On 5/18/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
That's a pretty good description of [[WP:AFC]] - and you're not the
first to
consider using that as a model for *all* editors.
Well, certainly not literally [[WP:AFC]], which is a huge mess.
No, using the *model*. IMHO, AFC is a 'huge mess' in the way that a dirty car filter is a 'huge mess'. Sure, it's dirty, but thankfully all that dirt didn't end up in your engine.
I didn't mean to imply that the request had to be fulfilled by the
original author.
Ah cool.
I don't think every single fact in an article should have a footnote.
No, but we don't have a good middle ground. It'd be nice to somehow indicate that all the unfootnoted material from one section is verifiable from one particular source.
I see that as backward, though. The sources should be found first,
then the article should be written.
To use different nomenclature, I'm saying that the *stub* is written, and when sources are found, it can become an article "start" class. Distinguishing between *articles* and *stubs* might be valuable - anything can be in a stub without affecting our overall quality level. Maybe?
That said, I can't say I fully remember the details of your proposal.
I kind of skimmed over it when I first saw it. Could you point me to the email where you wrote it, or (even better) to a web page where you described it?
It's still evolving :) But good idea, I'll attempt to write it up in my userspace.
What if there were only two classes, "notes" and "article"? That'd be a lot easier to implement. Just add a namespace called "notes". Of course, the talk page could theoretically be used for this. The main problem with that is that people don't treat talk pages like wikis. Rather, talk pages are used more like a mailing list or discussion board.
Yes. But then, the link to them is called "discussion" after all. A notes/scrapbook/fragments/sources/material page would definitely be handy. It would also be very useful when preparing a new version of a section/article. What would be really ideal would be if the notes page had some means of mirroring the structure of the actual article. It would just provide all the same headings and subheadings as the main article, but you could provide metacomments about the content.
Steve