Forum:Pointless/redundant wikiing: Difference between revisions
(New page: {{Forumheader|Panopticon}} <!-- Please put your content under this line. Be sure to sign your edits with four tildes ~~~~ --> I've noticed a bit of a trend for useless wikiing in a few a...) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
Obviously where there ''is'' specific Who-based information which shouldn't go in a general-interest wiki (for example, the series' version of Shakespeare, or the British Prime Minister) we should have an article. I'm just wondering if there's an established policy on where to draw the line in this kind of situation? --[[User:Gai-jin|Gai-jin]] 14:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC) | Obviously where there ''is'' specific Who-based information which shouldn't go in a general-interest wiki (for example, the series' version of Shakespeare, or the British Prime Minister) we should have an article. I'm just wondering if there's an established policy on where to draw the line in this kind of situation? --[[User:Gai-jin|Gai-jin]] 14:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
:I'm not sure there is (but thank you! I thought I was the only one staring at some of the things and thinking 'huh'?). I guess it's more a judgement call than anything really concrete. There have been a few things in the forum here and there. In the Manual of Style there's a section on [[Tardis:Manual of style#Links|Links]] but that's about it. Maybe it could be changed to Links/Wikifying, just to clarify it up a bit and then add...well something about justifyable use of a link or...something like that. --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] 16:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:01, 5 May 2007
If this thread's title doesn't specify it's spoilery, don't bring any up.
I've noticed a bit of a trend for useless wikiing in a few articles - for example, the article on Gallifreyans has redlinks to articles on bows and arrows and spears. This doesn't seem to me to be specifically Dr Who-based content (nor particularly interesting to either read or write).
In a similar way, I mentioned the Bible and the Book of Revelation in an article a while back and both references were later wikified, despite the fact they have no specific Dr Who significance. I could understand linking them to Wikipedia, but not here.
Obviously where there is specific Who-based information which shouldn't go in a general-interest wiki (for example, the series' version of Shakespeare, or the British Prime Minister) we should have an article. I'm just wondering if there's an established policy on where to draw the line in this kind of situation? --Gai-jin 14:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure there is (but thank you! I thought I was the only one staring at some of the things and thinking 'huh'?). I guess it's more a judgement call than anything really concrete. There have been a few things in the forum here and there. In the Manual of Style there's a section on Links but that's about it. Maybe it could be changed to Links/Wikifying, just to clarify it up a bit and then add...well something about justifyable use of a link or...something like that. --Tangerineduel 16:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
