Template talk:ToApprove

Four editors have agreed to approval please contact the constables to process this approval constables@citizendium.org.| or when four editors have agreed to the approval This is news to me. I think I get the idea that as long as we have three we can consider it approved by the date, but taking an immediate action after a fourth enters the picture has not been discussed as far as I know. If I were the constable, I would ignore that part of the template because our rules currently do not address that. Do we want to change the rule, or change the template? --Matt Innis (Talk) 12:23, 27 April 2007 (CDT)

That is the question. I think this is probably a topic for the constables to hash out. What do you want? Chris Day (talk) 14:41, 27 April 2007 (CDT)

To me it seemed an easy addition to the approval process. If more than one editor approves of an article she or he now can add his name to the approve template. The approval of nan article based on only ONE editor when more are active seems a bad (science) thing to do. SO why confuse things and in stead allow editors to add their name to the template?

It seems clear to me that the moment 4 editors agree an article is to be approved nothing should be able to stop that approval. Provided none actually was a participant other then minor textual edits. No need to scroll through text and sometimes even archive pages to see if the article is worth of being approved.

Make live easier not more difficult. The chabnce to have 4 active editors agreeing in the formal peer review as used by JACS, PNAS is low - when it happens we in CZ should award that unity among editors and approve (as constables and as CZ). My reason to ask Chris to add names is in this reasoning I followed.

Better practical then not useable. Robert Tito |  Talk  15:09, 27 April 2007 (CDT)

I like adding the names, that is great and handles the 'ducks in a row' problem. It is adding the "4th editor" that makes for an automatic approval. It is an interesting idea that deserves discussion, but we may be putting the horse before the cart and adding confusion to a process that editors are already having trouble understanding by not stating it in the Approval Process instructions. In the states, we call it KISS, "keep it simple stupid". If you like the concept, go ahead and change the CZ:Approval Process page and I'll be glad to work with it. --Matt Innis (Talk) 15:23, 27 April 2007 (CDT)

what I proposed doesnt violate the rules for approval, it merely makes the process easier to follow, a 'copper' can see how many editors have approved (1-2-3-4) no more delving in text to find info. IMHO if 4 editors say approve - it should have to be approved stante pede. The template can accommodate that now - so I suggest: lets see how easy this will make the process.

KISS

dumb and dumber well how dumb can you make it, I prefer easy :) In all practicality, 4 editors approving means A shipload of editors I dont see that happening soon but yes I do think and feel 4 approve means auto approve. Why else have editors if these experts cannot approve en-bloc?? Robert Tito |  Talk 

I'm not sure that I can discuss policy here, but for accuracy sake, the template does not reflect our current system. That is all that I am saying. I may or may not agree with your line of thinking, I don't know because I haven't put that much thought into it. I suggest that we bring it up on the CZ:Approval Process discussion page when you write the new rule:-) But until then, we should strive to make the template reflect the rules. --Matt Innis (Talk) 15:40, 27 April 2007 (CDT)

how many is enough

let me ask another question: how many editors that approve an article are enough to approve an article? If one can be enough in some cases then what finalizes that approval process from an editor point-of-view. 4, 10, 100 never or does it depend upon a constable. The rules should reflect the common rule of peer-reviews. three are asked if they agree it is approved. Why not use the same rule and say, three makes the approval at the approval date final BUT when the 4th approval enters the list - thats final. No more needed - all doubts are removed. If the rules do not reflect that scientific communality I wonder what is wrong, scientists or science in general or the rules. Robert Tito |  Talk  16:09, 27 April 2007 (CDT)

On paper that sounds really good, but here is what really happens. Editor 1, 2 and 3 have been going back and forth and are finally happy with the article and put up the ToApprove tag. Then authors 1,2 and 3 show up and start making suggestions and notice that there are some "minor" things wrong so they make some changes, but editor 1 is not happy with that - but he doesn't remove his name, he just starts making his arguments for changing things back. The way we are set up now, the editors can agree to extend the date until everyone is happy again, but with your thinking, now a fourth comes along and says "yes" approve it. Next thing you know, the three editors are stuck with an article they didn't approve. If we used this template on Life/Draft, it would have been approved long before it was because there were always 4 editors there, but not at the same time. They may need that time for all to assess the changes. Why are we in such a hurry? --Matt Innis (Talk) 22:09, 27 April 2007 (CDT)

• actually not, because AFTER the toapprove template has been placed only those additions that are approved by editors and start on the talk page can and may be added. ToApprove indicates a nearly steady-state with only minor changes. Your argument loses validity due to that. Using the max of 4 editors needed for approval can improve the process as far as speed is concerned. It need not chenge the process as process at all as that is not the case. Topping the number of editorial approvals and linking it to an approved state seems a natural thing to do. Why else ask editors for approval in the first place - as process step I mean. If editors cannot decide by (lets say) 4 to approve an article the whole concept of editorial guidance is based upon quicksand. Robert Tito |  Talk  10:41, 28 April 2007 (CDT)

The whole process of editorial decisions are always a matter of judgement, as is true in any peer reviewed journal, and periodical and any book publishing business in the world. I have no trouble with this template modification- WITH ONE PROVISO, that if 4 editors approve and the article is approved this is what happens: the constable freezes the version at the 4th editor sign on and creates a draft. The nominating editor then works directly with the approvals management editor to come up with a proofed version of the approved article that will be inserted using sysop privileges. Any disputes over the copyediting will be settled among the approving editors by the approvals management editor. If constables are unsure of whether or not to approve the article, because of confusing discussion on the talk page, they can contact me and the nominating editors. This can all be done fairly and openly with communication . One thing must be clear- all 4 editors must be in the articles' workgroup. I think its fine to leave the template as is as a trial. We do not have enough editors in most workgroups to actually see how this will work, but it may well - eventually- be an asset, especially in approving revised approvals after an approved version of the article has been established. Nancy Sculerati 11:47, 30 April 2007 (CDT)

I think we should start regularizing discussion here. Particularly if this discussion is held to have any possible consequences about CZ policy, it would be better to place in the Forums, and then to post a link to the discussion on cz-editcouncil and, perhaps, citizendium-l.

As to Rob's question, "how many editors that approve an article are enough to approve an article?" I note that it is ambiguous. If he means to ask what the facts about our policy right now are, either one editor, or three editors (not four) are required, depending on the situation. It's all pretty clearly described on Approval Process. That's the policy. But if Rob means to ask how the policy should be changed, that is another question, which for now I leave in your hands for purposes of discussing at least.

Nancy, if you wish to change the approval process in any way--so that your approval is required for example--that must be discussed. It isn't in Approval Process, so it's not (yet) policy. Soon we will have a fancy new method for proposing and getting new changes approved (I'm about to add that to the wiki), and you of course would be very much welcome to drive the process of change/refinement before the Editorial Council. --Larry Sanger 20:43, 30 April 2007 (CDT)

article's workgroup

Many articles have multiple workgroups they reside under, allowing the editors of all workgroups the article belongs to to participate in the approval process. Robert Tito |  Talk  11:59, 30 April 2007 (CDT)

Yeah, that we have to hammer out, go through the first one with two separate groups of editors. Take a look at my talk page, Greg Woodhouse has just brought up an example Graph coloring that he thinks is properly both Computers and Math. I'll put on the [1]board tomorrow. I think that it should be the editors' choice. Like I said on my talk page, Richard Jensen has been very restrictive in what he wants as History Workgroup, and as he has been spear heading that workgroup at present I think his preference should be respected. It may be that in the future other history editiors will be eager to include subjects he has vetoed as being properly part of the History Workgroup (like historical ships or the "History of Professions and Academic Disciplines" (he prefers that the History of Physics, for example, be strictly in the Physics Workgroup), and that will be ok if they can handle the extra workload and do a good job without making the approval process derail. As I said, looks like combined Mathematics and Computers articles are now coming up for discussion, with this first example. Your opinion is especially valued there, Rob. Wherever you put it, should you write it out, I may copy it or link it to a project page for Approvals. Nancy Sculerati 14:28, 30 April 2007 (CDT)

restrict

Many restrictions - better deletions - of history on pages made me chuckle. As if he wouldn't have done it I would. It seems to me silly to include history as workgroup on contemporary science pages, if not totally out of place and order. If history wants to write about some science topic from a historical perspective - they are free to do it, but that leaves out mingling of non scientific people on science pages. There is no need for essjay like situations even when done with the best of intentions. Robert Tito |  Talk  14:48, 30 April 2007 (CDT)

Does it solve anything?

Okay, we've thought about it for three days and I have read and re-read the above entries, all of which are thoughtful and potentially workable. The only question that keeps going through my head, which I admit is sometimes slower than most, is "what are we fixing?" I'm not sure that the 4th editor solves anything. As far as I see, three editors can agree to approve it right then. Setting a date a week later is mostly a matter of courtesy while the last copyedits occur. Why would we want to suddenly protect the document and not allow any more changes? To me, it would seem to slam a door on editors that were not ready and may lead to more hard feelings. Nancy's copyedit plan could work with three editors just as well. I don't see that we are fixing anything and may, in practice, actually cause more problems. It may be workable, but we are not there, yet. Keep thinking about it. --Matt Innis (Talk) 22:30, 1 May 2007 (CDT)

Good point. I think it's better without an automatic email when the 4th editor is added. I think the 4th editor deserves the option of choosing to either approve the article immediately, (perhaps by changing the date in the template to today's date), or add his/her name while leaving the scheduled date the same so that copyediting can continue. Just my opinion. Depends really on how the editors want it to work. --Catherine Woodgold 09:04, 6 May 2007 (CDT)

the reason the automatic mail (link to a mail address actually) has been implemented is simple and straightforward: only constables can execute the final approval mechanics. The 4th editor mwans automatically a mail or some reminder must be sent to the constabulary to notify them about the approval to be done. It is a reminder, and s such comes in handy. Robert Tito |  Talk  09:10, 6 May 2007 (CDT)

Can a tracer be put on these templates?

We have the ability with this software to "watch a page". Is it possible to modify that code to "watch a template"? In other words, can we designate a template to have whatever the "my watchlist" registers so that anytime that template (To Approve) or (Approve) or both are generated users who indicate they are watching these templates will now see the articles which have the templates? Something like this will go a long way in helping us (especially me and my successors in the Approvals job) keep track if things go well for CZ and we keep expanding. Help! Nancy Sculerati 06:29, 2 May 2007 (CDT)

You would use the global categories for this. Articles to Approve and Approved Articles Chris Day (talk) 08:00, 2 May 2007 (CDT)

Can't we incorporate those RIGHT into the template? So that whenever the template is put in, (or removed) so is the category? Rev it up. Nancy Sculerati 08:34, 2 May 2007 (CDT)

It's already like that. Try it. Any article that has the template will be included in the global category as well as the appropriate workgroup categories. Chris Day (talk) 10:19, 2 May 2007 (CDT)

Another option is to go to the template page and click on "what links here" at the left. You see a list of pages containing that template. --Catherine Woodgold 21:33, 2 May 2007 (CDT)

Can I "watch" them? Can I get an e-mail notification like "watch this page"? That's what I want. Nancy Sculerati 09:25, 6 May 2007 (CDT)

Wording

It says " Currently no other editors support approval." This sounds too negative: it sounds to me as if it means that some editors actually oppose the approval. Usually I think the actual case would be that the other editors just haven't looked at it. (If anyone actually opposes there would be discussion and probably the article would be changed.) The wording for the other cases sounds OK I think. Maybe this wording could be changed to something else, maybe "Currently no other editors have indicated support for approval" or "Currently this article has been nominated for approval by 1 editor" or "Total approving editors: 1" or something else. --Catherine Woodgold 21:33, 2 May 2007 (CDT)

This is very much in flux at present. Just go ahead and change it, I agree that the current wording is too negative. Chris Day (talk) 22:15, 2 May 2007 (CDT)

No objection here. Use your best judgement and if I have a problem, I'll let you know. --Matt Innis (Talk) 22:21, 2 May 2007 (CDT)

Displaying and changing of version date

OK, the way it works (or at least the way it's working at complex number) is that an editor nominates a specific version for approval, and then over the next few days before the scheduled approval date, as copyediting continues, that editor or another editor updates the template so that the nominated version is a more recent version.

Two things that can be improved about the template to facilitate this process (in my opinion) are:

The template can have, besides the "date" field for scheduled date of approval, another field marked "versiondate" where the editor can state the date (and time if desired; free format text) of the version currently nominated. I would find it helpful or at least reassuring and/or time-saving to have this displayed. Otherwise you have to click on "this version" and wait a few seconds for the page to load in order to see the date of the version to figure out which version has been nominated. The "versiondate" could be an optional field. (Or possibly there's some software way to figure out the date of the version automatically and display it -- probably not.)

The other thing is: Rather than saying "Editor X has nominated this version ...", which leaves another editor hesitant to change the nominated version because it would no longer be true, it could have some other wording, possibly "Editor X has nominated this article for approval. One other editor currently supports the approval (Editor Y). The current nominated version is (link) (date)." If we want to be pedantic we could insert "a version of" after "nominated". --Catherine Woodgold 09:19, 6 May 2007 (CDT)