On 5/18/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal(a)inbox.org> wrote:
That's a pretty good description of
[[WP:AFC]] - and you're not the
consider using that as a model for *all*
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
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
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
It's still evolving :) But good idea, I'll attempt to write it up in my
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
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.