Dink Smallwood Wiki
Hello, i was thinking about starting a Dink Smallwood Wiki. What i were wondering, is what you think about that idea and if you would contribute to the wiki if it would be possible to get one?
I don't really think there's much use for one, or enough material to make it worthwhile. There's not much more to say about it overall than the main Wikipedia article and all the D-Mods have (or can have) reviews and/or walkthroughs for them anyway.
We have the Dinktionary for other stuff, and that's more or less dead.
Nice idea, but I can't see it working!
We have the Dinktionary for other stuff, and that's more or less dead.
Nice idea, but I can't see it working!
I believe it'd be best to invest time improving the article at Wikipedia. It's much improved over the initial version of it, but it could still use some work.
ALSO: If you do edit the Wikipedia article, keep in mind that more is not necessarily better.
ALSO ALSO: Apparently someone added a "Reception" piece to the article. It's a good inclusion in concept, but the presentation is awkward.
ALSO: If you do edit the Wikipedia article, keep in mind that more is not necessarily better.
ALSO ALSO: Apparently someone added a "Reception" piece to the article. It's a good inclusion in concept, but the presentation is awkward.
We have the Dinktionary for other stuff, and that's more or less dead
Dinktionary is not dead. Everybody is invited to provide dink term definitions - the form is there, and I check my mail daily, and any contribution will be added and the contributor gets due respect on the main page
Dinktionary is not dead. Everybody is invited to provide dink term definitions - the form is there, and I check my mail daily, and any contribution will be added and the contributor gets due respect on the main page

They are also looking for a fair-use rational for the image used in the article.
I didn't mean dead as such, sorry. Should've been more clear.
I just meant that as the Dinktionary is fairly simple compared to a wiki and it's not used all that much, I didn't think a more in-depth version would be more successful.
I just meant that as the Dinktionary is fairly simple compared to a wiki and it's not used all that much, I didn't think a more in-depth version would be more successful.