CZ Talk:Using the subpages template: Difference between revisions
imported>Chris Day |
imported>Larry Sanger No edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
According to the page, "by = Names of anyone editing the checklist, in reverse chronological order." Why do we need all the names? More generally, why do we need this parameter at all? The information is in the history if you really want it, but it does not seem very useful to know. -- [[User:Jitse Niesen|Jitse Niesen]] 07:12, 9 September 2007 (CDT) | According to the page, "by = Names of anyone editing the checklist, in reverse chronological order." Why do we need all the names? More generally, why do we need this parameter at all? The information is in the history if you really want it, but it does not seem very useful to know. -- [[User:Jitse Niesen|Jitse Niesen]] 07:12, 9 September 2007 (CDT) | ||
:I agree. Clean up has been discussed as for the axe too, [http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,1194.msg9699.html#msg9699 in the forums]. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] [[User talk:Chris Day|(talk)]] 09:20, 9 September 2007 (CDT) | :I agree. Clean up has been discussed as for the axe too, [http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,1194.msg9699.html#msg9699 in the forums]. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] [[User talk:Chris Day|(talk)]] 09:20, 9 September 2007 (CDT) | ||
I agree that we might as well get rid of the cleanup field, it doesn't do much good. Neither does the underlinked field. The "by" field actually helps, though. It saves time--you don't need to research who has rated the article--and doesn't occupy much room. Still, I agree that it may not pay its own way. I'm going to collect our various suggestions on the forums and we'll come to a conclusion relatively soon--so Jitse can run his script! --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 11:55, 9 September 2007 (CDT) | |||
Revision as of 11:55, 9 September 2007
by parameter
According to the page, "by = Names of anyone editing the checklist, in reverse chronological order." Why do we need all the names? More generally, why do we need this parameter at all? The information is in the history if you really want it, but it does not seem very useful to know. -- Jitse Niesen 07:12, 9 September 2007 (CDT)
- I agree. Clean up has been discussed as for the axe too, in the forums. Chris Day (talk) 09:20, 9 September 2007 (CDT)
I agree that we might as well get rid of the cleanup field, it doesn't do much good. Neither does the underlinked field. The "by" field actually helps, though. It saves time--you don't need to research who has rated the article--and doesn't occupy much room. Still, I agree that it may not pay its own way. I'm going to collect our various suggestions on the forums and we'll come to a conclusion relatively soon--so Jitse can run his script! --Larry Sanger 11:55, 9 September 2007 (CDT)