Forum:Should we make a "Works That Need Pages" Page?: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
No edit summary |
(found it, wish it was better) |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
:I can see the wisdom in that and support this proposal wholeheartedly. If you want to make a page for that, feel free. Also, since we do share a license compatible to Wikipedia, you can always use their (properly attributed) content as a head start for many pages. [[User:GethN7|GethN7]] ([[User talk:GethN7|talk]]) 04:19, 4 April 2014 (UTC) |
:I can see the wisdom in that and support this proposal wholeheartedly. If you want to make a page for that, feel free. Also, since we do share a license compatible to Wikipedia, you can always use their (properly attributed) content as a head start for many pages. [[User:GethN7|GethN7]] ([[User talk:GethN7|talk]]) 04:19, 4 April 2014 (UTC) |
||
: Turns out we do have a section for that, but it needs work: [[List of Shows That Need Summary]]. [[User:GethN7|GethN7]] ([[User talk:GethN7|talk]]) 04:23, 4 April 2014 (UTC) |
: Turns out we do have a section for that, but it needs work: [[List of Shows That Need Summary]]. [[User:GethN7|GethN7]] ([[User talk:GethN7|talk]]) 04:23, 4 April 2014 (UTC) |
||
:Yeah. We do have it, of a sort here: [[Works Needing Summary]]. It's not all that awesome right now, but at least it's something. Fixing this is on the todo list. Now, we don't have to create pages ''completely'' from scratch, as drawing from Wikipedia is fair game. At least for the first part of the summary, if it's attributed in the page history. And wikipedia content definitely needs to be made tropier. But we're not elitist about how awesome we are compared to other wikis, because wikis can always be improved. [[User:Vorticity|Vorticity]] ([[User talk:Vorticity|talk]]) 04:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC) |
|||