| Revision as of 03:35, 7 February 2011 editCliotropic (talk | contribs)448 edits →Stub template creation and marking: Req clarification about using assessment template, rather than stub template← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:33, 7 February 2011 edit undoNick Levinson (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users8,605 edits →Stub template creation and marking: Replied.Next edit → | ||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
| :I noticed the proposal on the stub project, I think you may be better off with something similar to ]. It will allow you to rate articles on importance as well as the class and not just that it is a stub article. I can't find a page with a description of how a wikiproject goes about creating them and using them but hopefully it's fairly easy to work out otherwise see if another wikiproject which uses a similar template can help. ] (]) 22:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC) | :I noticed the proposal on the stub project, I think you may be better off with something similar to ]. It will allow you to rate articles on importance as well as the class and not just that it is a stub article. I can't find a page with a description of how a wikiproject goes about creating them and using them but hopefully it's fairly easy to work out otherwise see if another wikiproject which uses a similar template can help. ] (]) 22:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC) | ||
| :: What I think I hear you saying is that we'll be better off with an assessment-style scale for quality and/or importance rather than simply an "is this a stub or not?" marking system. That makes sense. I wonder whether it makes sense to piggyback onto ] formally-- some kind of joint task force on biographies of women, at least for the parts of ] which are biography-related. Thoughts, anyone? ---'''Shane Landrum''' (] | ] | ]) 03:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC) | :: What I think I hear you saying is that we'll be better off with an assessment-style scale for quality and/or importance rather than simply an "is this a stub or not?" marking system. That makes sense. I wonder whether it makes sense to piggyback onto ] formally-- some kind of joint task force on biographies of women, at least for the parts of ] which are biography-related. Thoughts, anyone? ---'''Shane Landrum''' (] | ] | ]) 03:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC) | ||
| :::Stubs risk deletion; nonstubs, not so much. And a way to see when women get too little coverage is vital. Assessments seem to be done by all of the WikiProjects already, so that tool or system seems widely available without having to use someone else's. Subsuming creates invisibility and lowers priority. I hope WikiProject Women's History goes forward. ] (]) 04:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 04:33, 7 February 2011
WikiProject Women's History
Quick Menu (edit · changes)- Main · Discuss the Project
- Recognized content
- Members
- Resources
- Assessment
- Article Alerts
- Popular pages
- Templates
- Did You Know
- Featured Pictures
- In this month
- Quotes
- Ask a question
- Requested articles
- Taskforces
| This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Women's History and anything related to its purposes and tasks. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
Getting Started
Want to help but don't know how? Got a technical question? Ask it here. ---Shane Landrum (cliotropic) 02:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- I wrote up a blog post last night with more information on how to get started helping. If/when you write one, follow up here with a link. ---Shane Landrum (cliotropic) 14:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Stub template creation and marking
I've applied for the stub {{women-hist-stub}} and the category Category:Women's history stubs. On 11 Feb 2011, if there are no objections, this can be created as a formal stub template and stub category, and then we can start marking articles appropriately.---Shane Landrum (cliotropic) 17:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- I noticed the proposal on the stub project, I think you may be better off with something similar to WP:BIOG/A. It will allow you to rate articles on importance as well as the class and not just that it is a stub article. I can't find a page with a description of how a wikiproject goes about creating them and using them but hopefully it's fairly easy to work out otherwise see if another wikiproject which uses a similar template can help. Waacstats (talk) 22:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- What I think I hear you saying is that we'll be better off with an assessment-style scale for quality and/or importance rather than simply an "is this a stub or not?" marking system. That makes sense. I wonder whether it makes sense to piggyback onto WP:BIOG formally-- some kind of joint task force on biographies of women, at least for the parts of WP:WMNHIST which are biography-related. Thoughts, anyone? ---Shane Landrum (cliotropic | talk | contribs) 03:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- Stubs risk deletion; nonstubs, not so much. And a way to see when women get too little coverage is vital. Assessments seem to be done by all of the WikiProjects already, so that tool or system seems widely available without having to use someone else's. Subsuming creates invisibility and lowers priority. I hope WikiProject Women's History goes forward. Nick Levinson (talk) 04:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- What I think I hear you saying is that we'll be better off with an assessment-style scale for quality and/or importance rather than simply an "is this a stub or not?" marking system. That makes sense. I wonder whether it makes sense to piggyback onto WP:BIOG formally-- some kind of joint task force on biographies of women, at least for the parts of WP:WMNHIST which are biography-related. Thoughts, anyone? ---Shane Landrum (cliotropic | talk | contribs) 03:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)