CZ:Proposals/New: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Gareth Leng |
imported>Robert Badgett |
||
| Line 72: | Line 72: | ||
== Standard naming of biomedical articles == | == Standard naming of biomedical (and other) articles == | ||
{{proposal | {{proposal | ||
|Brief descriptive title = Standardizing the naming of biomedical articles. | |Brief descriptive title = Standardizing the naming of biomedical articles. | ||
Revision as of 08:34, 14 February 2008
Instructions
To start a new proposal or issue, copy the template below, paste it on the bottom of this page, fill it out, and save! That's it--it's very easy. (Hint: you might want to open a copy of this page in a new window, so you can see the instructions as you fill out the template.) Here's the template:
== Brief descriptive title ==
{{proposal
|Brief descriptive title =
|Summary of proposal =
|Name and date of original proposer =
|Username of driver =
|Next step =
|Target date for next step =
|Notes =
}}
Here's how to fill it out:
Brief descriptive title. The exact same title you used on this page. Note, this goes in the== Heading ==, too.Summary of proposal. Limited to 100 words.Name and date of original proposer: write four tildes~~~~Username of driver. If you, write three tildes~~~; if someone else, specify. This is the person who makes sure the proposal moves along from step to step in its development. If the "driver" is left blank, and no one volunteers to be driver, your proposal may be moved to the "discarded" queue. The driver should get familiar with the proposals system policy page.Next step.The next thing you need to do to move the proposal toward reality. Not sure what to write? Hints here.Target date for next step. A date the driver commits to, for completing the next step. If you drop the ball, the proposal may become driverless.- (Optional)
Notes. Brief salient remarks. Bear in mind the bulk of the info about the proposal doesn't go here but on the (much bigger) proposal page. A handy link to the proposal page will pop up after you save the template.
If you haven't added your "Brief descriptive title" to the titles page, please do so now.
Optional next step for proposers. This is optional, and you can leave it to the driver. Follow the "complete proposal" link you'll find at the bottom of your new proposal box. On that page, you can elaborate the proposal or issue, link to pre-existing discussions, and generally say whatever you think needs to be said in order to get the proposal adopted (or the issue decided) and implemented. That's generally where to follow the progress of your proposal. (Guidelines are available.)
New proposals
Looking for your proposal, which used to be here? Check the recently moved proposals page.
If a proposal here does not have a "driver," it may be moved to the driverless proposals queue a week after being proposed.
Should history articles be named with general terms first?
| Summary: 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:
etc.
| ||||||
| Complete proposal | ||||||
Article Content Request help
Summary: Article Content Request should exist in order for authors to request article assistance on particular topics within a subject. This is not intended to be a request for editorial review, rather, it is a system devised to empower citizens to help out on subjects that they might know about. It is meant to spur activity and input from those who might have knowledge in a discipline.
| ||||||
| Complete proposal | ||||||
Internationalisation sandbox
Summary: There have been many requests for CZ pilots to begin in other languages, but so far nothing has gotten off the ground. Inasmuch as 1) we are losing competent authors whose first language is not English but 2) we do not have the time, personnel or expertise to begin complete CZs in other languages, I propose a sandbox type setup in which those who will can go ahead and begin articles in other languages, but these will be hidden from public view until a bona fide project can be set up in that language. Note that unlike the "sandbox" we have now, these drafts would not be discarded when the user signs off.
| ||||||
| Complete proposal | ||||||
Standard naming of biomedical (and other) articles
Summary: Encourage and facilitate usage of the National Library of Medicine's MeSH browser (browser search plugins are available) in order to select canonical terms to be used as titles (when such terms are available). The benefits of this are: 1) reduce the chance of two authors independently writing two articles in parallel on the same content (but with different titles), 2) offer standardized definitions of terms that can be used at the beginning of articles, 3) anticipate common alternative terms that can be set up as redirects when the article is written, 4) facilitate the linking to CZ from other biomedical databases when web 2 arrives. As an example, we have an article titled Concussion of the brain which according to MeSH, might be better titled 'Brain concussion' with a separate page called 'Cerebral concussion' that redirects to this page.
| ||||
| Complete proposal | ||||
Simplifying and improving CZ guidance pages
Summary: Briefly, we have a logjam. The guidance pages are important and often sensitive, but need simplifying and improving. This intimidates editors (fear of introducing an error). I propose that we have an Approved version of all CZ pages, and a Draft version that is clearly open to all suggestions and contributions. The Approval process should be as that for other articles, except that the relevantly qualified "editors" are the Executive Committee.
| ||||
| Complete proposal | ||||
Involving authors in approvals
| Summary: There are two aspects: 1) I see no reason why anyone should not feel able to nominate an article for approval (even their own article). Indeed I see every reason why all contributors to Citizendium should feel encouraged to read articles with potential approval in mind.
2) To approve articles requires the support of relevant editors. But I see no reason why authors should not also be able (and indeed be encouraged) to express their support or otherwise for approval, and indeed as Citizendium values fluency and style then the opinions of non-expert readers are very important too.
| ||||
| Complete proposal | ||||
| Proposals System Navigation (advanced users only) | |
|
Proposal lists (some planned pages are still blank):
|