I'm really wondering how long my bit of graffiti in the main article will last... it's already been more than 12 hours...! Either every one else is playing along, or people don't copyedit as thoroughly as they should. - MB |
I'm really wondering how long my bit of graffiti in the main article will last... it's already been more than 12 hours...! Either every one else is playing along, or people don't copyedit as thoroughly as they should. - MB Here is a note by the BBC on British Sex Symbols (including Ann Widdecombe) [1] |
See also : [Sex appeal]?,sexy?,[sexual attractiveness]?.
That's not how you do it. You leave the broken links in the main article. That way people can see them and say "We have all those articles on Atlas Shrugged, but no article on [Sex appeal]?? How can this be? I won't stand for it. I will write something on Sex appeal right now!"
This is one of the main mechanisms for getting new articles written on Wikipedia. Please don't break it. -- Geronimo Jones.
Wikipedia is not a dictionary (also Encyclopedia and or versus dictionary). I doubt we need entries for [Sex appeal]?,sexy?,[sexual attractiveness]?. (If you want to prove me wrong, have at it. :-) )
My point though, is that deleting a silly link because it is silly maybe ok, but NEVER delete a link just because it points at an article that doesn't exist yet. Broken links are probably the most important growth mechanism in the whole of Wikipedia.
Hmm, looks like Wikipedia is still light on meaningful entries on sex symbols. Don't know what that says about our range of interests. :-)
I'm really wondering how long my bit of graffiti in the main article will last... it's already been more than 12 hours...! Either every one else is playing along, or people don't copyedit as thoroughly as they should. - MB
Here is a note by the BBC on British Sex Symbols (including Ann Widdecombe) [1]