Difference between revisions of "Talk:Articles:LA Sues Time Warner For Unpaid Franchise Fees"

From SoylentNews
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 1: Line 1:
Prospectacle: Might I suggest you outline what you've added/corrected/changed etc. to the story? Maybe under a new heading at the bottom such as "Changes," "Improvements," or "Reasons for Revisiting" (or something). Also note: this idea is but a growing seed in our minds (we have not developed a new topic for this idea yet). That doesn't necessarily prevent us from reposting on the main site, but it would require a disclaimer of some kind if we did.[[User:Mrcoolbp|mrcoolbp]] ([[User talk:Mrcoolbp|talk]]) 16:16, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
+
Prospectacle: Might I suggest you outline what you've added/corrected/changed etc. to the story? Maybe under a new heading at the bottom such as "Changes," "Improvements," or "Reasons for Revisiting" (or something). Also note: this idea is but a growing seed in our minds (we have not developed a new topic for this idea yet). That doesn't necessarily prevent us from reposting on the main site, but it would require a disclaimer of some kind if we did.[[User:Mrcoolbp|mrcoolbp]] ([[User talk:Mrcoolbp|talk]]) 04:28, 17 March 2014‎ (UTC)
  
  

Revision as of 16:16, 18 March 2014

Prospectacle: Might I suggest you outline what you've added/corrected/changed etc. to the story? Maybe under a new heading at the bottom such as "Changes," "Improvements," or "Reasons for Revisiting" (or something). Also note: this idea is but a growing seed in our minds (we have not developed a new topic for this idea yet). That doesn't necessarily prevent us from reposting on the main site, but it would require a disclaimer of some kind if we did.mrcoolbp (talk) 04:28, 17 March 2014‎ (UTC)


MrCoolBP: Good idea. At the bottom of this discussion page, or of the article itself?

So far I've only put the original article (very slightly modified) and a few relevant links. I'm hoping to see if articles can mature over time after being put on the wiki.

This doesn't preclude a resubmission to the main site later; although my idea was more for the wiki itself: Slashcode articles tend to be active for only a day or two, then activity tapers off heavily, whereas wiki articles are the opposite. They can get more active over time. The wiki could become a source of in-depth, long term history about an issue or event, after the initial discussion/debate has worn off.

If you think this will only pollute the wiki, or is not inline with its purpose, please let me know, and I won't pursue it.


Prospectacle: Again, as I see it, the wiki is a great place for this, what you are doing is absolutely not polluting it. One thing that occurs to me is no one knows this page exists, we will have to link to it from somewhere so people can find it. I'll bounce the idea off FunPika. My understanding is that if an article matures enough on the wiki, it could be resubmitted to main as a link and the summary would describe what changes/insights materialized.mrcoolbp (talk) 16:16, 18 March 2014 (UTC)