Talk:WCPedia Rules: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
---- | |||
should we go for Wiki formatting (eg internal linking) and categorising(sp?), or will the Future WC Encyclopedia have some other format (and the formatting will become useless)? --[[User:Priest|Priest]] 14:42, 11 August 2007 (CDT) | should we go for Wiki formatting (eg internal linking) and categorising(sp?), or will the Future WC Encyclopedia have some other format (and the formatting will become useless)? --[[User:Priest|Priest]] 14:42, 11 August 2007 (CDT) | ||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
Yeah I have no problem if you wrote it. We just don't want to use Random Internet Idiot Mr. X's crap. --[[User:Dundradal|Dundradal]] 06:08, 13 August 2010 (CDT) | Yeah I have no problem if you wrote it. We just don't want to use Random Internet Idiot Mr. X's crap. --[[User:Dundradal|Dundradal]] 06:08, 13 August 2010 (CDT) | ||
---- | |||
Edited for clarity. And everything looks nicer with links. (: | |||
I suggest that we put conventions and standards here when they're decided on. Things like the capitalisation issue I've been moaning about. :p - Wedge | |||
Latest revision as of 12:37, 2 September 2010
I know the rule is "don't steal from Wikipedia, only from yourself"... but what if the two are the same? For instance, I wrote the entry on the Confederation and it's still sitting there six years later, practically unchanged and being voted on to merge with the main article. I think parts of it are better than what we have now - so could I go and rip those parts from my last solo revision? I'm itching for a go at the whole article, actually.
I also wrote an overview on battleships that's since been deleted - gone for over two years now. I don't have the original anymore, but it's still floating around the internet on various Wikipedia copycat sites. I'd like to take it, try and clean it up, bring it up to date. Is that kosher?
Bob McDob 11:53, 12 August 2010 (CDT)
should we go for Wiki formatting (eg internal linking) and categorising(sp?), or will the Future WC Encyclopedia have some other format (and the formatting will become useless)? --Priest 14:42, 11 August 2007 (CDT)
Eh, if you wrote the original article, I'm sure it's fine to use it here as well. I think the original intent of the rule was to discourage people from wholesale plagiarism from the rest of the Internet. - Wedge
Yeah I have no problem if you wrote it. We just don't want to use Random Internet Idiot Mr. X's crap. --Dundradal 06:08, 13 August 2010 (CDT)
Edited for clarity. And everything looks nicer with links. (:
I suggest that we put conventions and standards here when they're decided on. Things like the capitalisation issue I've been moaning about. :p - Wedge
