CZ:Proposals/New: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Larry Sanger
(Removing two trivial proposals to talk (where the removal will be explained))
imported>Larry Sanger
Line 22: Line 22:
|Notes= This has been discussed before but deserves a fuller debate. I don't really have an opinion on the issue despite the history workgroup handily being my most active one.[[User:Denis Cavanagh|Denis Cavanagh]] 11:29, 8 February 2008 (CST)
|Notes= This has been discussed before but deserves a fuller debate. I don't really have an opinion on the issue despite the history workgroup handily being my most active one.[[User:Denis Cavanagh|Denis Cavanagh]] 11:29, 8 February 2008 (CST)
}}
}}
*I think most people would type in [[History of France]], so that should be the style.  Of course they could also go to [[France]] first, and there would be the required link.  [[User:Ro Thorpe|Ro Thorpe]] 14:24, 9 February 2008 (CST) - And so it is.  As for 'French history', I think most people would not choose it, a bit informal.  [[User:Ro Thorpe|Ro Thorpe]] 14:27, 9 February 2008 (CST)
*'''Questions:''' are we limiting this discussion to places, like [[History of France]], or does it also extend to things, like [[History of the kilt]]? If yes, why? Why should we limit this to the history workgroup? Why not make one rule for the whole of Citizendium? Would people actually search for [[Kilt, history]] or [[History of the kilt]]? And why should we limit ourselves to the old-fashioned way of keeping tab of books in a library, where people search for books in little drawers of cards by the first word according to the Dewey Decimal system? Isn't this an internet site? Don't we have redirects? --[[User:Christian Liem|Christian Liem]] 20:42, 9 February 2008 (CST)
:Well, if I wanted a history of the kilt, I'd probably just type in 'kilt' & be happy if there were immediately visible a link to 'history of the kilt', or, for that matter 'kilt, history'. [[User:Ro Thorpe|Ro Thorpe]] 11:55, 10 February 2008 (CST)


==User feedback==
==User feedback==

Revision as of 11:19, 11 February 2008

Should history articles be named with general terms first?

Template:Proposal2

User feedback

Summary: Please edit your proposal record and provide a summary.
Original proposer: Please specify original proposer (i.e., person who added the proposal to this page) Next step: Fill in next step
Driver: Driver needed (i.e., someone familiar with the proposals system who will move it through the system) To be done by: Fill in target date for next step
To the proposer: please read the proposals system policy page if you want to fill out a complete proposal, not just this summary. If you don't, please ask around for someone (a "driver") to take over your proposal!
Start complete proposal

Warren Schudy 13:34, 9 February 2008 (CST)

Response
By: --Denis Cavanagh 14:27, 9 February 2008 (CST)
I think its a good idea as long as its technically feasible.


Response
By: -- David E. Volk 08:24, 11 February 2008 (CST)
This could be a source of malicious code. Saveguards would be needed to parse the text.


Response
By: --Paul Wormer 08:53, 11 February 2008 (CST)
It would be best if outsider's comments came somehow to the notice of the main author(s) of the articles commented on. These authors could read the comments and decide whether or not to include them in the article. I don't foresee in the near future so many comments that this process must necessarily be automatized. If it becomes too much work, we can always start a new discussion on how to parse and edit automatically (including the difficult problem of automatic saveguards).
Retrieved from "https://citizendium.org/wiki/index.php?title=CZ:Proposals/New&oldid=404794"