CZ:Proposals/New: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Larry Sanger |
imported>Larry Sanger No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{proposal2 | {{proposal2 | ||
|Proposal number = 0001 | |Proposal number = 0001 | ||
|Brief descriptive title = Should history articles be named with general terms first? | |Brief descriptive title = Should history articles be named with general terms first? | ||
|Summary of proposal = Should general article names be written as [[France, history]] as preferred to [[History of France]] or [[French History]]? The central points of contention is whether general articles (e.g [[France, history]]) should be called [[History of France]] or even [[French history]]. The idea is that the keyword should be first in an article such as this, with people searching for [[France]] in a general search will see a list of articles, e.g: | |Summary of proposal = Should general article names be written as [[France, history]] as preferred to [[History of France]] or [[French History]]? The central points of contention is whether general articles (e.g [[France, history]]) should be called [[History of France]] or even [[French history]]. The idea is that the keyword should be first in an article such as this, with people searching for [[France]] in a general search will see a list of articles, e.g: | ||
| Line 8: | Line 9: | ||
*[[France, literature]] | *[[France, literature]] | ||
etc. | etc. | ||
|Name and date of original proposer = [[User:Denis Cavanagh|Denis Cavanagh]] 11:29, 8 February 2008 (CST) | |Name and date of original proposer = [[User:Denis Cavanagh|Denis Cavanagh]] 11:29, 8 February 2008 (CST) | ||
|Username of driver = | |Username of driver = | ||
|Next step = | |Next step = | ||
|Target date for next step = | |Target date for next step = | ||
|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) | ||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 10:49, 11 February 2008
- 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. 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. 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? --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'. Ro Thorpe 11:55, 10 February 2008 (CST)
Improve general heading
| Reason: Please use the proposal template. Remove the HTML comment code once this has been completed. |
Please reformat the proposal clearly, briefly, and using the {{Proposal}} template.
|
| Proposal editor: --Robert W King 08:35, 10 February 2008 (CST) |
Make "beta" tag a real tag
| Reason: Please use the proposal template. Remove the HTML comment code when this has been done. |
Please reformat the proposal clearly, briefly, and using the {{Proposal}} template.
|
| Proposal editor: --Robert W King 08:37, 10 February 2008 (CST) |
User feedback
Summary: Please edit your proposal record and provide a summary.
| ||||
| 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). |