Hi fellow wikipedia lovers,
I am getting feedback on people wanting less rules on titles. I intentionally made it not a hard rule, but I think there’s something beautiful in just using the wikipedia title by default. Wikipedia is a site immune to clickbait with strict policies on titles, and so aesthetically, I prefer to put the description in the post body, not the title. It also makes it much easier to moderate :D But please tell me your thoughts on this topic and we can re-calibrate the rule, if people would prefer. This community doesn’t belong to me; I just made it because I wanted it to exist. Also, on that topic, since our community is well over 1000 monthly active users, would be great to bring on 1-2 moderators, because I don’t have any intention to be BDFL of this community and I honestly have enough going on as it is. Please comment or DM me if you are interested. I will select applicants based on prior engagement here.
Cheers, Your humble local mod who is definitely not using this community as a trojan horse for clam facts but here’s an article about wampum because I feel like it
Simple:
Wikipedia Title (Editorial BS)
Other communities id urge to use
Article Title [Source (Editorial BS)
This is a good idea!
Gotta close that bracket tho
Yes but when I did it turned it into a weird hyperlink
Oh yeah, that’s a thing. Probably need to sprinkle some backslashes or something in there.
I think allowing brief editorialization after the title strikes the right balance. Sometimes there is something particular the poster wants to highlight that the article title doesn’t capture.
Off topic but I wish the body would automatically include a preview of the first few paragraphs of the Wikipedia entry.
If anyone knows how to code this together while allowing users to still set their own body text if they wish, hit me up!
Wikipedia-titles often don’t give enough context for one to understand if it’s worth clicking-into.
I’ve got enough web-parasites trying to machiavellianly pry into my finite-mental-strength, … so it’s more likely for me to just ignore any post in this community which I can’t understand whether it’s worth digging-into,
& therefore am much more prone to not engaging, thanks to the “laconic” non-informativeness of the posts.
Others may have the same reaction…
Take a look at www.TVTropes.org & see how their titles pull people into their articles, & see the difference with this community’s posts…
Also, thank you for making this community: there are a few very interesting ones I’ve found only because of here.
_ /\ _
