Theopedia talk:Writing guide
From Theopedia
 Archives | |
|---|---|
New title?
What do you guys think about calling this "Manual of style" instead? I think we could then reform it some so that it is a much better resource to what we expect from new editors (or something more clear to refer them to). I still feel like this page is really jumbled. Good info, but not organized, and some things could still be clarified/added. Thoughts? Jordan (talk) 23:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that some rework may be helpful, re: "good info but not organized." Restructuring to a revised outline could be proposed here on the Talk page. However, I don't see anything wrong with the current title: Writing Guide -- to me the term Manual of Style implies a more limited scope than we need. Just my thoughts. Jim Ellis 15:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Use of Wikipedia
This change was made with only the comment "simplifying guideline" -- but it does not. It changes the "guideline." Why this is a limiting "guideline" for no real reason I can see. The "guideline" before was different and much better. Carlaude 22:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- Carl, the use of Wikpedia content has been the subject of discussion and differing interpretations for some time. This was affected first by our earlier claim to be "public domain" and then by our subsequent change to Creative Commons 3.0. For example, please see, http://www.theopedia.com/User_talk:Infinitelink#Copying_from_Wikipedia_.28refresh.29. It seemed "simpler" for the time being to avoid direct copying or importing from Wikipedia. This may change with further discussion and clarification. But quite frankly, I don't see the current restriction as a problem. We are still free to provide links to Wikipedia content if deemed helpful. Jim Ellis 15:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
broken or missing link
In the wikipedia section the link Special:Interwiki goes nowhere.
