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.