Hi all, This has probably been debated millions of times before, but could someone tell me the basic results of the debate, even if that's the case?
Proposition: When you create a blank page, instead of having an empty page, have a basic template like:
<!-- Lead, including '''article name''' in triple quotes. -->
<!-- Sources - please include at least one verifiable source under a ==Sources== heading -->
<!-- Stub template. If the article is less than two complete paragraphs, please insert {{stub}} or something more specific (see the stub page [[can't remember it]]) -->
<!-- Categories: Every article should belong to at least one non-stub category. Add these like [[Category:Wikipedia articles]] -->
Etc. If nothing else, it would help us avoid forgetting some of these basic things, and would help newbies not get bitten, create peace on earth, free beer, etc...
I assume this is technically possible. So what's the social reason for not doing it?
Steve
It's certainly technically possible. The problem I can see is that newbies will be turned off by the rigid structure of it (really, if they're going to make a three-sentence stub, do you think they'll bother to cite their sources, even if we request it?). I'd much rather teach newbies bit-by-bit, rather than give them a bunch of information that will annoy them.
A specific problem as well, to requesting categories, is that they'll add nonexistant categories, and, possibly even worse, click the red links and create the categories, thus creating more work for new page patrollers.
Generally I'm unsure on the idea, though I think it's a decent proposal and could have positive results as well.
On 4/10/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all, This has probably been debated millions of times before, but could someone tell me the basic results of the debate, even if that's the case?
Proposition: When you create a blank page, instead of having an empty page, have a basic template like:
<!-- Lead, including '''article name''' in triple quotes. -->
<!-- Sources - please include at least one verifiable source under a ==Sources== heading -->
<!-- Stub template. If the article is less than two complete paragraphs, please insert {{stub}} or something more specific (see the stub page [[can't remember it]]) -->
<!-- Categories: Every article should belong to at least one non-stub category. Add these like [[Category:Wikipedia articles]] -->
Etc. If nothing else, it would help us avoid forgetting some of these basic things, and would help newbies not get bitten, create peace on earth, free beer, etc...
I assume this is technically possible. So what's the social reason for not doing it?
Steve _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Sincerely, Ral315 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ral315
On 4/10/06, Ral315 en.ral315@gmail.com wrote:
It's certainly technically possible. The problem I can see is that newbies will be turned off by the rigid structure of it (really, if they're going to make a three-sentence stub, do you think they'll bother to cite their sources, even if we request it?). I'd much rather teach newbies bit-by-bit, rather than give them a bunch of information that will annoy them.
I was thinking that by putting everything in comments, the structure isn't too rigid - they can basically ignore it if they want. And at least by putting in helpful comments like bolding the name of the article, they don't feel overwhelmed by the emptiness of the editing box.
A specific problem as well, to requesting categories, is that they'll add nonexistant categories, and, possibly even worse, click the red links and create the categories, thus creating more work for new page patrollers.
The wording can probably help them on that one, by telling them to find a category at a particular page.
Generally I'm unsure on the idea, though I think it's a decent proposal and could have positive results as well.
I'm unsure too, but I'd like to hear whether there are strong reasons for or against.
Steve
On 4/10/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
I was thinking that by putting everything in comments, the structure
isn't too rigid - they can basically ignore it if they want. And at least by putting in helpful comments like bolding the name of the article, they don't feel overwhelmed by the emptiness of the editing box.
This might be an area where technical improvements could make this easier. My worry is that people will get confused by the nature of comments, placing their text before the "-->", or removing it altogether.
-- Sincerely, Ral315 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ral315
On 4/10/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/10/06, Ral315 en.ral315@gmail.com wrote:
The wording can probably help them on that one, by telling them to find a category at a particular page.
Or otherwise at least add a {{uncat}} to the article if there are no categories added, so the article doesn't escape in the million plus uncategorised.
Garion96
On 4/10/06, Garion1000 garion1000@gmail.com wrote:
Or otherwise at least add a {{uncat}} to the article if there are no categories added, so the article doesn't escape in the million plus uncategorised.
Eep. Though I have to say, I created a new article today, and it was categorised within minutes. I'd forgotten, whence this original post...
Steve
On 4/10/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all, This has probably been debated millions of times before, but could someone tell me the basic results of the debate, even if that's the case?
It has been hashed out once before on the list. Here's the oldest post in the thread I can find: http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-December/035511.html
I assume this is technically possible. So what's the social reason for
not doing it?
Well, it was a well-liked proposal, and then, in traditional style, it was totally forgotten about. It did get so far as making [[Wikipedia:New article template]], though.
On 4/10/06, Blackcap snoutwood@gmail.com wrote:
Well, it was a well-liked proposal, and then, in traditional style, it was totally forgotten about. It did get so far as making [[Wikipedia:New article template]], though.
Why does this happen? Who has to actually implement it? Whose door do we need to constantly knock on? This isn't one of those situations where there's only one person in the world who can implement the change, and he has 5000 other things to do, is it?
Steve
On 4/10/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/10/06, Blackcap snoutwood@gmail.com wrote:
Well, it was a well-liked proposal, and then, in traditional style, it was totally forgotten about. It did get so far as making [[Wikipedia:New article template]], though.
Why does this happen? Who has to actually implement it? Whose door do we need to constantly knock on? This isn't one of those situations where there's only one person in the world who can implement the change, and he has 5000 other things to do, is it?
Steve
It might be. A good implementation of this would be sort of like a form letter with slots, or like the image upload's page method of picking licenses- instead of requiring one to know what they need, provide a list. That way, we don't get 1000 articles a day, all bearing {{stub}} or {{uncategorized}}...
~maru
On 4/10/06, maru dubshinki marudubshinki@gmail.com wrote:
It might be. A good implementation of this would be sort of like a form letter with slots, or like the image upload's page method of picking licenses- instead of requiring one to know what they need, provide a list. That way, we don't get 1000 articles a day, all bearing {{stub}} or {{uncategorized}}...
Well, at the moment we get however many, without either {stub} *or* {uncategorized*. :)
I can't immediately see how to do that with categories or stubs, but probably someone smart can. Stubs are more promising because they're directly hierarchical...categories are..erm...
Steve
On 4/10/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/10/06, maru dubshinki marudubshinki@gmail.com wrote:
It might be. A good implementation of this would be sort of like a form letter with slots, or like the image upload's page method of picking licenses- instead of requiring one to know what they need, provide a list. That way, we don't get 1000 articles a day, all bearing {{stub}} or {{uncategorized}}...
Well, at the moment we get however many, without either {stub} *or* {uncategorized*. :)
I can't immediately see how to do that with categories or stubs, but probably someone smart can. Stubs are more promising because they're directly hierarchical...categories are..erm...
Steve
Well, I figure that in practice one would restrict the list to less than 50- that should cover most major stub categories. If the stub-sorting project people want to sharpen them further, well, more power to them. As for categories, oy. That could be a problem. Ideally, one could have a mini little search engine with a feature like Google's misspelling feature ("People who search for the Hitler category also searched for the Genocidal Dictator category. Would you like to search for Genocidal Dictator?"), but while we're dreaming, we might as well ask for an answer to AOL IPs or Wikipedia 1.0
~maru