User talk:SusanG/delta

I wuz thinking of a "rejected" version. Easy enough to do. Not sure we need to? human  22:24, 24 January 2008 (EST)


 * Not rejected I think - just unmentioned anyone thinking to nominate a rejected one will see the rejection on the template when they edit. (Fun:Pi was one 'cause it buggered the formatting or some such)  Susan  Purrrrrrr  22:49, 24 January 2008 (EST)
 * Actually, I was thinking that fun:pi should be in best of amusement... maybe not coverstory though. Do you mean a "hidden" version that says, hey, this lost, this sucked, do you think it's better now? human  23:08, 24 January 2008 (EST)

What I was thinking was something like:
 * shows "best" & "nominated",
 * shows "best" & "coverstory"
 * shows "best" on its own.

As the template would be on the page the "rejected" would be there. (Fun Pi don't work - can’t extract first n words.) Susan  Purrrrrrr  23:51, 24 January 2008 (EST)

(There is something like the "case" statement in wikitemplatese but tricky? Beyong me anyhoo. Susan  Purrrrrrr  23:55, 24 January 2008 (EST))


 * I'm still a bit confused about where you're heading (but I'm getting over it), since "best" ought to pretty much = cover story? fun:Pi can be repaired by moving the zillion digit part lower, I think, by the way.  In a sense, that's the last step in getting from "best of" to "coverstory" - template/image/1000 character cleanup.  Let's keep thinking about this.  Maybe we should start a thread at the forums under RW about this and get some more brainz storming on it? We really are at one last simple hurdle - we have two (?) nice templates, coverstory and cover, and a new version of the man page in a sandbox.  All we want to figure out is how (or whether) to integrate with the legacy "best of" categories.  Maybe we could just ignore the issue, of course?  I can see reasons why they wouldn't have to overlap 100%. human  10:45, 25 January 2008 (EST)


 * Hmmm, I do see why we should have a "quality warning" on best ofs like on coverstories though. And it could easily be the same template with a different parameter (notcover?) human  10:46, 25 January 2008 (EST)

Trouble is all this {template|parameter} stuff makes it all less than intuitive to actually use. Just adding to the page coverstories means there's only 1 thing to remember. "Best of","nominate" & "Cover" can be seperately added - that's the sort of thing any editor is familiar with without intricate instruction. I know it'd be nice to have it all working from 1 template but I think we might be just showing off wikiskills & overcomplicating things. As an example look @ the"Welcome" template - it's been altered out of my comprehension, I know I could work it but quite frankly I can't be bothered - people want easy. Susan Purrrrrrr  11:40, 25 January 2008 (EST)
 * It's actually really simple. I'll put a link on the (sandbox) main page saying "what is this", and one on the template, that goes to RW:help/coverstory.  There, we describe the process.  It's much easier to work at an article itself than a list of links (think of vandalism, and how much easier it would be to identify).  The process is easy - nominate by inserting 'cover' and perhaps copying some boiler plate text to the talk page.  If approved, adding any parameter at all changes the template.  The template adds them to the appropriate cat, and 'coverstory' pulls the random article from the cat.  No need for people to edit a 'third' article upon approval.
 * And I think we should just let 'best of' be what it is and keep this separate, although most of those articles probably belong in coverstory. human  14:03, 25 January 2008 (EST)

Oke! Agree with leaving "best of" alone. I'm off for a while - back about 9:00 pm (4 pm yours) Susan  Purrrrrrr  14:10, 25 January 2008 (EST)