User talk:T/CHILDPROTECT

Red links for subjects that should have articles but do not are not only acceptable, but needed in the articles. They serve as a clear indication of what articles are in need of creation, and encourage it.

Move?

As a policy of the same name has also been created on the Wikimedia commons, I propose dropping the WP: and simply having this at CHILDPROTECT which has been a redirect to this page up until now. Any objections? An issue that seems to apply to several Wikimedia projects now. As long as the history references that it began at Wikipedia I doubt any valuable information would be lost. ^Ty_c 00:42, 25 April 2012 (EDT)

Sounds good. --zaiger (talk) 00:56, 25 April 2012 (EDT)

Red

TOW: "Good red links help Wikipedia ED —they encourage new contributors in useful directions, and remind us that Wikipedia ED.se is far from finished." ^Ty_c 05:58, 25 April 2012 (EDT)

in the meantime would you plz make use of template:wpul, that's what it's there for: wikipedians nobody cares about. it just seems like a LOT of red. is there an incoming batch of wikipedia articles that i dont know about? -hipcrime 08:49, 25 April 2012 (EDT)

lead

i think the opening paragraph sentence could be more clear, and maybe summarize this, so that people can tell whether they care to read it. -hipcrime 08:52, 25 April 2012 (EDT)