
On 28/11/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
So, anyone greatly improved an article lately?
Steve _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Steve Bennett wrote:
So, anyone greatly improved an article lately?
I've been adding to our forest of redirects...
On 11/28/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
So, anyone greatly improved an article lately?
I've been adding to our forest of redirects...
I've done a few of those lately too.
I've noticed a change in my editing behavior. Some time ago, if I hit a redlink, my assumption was that it was because we didn't have an article on that topic yet. Now, if I hit a redlink, I assume we do have the article, and we lack sufficient redirects.
-Matt
Matthew Brown wrote:
I've noticed a change in my editing behavior. Some time ago, if I hit a redlink, my assumption was that it was because we didn't have an article on that topic yet. Now, if I hit a redlink, I assume we do have the article, and we lack sufficient redirects.
I'm finding myself doing that too. But we've also more than doubled (maybe tripled) the amount of articles we've had since I started editing, so the ones I'm redlinking that aren't associated directly with the subject I'm editing are more than likely ones without redirects to the proper article. In fact, the only redlink I came across recently that I personally created that shocked me was [[medical reels]]. Nothing on medical films, educational medical movies, etc. Otherwise, it's redirect city.
-Jeff
On 11/30/06, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
I've noticed a change in my editing behavior. Some time ago, if I hit a redlink, my assumption was that it was because we didn't have an article on that topic yet. Now, if I hit a redlink, I assume we do have the article, and we lack sufficient redirects.
I agree, but not quite this strongly. It's almost a game: "I wonder if we really have nothing for this redlink?" If, after searching, I find nothing, I often make a stub.
I like stubs. :)
Steve
Same here, and of course I'm usually on the beat for fixing "External links" headings that only have one external link. ;)
--Ryan
On 11/28/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
So, anyone greatly improved an article lately?
I've been adding to our forest of redirects...
-- Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 11/30/06, Ryan Wetherell renardius@gmail.com wrote:
Same here, and of course I'm usually on the beat for fixing "External links" headings that only have one external link. ;)
By adding another one?
Steve
By changing "links" to "link". I think it helps to point out that more resources are needed, especially if the subject has an adequate amount of coverage elsewhere on the Internet.
--Ryan
On 11/29/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/30/06, Ryan Wetherell renardius@gmail.com wrote:
Same here, and of course I'm usually on the beat for fixing "External links" headings that only have one external link. ;)
By adding another one?
Steve _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 11/30/06, Ryan Wetherell renardius@gmail.com wrote:
By changing "links" to "link". I think it helps to point out that more resources are needed, especially if the subject has an adequate amount of coverage elsewhere on the Internet.
Heh, why not something a little more explicit like "More resources needed." I actually like the discordant "s": the reader realises there is something missing, and that a problem needs fixing...
Steve
On 30/11/06, Ryan Wetherell renardius@gmail.com wrote:
By changing "links" to "link". I think it helps to point out that more resources are needed, especially if the subject has an adequate amount of coverage elsewhere on the Internet.
AIUI there is more than one bot out there changing it back to "links".
- d.
On 11/30/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
AIUI there is more than one bot out there changing it back to "links".
I really ought to keep a list of these situations. I see it quite frequently: people who decide to enforce some preference that isn't goverened by the MoS on the whole of Wikipedia. There are people who change this:
==Heading== Text
To:
==Heading==
Text
and vice versa. There are people who change this: ==Heading==
to this:
== Heading ==
and vice versa.
AWB (AutoWikiBrowser) enforces several "clean-up" methods on articles that aren't strictly dictated by the MoS, such as stub tags coming after categories (or is that before...) and generally reducing the possibility of common sense intervening.
Moral of the story: Please *don't* inflict a personal choice on Wikipedia at large unless the MoS unambiguously states a very clear preference for your choice. In this case, the MoS seems pretty clear that "External links" is the preferred spelling. I seem to recall that either was acceptable but can't seem to find that now.
Steve