Familypedia
(i have no strong feelings on the issue)
(I see nothing to worry about)
Line 15: Line 15:
   
 
:Hmmm. I just wish to express that I worry about this, that's all. [[User:Zephyrinus|Zephyrinus]] 23:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 
:Hmmm. I just wish to express that I worry about this, that's all. [[User:Zephyrinus|Zephyrinus]] 23:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  +
  +
::In order to add the template to a red link, the newbie would have to create the page, which takes a moment's work. Good - that takes us one step along the way. Those of us who occasionally examine the work of newbies would find the page, check that the WP link did NOT work, and either comment it out (for later investigation) or correct it while adding some real content to the page. Anyone else finding that the WP link didn't work might do the same (or might just blame WP for deleting its page and go on). I see no problem for us there. [[User:Robin Patterson|Robin Patterson]] 02:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:56, 30 May 2007

Forums: Index > Watercooler > New template for blank pages matching Wikipedia pages



I'm impressed with a recent development on the Psychology Wikia. Pages that are redlinked in material copied from Wikipedia are (manually but easily) given a notice (w:c:Psychology:template:existswp) linking to the WP article and inviting readers to create an independent one if they think it's relevant to the Psy Wiki. The template was added by w:User:Splarka in mid-March.

We can use that for placenames and other material, whether the redlinking arises from a copy or from our own templates. Readers who want the full WP article can jump to it immediately. They and/or other readers can create our own article at leisure. We can word it so that it remains appropriate even after we start adding "original" content to the page.

I've created an adaptation for us (with a shorter name, as is my custom whenever practicable): template:seewp. Ideas for improvements to its wording are welcome. I plan to include a category so that keen workers can see the affected pages listed. (Using Special:wantedpages is of similar value.)

Robin Patterson 01:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I worry about this. I would hate to have a newbie come along and add a {seewp} to all red links without first checking to see if, indeed, a WP article exists. Most of our people (for example) do not meet WP's criteria for inclusion (not notable). Even some places don't exist in WP.
Hmmm. I just wish to express that I worry about this, that's all. Zephyrinus 23:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
In order to add the template to a red link, the newbie would have to create the page, which takes a moment's work. Good - that takes us one step along the way. Those of us who occasionally examine the work of newbies would find the page, check that the WP link did NOT work, and either comment it out (for later investigation) or correct it while adding some real content to the page. Anyone else finding that the WP link didn't work might do the same (or might just blame WP for deleting its page and go on). I see no problem for us there. Robin Patterson 02:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)