RationalWiki talk:To do list

From RationalWiki
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Prettifying)
(Prettifying)
Line 63: Line 63:
 
::::I am sorry to say, your "preferred version" may be pretty, but where do noobs click to add things?  Hell, where do ''any'' of us click to add things?  Oh, ok, your link sucks, if one goes to [http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/User:%CE%A0/Sandbox/To_do_list here], some of my complaints go away.  While it's pretty, I really think this "to do list" is in beta and should be "incredibly easy" to edit, not require "smart brains" for people to add sections, et cetera. {{User:Human/sig|}} 06:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 
::::I am sorry to say, your "preferred version" may be pretty, but where do noobs click to add things?  Hell, where do ''any'' of us click to add things?  Oh, ok, your link sucks, if one goes to [http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/User:%CE%A0/Sandbox/To_do_list here], some of my complaints go away.  While it's pretty, I really think this "to do list" is in beta and should be "incredibly easy" to edit, not require "smart brains" for people to add sections, et cetera. {{User:Human/sig|}} 06:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 
:::::I have rolled it back to my preferred version, try editing it is not that bad (just click the little blue things that say edit).  {{User:Π/Sig|}} 07:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 
:::::I have rolled it back to my preferred version, try editing it is not that bad (just click the little blue things that say edit).  {{User:Π/Sig|}} 07:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 +
::::::Looking better.  Just keep it easy for the noobs, this is almost an "entry level" page, not an "expert" one.  Pretty is not as important as usuability. {{User:Human/sig|}} 07:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 07:21, 29 July 2009

I've added an editnotice for this page (if you move it don't forget to move the editnotice too. The number is the namespace number) --  Nx/talk  05:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Cool, thanks! That's what I was whining about a month ago, your product is most awesome. ħumanUser talk:Human 06:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I do like this. Is there a way to publicise it better? Should it take off it would be worth sticking it on the left hand menu by Saloon Bar etc. Scarlet A.pngd hominem 12:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Glad you like. Yeah, I haven't figured out exactly where to put it yet. One idea is to replace the "wanted pages" (red links) line on the box over RC and WL. Perhaps the community box would be good, but I think it needs greater acceptance and use first? I suppose, looking at the RW "hierarchy" of promotion, the chalkboard would be the best place to start, and maybe an IC message? To get some traffic and more opinions? ħumanUser talk:Human 19:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I think we should put a link in the newcomers' guide once this takes off, so that if people want to write articles, they know what we'd be most happy to see --  Nx/talk  19:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh, yeah, that's another good place. Does anyone actually read it, though? Also, the operation whitewash cluster would be a good place. ħumanUser talk:Human 20:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
It's linked from the welcome template, noobs are supposed to read it. --  Nx/talk  21:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, but I "read" instructions (I'm actually an instruction sheet junkie, so that doesn't help). Do you? Do noobs? Really? ħumanUser talk:Human 05:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Contents

To red link or not to red link?

That is the question. I'm not inclined either way, just wondering what people think. ħumanUser talk:Human 19:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Redlink, but delink when archiving. This way it provides a convenient link if someone's going to write the article, but doesn't give us another redlink if we end up not having it. --  Nx/talk  19:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good. ħumanUser talk:Human 19:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Someone add 2012 Mayan apocolypse

It's unfalsafiable funzs.Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svgUser:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 05:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I think we already have 2012? ħumanUser talk:Human 05:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

When to archive?

The Cottingley Fairies article is now a cute little stub, so at what point do we move these things to the archive? As soon as there is "something" there (unlike the Morphic field article)? When it's more complete? ħumanUser talk:Human 21:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe create a stubs for improvement section. I know stubbot does that, but it's automatic and doesn't take account of importance/mob opinion. The only problem with this is that there are 1,317 stubbed articles (I checked), so we can't have all of them, and picking through for suitable canditates would become very boring very quickly. Totnesmartin 19:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
How about just adding "still needs work!" to ones that are blue links but barely started? That way no one will accidentally archive them just because they "exist". And yeah, let's not import the list of stubs here, they may not be things we really want anyway. But maybe a link to the VSA category? ħumanUser talk:Human 20:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Someone mind turning off the voting on the archive? thanks. K61824"6+18=24" 02:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Doesn't really matter, but what how would we do it? Halp!!!! ħumanUser talk:Human 03:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
There's an interesting point here about whether we need more than a 'cute little stub'. The article on the Cottingley Fairies covers about all we need to say. We're not WP which is why there's a link to the WP article and, as a source of rationality all we need to say is that it was a hoax, now exposed. What more should be added? I was about to do another stub for the Fox Sisters (I'm fascinated by woo hoaxes) but all I have to say is covered in the spiritualism article. Well, there's a joke I'd like to use about they're not spiritualists, they're very naughty girls, but that doesn't justify an article. What do others think? Silver Sloth 14:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I think that in many cases, the "wanted articles" will end up as redirects to articles that mention them in passing. Cottingley is a nice little article. Fox sisters might be a good redirect to spiritualism, as long as they are mentioned there. ħumanUser talk:Human 19:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Noting this edit, do we remove items if they are a bit -2 or so and have been there? I don't mean we need a hard and fast rule (The proactive thing is just acne "medicine" being sold to teenagers, do we cover that?), but we should have at least a rough guideline of when to park "to do requests". <ed poor>Please for other people to come up with them?</ed poor> Thank you for your time. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

If only as many people vote here as the WIGO CP then it would be done pretty quick. perhaps link this page to more places for promotion? K61824ZOYG I edit like Kenservative! 03:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Sort of, yet. But the voting is more of a "priority" thing, not a "kill or save" thing (IMO). It's a "to do list", just because some get voted low, does it mean we don't cover them? I'm struggling to think of a way to format discussion beyond voting... section here for any given item? PS, I don't care about them because I added them, I care because we need to figure out our general "rule" for when to archive items that didn't get written. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I still have my own to do list for things that I think are worth having but would probably get voted down as irrelevant. Coal and Aloe vera for instance. Those would be two different articles, btw. "Coal and Aloe vera" would be... um... odd. Totnesmartin 17:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

side panel for more accessibility

Would someone mind to add a link on one of the side panels so it is easier to get here? Thanks. K61824"6+18=24" 17:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Do we think this is ready (or useful enough) to go in the "community" box? There is a link on the chalkboard, by the way, for now. ħumanUser talk:Human 19:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
So, is this thing working well enough to justify adding it on the left? Is it helping us get things written (or redirected)? Do people like the format? I guess I should spam the site with these questions... ħumanUser talk:Human 01:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Prettifying

Can we make this look a little nicer such as Wikipedia portals (I like the maths)? Obviously pictures are unnecessary, but along with the proposed article list we could have; a list of on going projects (particularly those that have stalled), links to resource you need such as help pages, pages that people want to draw attention too such as those short listed for cover articles say, and just a list of things that need doing such as wikifying and catting pages. - π 05:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Not like Wp, no, we move too slow for their ideas. "Ongoing projects"? Hell we are too small to have "project groups" As far as making it look nicer, well, I'm all for it. Got any ideas? ħumanUser talk:Human 05:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
On going projects is more like, shit we have left half done such as this and this and this. Stuff that has the potential to be on the best of RationalWiki if it was ever finished. I will mock up what I am thinking in my sandbox and link it here. - π 06:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Awesome, do so. Remember, we can't pull an Ed Poor and say: "Here is what to do". In the end, we work on what we work on, and if you think those articles need work, maybe "you" should do it? This page is a raw place to list ideas to write about, do you also want to use it to "force" people to improve articles you care about? OK, enough whining, I'll shut up and check out your sandbox. Oh, and this page can surely encompass "ongoing projects", but do you have an idea for how to make it pretty? ħumanUser talk:Human 06:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Well here is my idea. Looks nicer, stole code from the useful links box and Wikipedia. Basically it is a one stop shop for everything that needs doing, from starting articles to getting them to cover story level. It just occurred to me we could have a house keeping list as well, such as images that need catting and stuff. If we use templates and the DPL extension right the list could be self generating. - π 07:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
We could also have a box for a featured goat picture if we you want to break the text up some more. - π 07:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Another idea is to build the whole thing out of chalkboards to give t that real, doing/just done feel. 192.43.227.18 03:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
At the irrational one, "ongoing projects" and "articles to polish" sections would seem like a good idea. Your sandbox looks interesting, although I think you might have made editing a bit hard. Like to fix your ATOW typo, where do I click? Apart from being a bit shy on "section edit" links, it looks good. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
OK, it "looks" interesting, but it is way overkill on the subpages. This thing needs to be easy for newbs and sperts alike to edit. Make it one, flat page, with copious edit links that cover sections. Way too much formatting and table crap, although I know it's needed for the pretty, but if I want to edit a section, surely I should get a nice neat edit box I can find my way around in? ħumanUser talk:Human 05:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
At the BoNish one, sounds like fun to me also. Nice look and feel that matches what the page is for. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I have started to mock up a chalkboard version, the votes look bad but I can fix that in the CSS (or Nx can at least after I fail). I remember there was a change done to the template inclusion in MediaWiki 1.14, that should make edit easier now. Give it a go. - π 05:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Here? ħumanUser talk:Human 06:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
You should find the original sandbox easier to edit now. My attempts to colour the titles for the chalkboard effected the whole wiki so I gave up on that. - π 06:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
No offense, but I still can't fix the "ATOW" typo. Also, the hugely nested subpages are a really bad idea for a small wiki like this. They make it impossible for people to add or alter sections. As I said, "make it flat" - put the whole damn thing in one page. There's no need for sub-pages that I can see. ħumanUser talk:Human 07:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
So you don't like it because you can't fix a typo. I'll make it flat for you. - π 08:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I have made it flat. I don't like it for three reasons. 1) The page is big. 2)There is lots of code floating around which waiting from someone to knock a </div> off and screw the whole page up. 3) You can't move the boxes around as easily as the length change and you get more added and remove. - π 08:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

(unident)Anyone else want to comment? - π 02:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I guess it sorta "looks better", but where are the "edit" buttons? You gotta make this easy for noobs to play with and add to... Hey screw the noobs, I can't figure out how I would add to your latest sandbox version. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
"2)There is lots of code floating around which waiting from someone to knock a </div> off" So don't do it that way. KISS? ħumanUser talk:Human 05:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
This is my preferred version the one that uses template inclusions for each box and opens to the section by clicking edit (also does on the title headings when it is the active page). - π 05:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry to say, your "preferred version" may be pretty, but where do noobs click to add things? Hell, where do any of us click to add things? Oh, ok, your link sucks, if one goes to here, some of my complaints go away. While it's pretty, I really think this "to do list" is in beta and should be "incredibly easy" to edit, not require "smart brains" for people to add sections, et cetera. ħumanUser talk:Human 06:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I have rolled it back to my preferred version, try editing it is not that bad (just click the little blue things that say edit). - π 07:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Looking better. Just keep it easy for the noobs, this is almost an "entry level" page, not an "expert" one. Pretty is not as important as usuability. ħumanUser talk:Human 07:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support