| Revision as of 21:35, 29 January 2008 editGogo Dodo (talk | contribs)Administrators197,922 edits →Orphan articles: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:46, 29 January 2008 edit undoGogo Dodo (talk | contribs)Administrators197,922 edits →Re: Uh, "non-standard formatting"?: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
| It's great that you are working on orphan articles, but you should not link to them just to link to them. When you do add a link, it should be appropriate for the section. For example, the link you added to ] in ]'s See Also section is not appropriate. The See Also section usually contains links to other topical articles and generally not people unless that person who integral to that topic's development. So taking that example, Dave Astels would be only linked if he was the first to propose Extreme Programming. A better link for Dave Astels would be in the ] article. -- ] (]) 21:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC) | It's great that you are working on orphan articles, but you should not link to them just to link to them. When you do add a link, it should be appropriate for the section. For example, the link you added to ] in ]'s See Also section is not appropriate. The See Also section usually contains links to other topical articles and generally not people unless that person who integral to that topic's development. So taking that example, Dave Astels would be only linked if he was the first to propose Extreme Programming. A better link for Dave Astels would be in the ] article. -- ] (]) 21:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC) | ||
| == Re: Uh, "non-standard formatting"? == | |||
| Re : Yes, the format you added was not the usual standard for all of the other day articles. While I understand your concern, you should discuss such a change with the community and gain a ] before making such a wide scale change. Additionally, the comment you added to ]'s warning about inserting non-notable people, while certainly true, was not appropriate. -- ] (]) 21:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:46, 29 January 2008
Trading card - my bad
Sorry about that! I was doing recent changes patrol, and at this time of day, there's a hell of a lot of vandalism; looking at your edit I just saw a load of content removed from the top of the page, and the capitalised edit summary, I was a bit trigger-happy and rollbacked your edit, but then I realised I balls-up and reverted back. Keep editing, you're doing well! EJF (talk) 20:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ha ha... thanks! I don't have the stamina to patrol RC, so I'm glad you're doing it :P Lumberjake (talk) 20:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Orphan articles
It's great that you are working on orphan articles, but you should not link to them just to link to them. When you do add a link, it should be appropriate for the section. For example, the link you added to Dave Astels in Extreme Programming's See Also section is not appropriate. The See Also section usually contains links to other topical articles and generally not people unless that person who integral to that topic's development. So taking that example, Dave Astels would be only linked if he was the first to propose Extreme Programming. A better link for Dave Astels would be in the RSpec article. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Re: Uh, "non-standard formatting"?
Re your message: Yes, the format you added was not the usual standard for all of the other day articles. While I understand your concern, you should discuss such a change with the community and gain a consensus before making such a wide scale change. Additionally, the comment you added to May 15's warning about inserting non-notable people, while certainly true, was not appropriate. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)