welcome note for discussion page |
m frmt |
||
Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
|<center> <font size="+1">Welcome to the discussion</center></font> |
|<center> <font size="+1">Welcome to the discussion</center></font> |
||
|} |
|} |
||
---- |
|||
== Nice == |
== Nice == |
Revision as of 13:33, 8 May 2006
Nice
While I rather like this page, isn't it a bit ironic that it's basically stating "pages should be simple" in a convoluted way? :) Radiant_>|< 10:10, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
- No. It's stating that the best explanation of a thing is the thing itself. That may lead to simpler pages, but perhaps not, if demonstration is added to analysis. This merely argues for preference to be given the demonstration. — Xiong熊talk* 16:35, 2005 August 17 (UTC)
Essay?
Isn't slapping on a link to a non-existent category just a convoluted way of being snippy? — Xiong熊talk* 16:35, 2005 August 17 (UTC)
Ummm...
What exactly is the point of this 'Grapefruit' entry?
Being lazy?
I would care for a propper Wikipedia article on this fruit.
- See Grapefruit; this is an essay about writing articles. SCHZMO ✍ 22:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Good concept, but flawed.
This is a good concept, but it doesn't actually give many guidelines on how to implement it. What, for example, am I meant to put in the article for Pornography? Should I simply offer the reader some? While demonstration is very useful, this article makes it sound like it is the only possibility. Suggest changes, perhaps? Daniel (☎) 20:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)