Difference between revisions of "Help talk:A Guide to Piping"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Created page with 'This is really great. Also, Pretty much the only time Piping to Wikipedia is appropriate is to deal with mentions of celebrities or franchises that have no place on the CWCki. …') |
(→"Lulzy" piping: new section) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
This is really great. Also, Pretty much the only time Piping to Wikipedia is appropriate is to deal with mentions of celebrities or franchises that have no place on the CWCki. The best example of this is in the mailbags, where everybody and his brother is writing as a serial murder, dead politician or actor with violence issues.--[[User:Beat|Beat]] 04:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC) | This is really great. Also, Pretty much the only time Piping to Wikipedia is appropriate is to deal with mentions of celebrities or franchises that have no place on the CWCki. The best example of this is in the mailbags, where everybody and his brother is writing as a serial murder, dead politician or actor with violence issues.--[[User:Beat|Beat]] 04:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC) | ||
* I would say that piping to Wikipedia is also warranted for technical jargon; I've piped to the Wikipedia article for magical thinking and psychological fantasy, for instance. -- [[User:Revolver Octopus|Revolver Octopus]] 01:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
== "Lulzy" piping == | |||
I'm not being a dick and it's not like me being butthurt about ED, but as it's been said, [[CWCki:NOTED|CWCki is not ED]]. We're not really about "lulz." I think we need to slightly tweak the thing on "lulzy" piping to reflect this, mostly to indicate that it should be done sparingly and emphasize that it's more important to be relevant than to be funny. --[[User:Champthom|Champthom]] 06:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 01:37, 1 March 2010
This is really great. Also, Pretty much the only time Piping to Wikipedia is appropriate is to deal with mentions of celebrities or franchises that have no place on the CWCki. The best example of this is in the mailbags, where everybody and his brother is writing as a serial murder, dead politician or actor with violence issues.--Beat 04:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- I would say that piping to Wikipedia is also warranted for technical jargon; I've piped to the Wikipedia article for magical thinking and psychological fantasy, for instance. -- Revolver Octopus 01:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
"Lulzy" piping
I'm not being a dick and it's not like me being butthurt about ED, but as it's been said, CWCki is not ED. We're not really about "lulz." I think we need to slightly tweak the thing on "lulzy" piping to reflect this, mostly to indicate that it should be done sparingly and emphasize that it's more important to be relevant than to be funny. --Champthom 06:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)