CZ:Proposals/New

History Naming conventions

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

• 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)

Improve general heading

This proposal has been temporarily commented out.

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: {{{editor}}}

Make "beta" tag a real tag

This proposal has been temporarily commented out.

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: {{{editor}}}

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.

We shouldn't have responses to proposals in the queue...it'll just get too messy. We need to discuss some basic questions about how this system should work before we start designing willy-nilly. Though the general outlines are looking quite good! --Larry Sanger 14:33, 9 February 2008 (CST)

Maybe the responses should go in their own subdirectory and each proposal should have a number. Like, proposal #0001, and the discussion should go in CZ:Proposals/0001 --Robert W King 14:36, 9 February 2008 (CST)

Maybe, maybe not. This might imply that the proposals are decided here in the proposals system. They won't be, not entirely; they're decided finally elsewhere. No proposal will receive a final decision via discussion that happens on these proposals pages. This is just a central project management page. The proposal might be decided by the Editorial Council, for example. --Larry Sanger 14:46, 9 February 2008 (CST)