CZ Talk:The Article Checklist
Are pull down menus an option in wiki code? I have to admit i have never seen it but it would be very useful in this case. The workgroup names need to be EXACTLY right other wise the categories will be wrong. This is obviously true for all the parameters. Chris Day (Talk) 16:52, 20 February 2007 (CST)
- Well, one way to tell whether the correct name for the parameter was given is whether the data appear correctly on the form (as you see here: Talk:John Doherty (fiddler), and another way to tell is to see whether the category links are red or not. Presumably, we'll create very brief introductory sections that will turn all our (must be a few hundred) red category links blue. --Larry Sanger 16:51, 21 February 2007 (CST)
The article stati listed do not seem to fit reality. Marking a article as "2" results in an "developing" article not a "developed" one.--Markus Baumeister 11:03, 18 March 2007 (CDT)
- Fixed. --Larry Sanger 11:58, 18 March 2007 (CDT)
Reality be damned, HOW do I get a status value into the template so that it actually happens? There is, of course, no "status" field in any of the few
articles talk pages I've looked at. Neither [that word that starts and ends with s]= nor dUmMy= has worked for me in several experiments on the Galileo talk page, where working is defined as seeing the expected result both the preview and the code as submitted from a preview that looks ok.
Geeeez, in previewing this I see that the input function changes [that word about the standing of a thing]= to dUmMy= . I suppose it was all perfectly obvious from the start, Watson.
However, I'm still getting an unspecified status in the preview when using dUmMy= 3. Please, someone, give the article a usable explanation of how to set the status, preferably with a usage example that can be copied and modified and will work. Sorry to gripe, but life can be hard for a newbie without any knowledge of the internals of the code. Daniel Drake 12:16, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
In the category of "'yes' is not an answer to an either-or question:" currently a section of the checklist reads:
- " 'cat_check' is used to indicate whether, in the opinion of the person filling out the checklist, the category list is OK or, instead, needs review by editors. Simply write 'y' or 'n' (or variations on these) for yes or no. "
So does "yes" mean "yes the category list is OK", or does "yes" mean "yes the category list needs review by editors"? Very confusing. - Greg Martin 20:02, 29 April 2007 (CDT)
- yes means its ok, no means it needs review Nancy Sculerati 20:04, 29 April 2007 (CDT) (often wrong but never in doubt :-)
Checklists for CZ namespace articles?
- They are for main namespace articles only. We'd have to create an entirely different checklist for CZ namespace articles. Might not be a bad idea, you know. --Larry Sanger 23:05, 1 August 2007 (CDT)
Here's a philosophical question: Who decides whether an article is "developed" or "developing" or "stub"? Or more generally, who should put up/evaluate the article checklist? Many of our articles have a primary author - should that person self-evaluate? Obviously, if the checklist-adder calls an article "approved", and it isn't, they're simply wrong, and an editor should correct it. But should I decide whether my own articles (meaning articles that I'm the only person to have contributed substantive content) are "stubs", "developing", or "developed"? When checklisting started, I went ahead and evaluated a few of my articles, but after a bit, began to think that perhaps I should let others evaluate them. Recently, an author/editor changed one of my evaluations on an article he had written. In this particular case, there's no issue, as I had incorrectly rated it, as I'd forgotten that "approved" is 0, not 1. But the general case is still of interest - should someone who has contributed significantly to the substantive content of an article also be evaluating the article in the checklist? Anthony Argyriou 22:27, 31 July 2007 (CDT)
- I am curious about this too. I feel comfortable labeling something I've done as developing or stub, but am unsure if there is a process to declare it developed. My gut would tell me there should be some sort of consensus before moving it to a 1, since this is a wiki, and based on collaboration. However, I can also see where this could get frustrating on some articles where you are unable to draw attention from other authors. --Todd Coles 22:07, 1 August 2007 (CDT)
Perhaps there should be such a process, and I've frequently thought that we should, perhaps, give the right to make something 1 only to editors. Ultimately, however, this is a matter of efficiency of process. I think once we have a wider variety of active editors in many different fields, such a change will become more feasible. In the meantime, I think we need a more complete guide, with some good examples, to how to rate articles.
The "who" question is obvious anyway: it's whoever edits the page, in the same way that the person "who" is responsible for the article itself is whoever edits it. But in this as in other matters, if an editor specializing in the subject is on hand, we defer to his/her judgment. --Larry Sanger 23:03, 1 August 2007 (CDT)
"By" field useless now?
I'm thinking that the "By" field is useless now that the metadata is kept on a page of its own. First, it just duplicates what's in that page's history. Second, the history is more information anyway: it shows you exactly what changes each person made. Third, over time, the "By" field will get large as more and more people touch the metadata. So should/can we obsolete it? J. Noel Chiappa 12:08, 27 February 2008 (CST)