Not encyclopedic template Hello, I wonder if we have a template (()) noenciclop dico. I ask because, especially in the articles, the text is improved, but the ((improve)) does not give me enough granularity to indicate what happens. Consider also that both ((outline)) as ((noneutral)) or ((dubious)) are templates for improvement. With respect to what is encyclopedic or not, I suppose we can go to the manual of style, but we also propose a kind of short beginner’s guide that is referenced from the pages. The contents of this guide could be something like: The purpose of wikipedia is not getting any has the largest number of articles, but the existing articles, many or few, have a minimum quality. The existence of miniesbozos less than four lines is totally counterproductive and can extend an impression of lack of quality of wikipedia.Probably end up with a poster)) ((miniesbozo and subsequently eliminated. Not include an image or a template as a first line of text. This would prevent the search engines like Google to index the page correctly (obviously this does not apply to the template ((delete)). Divide your text into paragraphs (not forgetting that it requires two carriage returns to consider wikipedia paragraph break) . This will improve the readability of the article. Use also sub to order and clarify the article. The magic of the web is hyperlinking. wikienlaces Use (links to other articles on wikipedia) in your items. Verify that your items will wikienlaces correct. Please note that many links lead to disambiguation pages and not the item you want (for example, a wikienlace Charles I’s sure not what you want, but probably to Charles I of Spain, or Charles I of England, who knows).Avoid subjective and laudatory terms: our literature, the flag country, the best mayor of the city. They are not encyclopedic. Consider that most of the items belong to a category. Make an effort figuring out what category they belong to your article. If your item is not complete, rate it outline (with the ((outline))). Before writing an article, observes that there are similar one. The authors do not always check wikienlaces believe that there is something similar. If you do you could get to the duplication of items, then someone would have to merge. For example, if you create an article called , verifies that there is one called Encarta. You can use the form on the left to verify. Even if you’re an expert on the subject, keep in mind that an encyclopedia has to be accessible to all publics. If you want to delve into a subject, ensure that articles are not too long to be deployed in more specific articles.Article begins with a high level, including summaries of what you want and hang below the sentence Main article: The more specific article concerned Opinions Ecemaml 16:04 February 14, 2005 (CET) I see very clear and understandable points can be added as we go agreeing or emerging problems. Along with the minis could include maxis … Lourdes message here 16:15 February 14, 2005 (CET) True. Item 10 added. Ecemaml 16:44 February 14, 2005 (CET) it seems to me very well summarized in these ten points. He mentioned several of the most typical problems that have articles on Wikipedia, including the issue of the mini maxis and which have generated much discussion in recent days coffee. With respect to the ((noenciclop dico)), I am unaware if any, but if not, would be a very useful template. So far I did was to remove the template and say why it was not encyclopedic, but a specific template for these cases would be much better.Davidge 17:08 February 14, 2005 (CET) Well, I’m not one to say anything but I disagree with most of the points. The first of these, for example. That is less than four lines, will you forgive me, but it’s bullshit. There are hundreds of botanical terms or other specialized dictionaries that are not or only in specific dictionaries that their nature have no more than four lines. Of which I have written category Glossary of botanical terms are many. What do you mean, what does not fit in this free , To me if I am satisfied that definitions are made less than four lines, and even if this be clarified by an article why not . For me all these kinds of limitations impoverished. Look at definitions there are only three or four words but do not appear anywhere. Why can not appear here , Who is who it claims miniesbozo , Which for some is a simple definition for others is enlightening.