CZ:Proposals/New

Instructions

To start a new proposal or issue, please give us six short pieces of information:

1. Brief descriptive title. The exact same title you used on this page. Note, this goes in the == Heading ==, too.
2. Summary of proposal. Limited to 100 words.
3. Name and date of original proposer: write four tildes ~~~~
4. 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.
5. Next step. The next thing you need to do to move the proposal toward reality. Not sure what to write? Hints here.
6. 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.
7. (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.

Put this information in this blank 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 =  
}}

Simply copy and paste that at the bottom of this page, fill it out, and save. Then you've finished creating your new proposal/issue!

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

Pilot to allow Citizens to take credit for pages

Summary: By popular demand, we would, to a limited extent, allow Citizens to take authorship credit of articles. This would (for now) take the form of a template placed at the bottom of the page, which would, in small and unobtrusive print, list the contributors to an article in alphabetical order. Contributors would add themselves. Names would appear only if there were three names in the list. To avoid issues about what counts as an "important" edit, a person could take co-authorship credit for the very smallest of edits (e.g., removing commas). We would try this out in just one or two workgroups (the template would be removed from articles in any other workgroup). Original proposer: Larry Sanger 22:08, 12 February 2008 (CST) Next step: Gather initial comments and revise proposal accordingly Driver: Larry Sanger To be done by: Feb. 19 Notes: This is pretty much the only version of this class of proposal that I can see myself supporting, at present.

Complete proposal

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: France France, history France, politics France, literature etc. Original proposer: Denis Cavanagh 11:29, 8 February 2008 (CST) 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 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.Denis Cavanagh 11:29, 8 February 2008 (CST)

Complete proposal

Enable external feedback

Summary: Each article should have a link for non-citizens to submit feedback. Feedback can be read and acted upon by any Citizen. To make the feedback system easier to use for both readers and Citizens, feedback can be in the form of a machine-readable proposed edit. Original proposer: Warren Schudy 13:34, 9 February 2008 (CST) Next step: Ensure proposal page summarizes community views Driver: Warren Schudy To be done by: Feb 20

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. Original proposer: --Robert W King 14:09, 11 February 2008 (CST) Next step: This should be in the username of driver field. Driver: Some User To be done by: Near future Notes: Theoretical page located at CZ:ACR using template:request.

Complete proposal

How should we classify and index recipes?

Summary: A new subpage type should be created CZ:Recipes. Anyone interested may take the lead in creating CZ:Recipes and then the Recipe subpage support should be added to the subpage system. The subpage may be bilaterally linked with the Cooking page. Original proposer: Hayford Peirce 16:50, 12 February 2008 (CST) Next step: Discussion and a firm decision after consensus is reached Driver: Supten Sarbadhikari To be done by: February 20, 2008. Notes: What should we do about listing, and/or cataloging, and/or indexing the recipes that I am beginning to put into various preexisting articles. Various people discussed this in the talk page of Bolognese sauce but nothing concrete appears to have come of that discussion. Even without any definitive policy being put into place in the near future, I will continue to add recipes to various articles. I imagine that it will not be difficult to catalog, or subpage them, or whatever, when the time comes. Hayford Peirce

Complete proposal

Change to reversion policy

Summary: CZ:Professionalism#Reversion and deletion as unprofessional behaviors says deletion of others' work without explanation is clearly unprofessional, and deletion of more than 50 words can result in a warning, followed by a ban., and similary discourages reverting of edits without explanation. The proposal is to rewrite the section to emphasize that it is the lack of explanation which is the offence, not the mere act of reverting or deleting others' work. Original proposer: Anthony Argyriou 14:14, 13 February 2008 (CST) Next step: Editorial Council? Driver: User:Anthony Argyriou To be done by: Fill in target date for next step Notes: This stems from a discussion about the growth of Citizendium.

Complete proposal

Proposals System Navigation (advanced users only)

Help/policy New proposals List of all proposals Driverless proposals: proposals that lack a champion Discarded proposals: poorly formed proposals Templates: {{Proposal}} | {{Proposal assignment}} | {{Proposals navigation}}

Proposal lists (some planned pages are still blank): Editorial Council: Active | Finished | Declined Approval and Feedback: Active | Finished | Declined Eduzendium: Active | Finished | Declined Recruitment: Active | Finished | Declined Constabulary: Active | Finished | Declined Executive: Active | Finished | Declined Technical: Active | Finished | Declined PR: Active | Finished | Declined Ad hoc management: Active | Finished | Declined