Wikiality talk:CPOV
From Wikiality
Is this not "The Stephen Colbert Experience" ?--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 16:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
So, yes then?--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 16:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- No.--thisniss 17:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
How is it different?--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 17:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- All in good time, my friend. I am not always very good at describing what a page is going to be before I've had a chance to work on it. It would be much easier for me to just show you than for me to try to break this down right now. There is a "UC" tag on the page, so I would like to have the time that it affords me to work on the page. Because of the way that I am wired, it is truly difficult for me to have to try to "explain myself" on demand. I have to process things in a particular way. I am not trying to be difficult, or to tax your patience, but I am asking you to trust me and to give me some time to work on the page, to see if your questions aren't cleared up. Okay? :) You have to remember that I am sslloowwww.--thisniss 17:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Contents |
Template: CPOV
I made a CPOV template. I don't know if it will work for what you're intending for this page and I'm not trying to rush anything. If its not what you had in mind... just delete it. --GlennBecksAT**l (talk) 21:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Discussion COpied From Deleted Writing Techniques Talk Page
The names probably not the most fitting but I tried to stray away from mirroring mainstream wikis. I think it needs a lota work before its really helpful, but at least now it has its own home. --GlennBecksAT**l (talk) 10:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Improving pages / Common mistakes
Ok, so I posted the portion of improving pages that covered content. I'm not sure if its good enough to be left on the page but it'll obviously be rework/worded. I'm not really sure how to make links to each mistake's suggestions unless they're in that format....but I'm a little worried this'll end up just as confoozing/complex/busy/cluttered...--GlennBecksAT**l (talk) 01:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
3rd person vs 1st person
I know if this is the right place to ask but...
Does one always have to type in 3rd person? Or can one switch into first person momentarly? For example:
"Atilla the Hun died of a nosebleed in his sleep. But between you and me I think he was dropkicked in the face by a kangaroo. Atilla the Hun's empire soon..."
That kind of thing (I just typed what was in my head at the time-kangaroos and attilla the hun).
Does this make sense?
- WHICH PERSON? I don't know if the voice really matters so much as long as it's consistent. Although one would want to sound as snooty and pedantic as possible in an online encyclopedia so 3rd is probably best...just stay away from randomness.--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 17:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
...lolz ...kangaroos. --GlennBecksAT**l (talk) 18:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Still Good
Possible solution...there is a belief that there is w-a-a-y too much stuff on these pages, I feel if we make each section one of those magically disappearing-reappearing templates that other webtube uses, we can get all this stuff onto one page and make it readable!--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 18:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
That works just as well but its probably also a matter of whats useful/funny and what isn't. This section needs reworked in about five spots from the "research" period. i never got around to it though. i got lil overwhelmed with how much needed fixed up. you can obviously do whatever you want with the page..i gave up on it there for awhile.--GlennBecksATool 19:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- I look at it this way...the more stuff we have the better. By removing stuff, we are basically self-censoring. If someone wants to read what's been written, great! If they don't, that's cool too! The info will be there to help if they need it.
- And I sympathize completely with the overwhelming feeling and feeling as though I've left so many things undone. I figure it's an encyclopedia anyone can edit and adding is better than deleting. Maybe we should use the "Things to do" page a bit more?
- What if we pop a link on things to do with a short explanation of the original intent and invite people to have at it?--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 19:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
..shes a work in progress...nothing more--GlennBecksATool 19:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
well, you don't have to keep the article... you can delete it. it might be worth considering whats worth it and what isn't and why it was started in the first place... --GlennBecksATool 20:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- No, we don't have to keep everything, but we don't have to delete everything either. A balance somewhere in the middle is best. But I feel help-type pages should be given leeway that regular articles aren't. We can never assume the type of help people are going to need.--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 20:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
meh, changed my mind... its a worthless page that had a few spots of unoriginal content still remaining in it. Help pages shouldn't be harder than normal articles anyway....they're too facty..--GlennBecksATool 20:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Aww, I was going to copy some of that over to CPOV!--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 20:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Rearrangements
Okay, I copied/pasted stuff from the writing techniqis page, and moved stuff around from the pages that I could remember having existed. Here is what I have left:
And, to a lesser extent: Wikiality:Sound Advice/Grading
What do you think? Any ideas on how to consolidate, etc.?--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 22:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
