On 23/12/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 23/12/06, David Gerard <dgerard(a)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.