Talk:Glitch: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
Greenpickle (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
:Would a "List of Glitches" section with links work? {{User:Volatile Dweevil/Vol2}} | :Would a "List of Glitches" section with links work? {{User:Volatile Dweevil/Vol2}} | ||
::Do you mean on this page, or on each other article with associated glitches? If the former, it might work, as long as the links, since they'll be to sections within pages, can be kept working; if the latter, it's a bit odd if there's only one glitch. <span style="font-family:times;">'''''[[User:Greenpickle|<span style="color:#080;">G</span>]][[User talk:Greenpickle|<span style="color:#050;">P</span>]]'''''</span> |
Revision as of 19:00, November 2, 2010
I propose we remove all glitches that have their own articles, give articles to the rest that should, link to category:glitches as a list of major glitches, and move this to 'minor glitches'. GP
- Agreed. I might start on this in an hour or so; no guarantees, though.--Prezintenden
OK, just a question: which are the major ones? Snakeboss14
- Those as defined in Pikipedia:Policy#Glitch articles. GP
Mm, I talked to Prez about glitches in other articles (on enemy pages, for example). I think we should still have this page (still as 'minor glitches'), since it and category:glitches serves as a good repository, a way for people looking for glitches to find them easily. Otherwise, it'd be hard to get at them, spread out all over the wiki. However, it's also good to have them on the pages of the things they're about, so everything about them is in one place.
It seems, then, that to avoid content duplication, that the best solution is to have one set link to the other - I vote have the full text here, and refer to individual sections on this page (or articles in cat:glitches), perhaps with short summaries. It's a bit strange, yes, but I can't see a better solution. Thoughts? GP