The stub-sorting project turned thousands of unusable entries in [[Category:Stub]] into a usable breakdown of stubs by area.
Would a cite-sorting project for {{fact}} templates be feasible? That way experts in a given subject area will easily be able to look up facts needing a cite and possibly fill them in.
- d.
On 23/12/06, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Would a cite-sorting project for {{fact}} templates be feasible?
It should be, but is it needed? I saw something about category intersections coming soon - this kind of thing is exactly what category intersections are good for.
Last I heard, category intersections (where what we now use as "categories" turn into something that works more like "tags") was foundering on MySQL being just a bit rubbish for the purpose (tests showing minutes to execute the test query in PostgreSQL but hours in MySQL). So I wouldn't count on it any time soon, as all paid developer efforts are going to Single User Login.
Besides, I'm sure the stub sorters are getting bored ...
- d.
On 23/12/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Besides, I'm sure the stub sorters are getting bored ...
It would help if I had a memory. I proposed the exact same thing to them in September:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Stub_sorting#Bored_s...
- d.
On 23/12/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
The stub-sorting project turned thousands of unusable entries in [[Category:Stub]] into a usable breakdown of stubs by area.
Would a cite-sorting project for {{fact}} templates be feasible? That way experts in a given subject area will easily be able to look up facts needing a cite and possibly fill them in.
As long as they still display to the reader as [citation needed], and we don't end up with little thumbnails or "biochemical citation needed" in the article text, this sounds fine - just vary the included categories.
Come to think of it, breaking it down by source area might be more useful - {{newspaper cite needed}}; {{journal cite needed}}?
On 23/12/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 23/12/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
The stub-sorting project turned thousands of unusable entries in [[Category:Stub]] into a usable breakdown of stubs by area. Would a cite-sorting project for {{fact}} templates be feasible? That way experts in a given subject area will easily be able to look up facts needing a cite and possibly fill them in.
As long as they still display to the reader as [citation needed], and we don't end up with little thumbnails or "biochemical citation needed" in the article text, this sounds fine - just vary the included categories.
Something like that.
Come to think of it, breaking it down by source area might be more useful - {{newspaper cite needed}}; {{journal cite needed}}?
Sounds like an open invitation to the querulous. "You have a source but I'm going to be arsey about it and say so obnoxiously in the article text."
I was thinking more broken into the same sort of categories as stub sorting. What triggered this thought this time around was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lupus_vulgaris - there's a "[citation needed]" there which an expert could probably fill in off the top of their head, but there's no mechanism by which the expert would be directed to it.
- d.
On 23/12/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Come to think of it, breaking it down by source area might be more useful - {{newspaper cite needed}}; {{journal cite needed}}?
Sounds like an open invitation to the querulous. "You have a source but I'm going to be arsey about it and say so obnoxiously in the article text."
Mmm, true. On the other hand, {{news cite needed}} would probably be a practical addition to any topic-based system - "In 1998, it was reported that the company was facing bankruptcy.{{fact}}".
I was thinking more broken into the same sort of categories as stub sorting. What triggered this thought this time around was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lupus_vulgaris - there's a "[citation needed]" there which an expert could probably fill in off the top of their head, but there's no mechanism by which the expert would be directed to it.
Sourced and cited - though here I wonder if {{etymology cite needed}} would have been more efficient than {{medicine cite needed}} ;-)
On 12/23/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
The stub-sorting project turned thousands of unusable entries in [[Category:Stub]] into a usable breakdown of stubs by area.
It also led to articles being rather annoyingly tagged with several stub tags when there is no clear match. It would be nice to get a professional opinion on how hard it would be to have a scalable category intersection query feature (i.e. allowing result sets based on Boolean operators connecting multiple cats) within MediaWiki. Tim?