Difference between revisions of "User talk:BrianSchweitzer/Sortname"

From MusicBrainz Wiki
(New page: Hi Brian, Can you please link the final page of proposals from their proposal-stage pages? (For instance, User:BrianSchweitzer/Sortname only says “passed”, without a link to any p...)
 
 
(6 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:
  
 
Can you please link the final page of proposals from their proposal-stage pages? (For instance, [[User:BrianSchweitzer/Sortname]] only says “passed”, without a link to any page that contains the now-official text.) It’s useful because emails on the mailing list usually point to the text of the proposal (ie, here) rather than its “future resting place, once passed”. [[User:Bogdanb|bogdanb]] 15:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 
Can you please link the final page of proposals from their proposal-stage pages? (For instance, [[User:BrianSchweitzer/Sortname]] only says “passed”, without a link to any page that contains the now-official text.) It’s useful because emails on the mailing list usually point to the text of the proposal (ie, here) rather than its “future resting place, once passed”. [[User:Bogdanb|bogdanb]] 15:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 +
: Actually, I think the appropriate thing to do is delete the proposed page once a proposal has passed, of course that will only further break the links in the emails though. I see a couple of potential solutions to this:
 +
:# Use a subpage of the official page for proposals, this makes it easy to determine what the page will end up being.
 +
:# Use a Proposal: namespace and title the proposal with the same title (additional proposals could receive a '2' or '3' at the end to distinguish).
 +
:#: +1 - the User:foo pages make for really ugly looking Category page lists (look at any of the 3 proposals categories...  they sort on User name, not proposal page name). Then we just redirect Proposal: page for passed proposals back to the 'real' page, while leaving failed/abandoned/withdrawn proposals to rot in Proposals: [[User:BrianSchweitzer|BrianSchweitzer]] 18:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 +
:#:: Just an FYI, the category sorting issue can easily be fixed via a [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Categories#Sort_key sort key]. --[[User:PavanChander|navap]] 21:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 +
:# Simply include a link to the final resting place in the "Proposal has passed" email.
 +
: I think the third point is easiest and makes the most sense. --[[User:PavanChander|navap]] 16:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 +
: Hi Bogdan; sure, that's what I've been doing on most of them.  For the sortname one, I had to run to work (was out of time :P) so I made sure the text moved over, but didn't have a chance to snag the correct page title to redirect to.  I'll do that now though, if it's not already done.  Longer term, though, I'd agree with navap - the *passed* proposal page shouldn't really be linked to outside of proposals, and any remaining links to it (outside Proposals) should be fixed, then the *passed* proposal page deleted, when the passed proposal, umm, passes.  For failed ones I'd suggest keeping them unredirected, and undeleted, over in the History: namespace - thoughts? [[User:BrianSchweitzer|BrianSchweitzer]] 18:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 +
:: Sounds good to me. --[[User:PavanChander|navap]] 21:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 +
:::Ok, let's assume we add a Proposal: namespace...  Would an RFC be needed to then update [[Proposals#Process_for_Idea_Champions|Proposals > Process for Idea Champions > #2 > location of proposal]] do you think? [[User:BrianSchweitzer|BrianSchweitzer]] 12:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)  Oh, and a total mediawiki wishlist question...  Is there any way to set mediawiki to auto-insert (initial text) into any new page within a namespace?  It'd be really clever if a new page within a Proposal: namespace could automatically have a blank version of the <nowiki>{{proposal|...|}}</nowiki> template...  [[User:BrianSchweitzer|BrianSchweitzer]] 12:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 +
:::: My personal opinion is no, an RFC would not be required. I strongly feel that a proposal's location in the wiki is purely an administrative decision, and not a style decision. But I don't know how others will take it, it's possible that other members of mb-style feel that they should also be making administrative decisions like this in addition to style decisions. As for the auto inserting of text, that does sound like an excellent idea, unfortunately I don't think it's possible without the addition of an extension designed to do that (or alternatively, manual modification to the source code). --[[User:PavanChander|navap]] 18:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 +
::::: I think the minor change would be ok too (and moving all proposal pages over to that namespace), without RFC - just wanted to make sure I wasn't the only one who thought so.  :)  [[User:BrianSchweitzer|BrianSchweitzer]] 22:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 22:44, 25 March 2010

Hi Brian,

Can you please link the final page of proposals from their proposal-stage pages? (For instance, User:BrianSchweitzer/Sortname only says “passed”, without a link to any page that contains the now-official text.) It’s useful because emails on the mailing list usually point to the text of the proposal (ie, here) rather than its “future resting place, once passed”. bogdanb 15:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think the appropriate thing to do is delete the proposed page once a proposal has passed, of course that will only further break the links in the emails though. I see a couple of potential solutions to this:
  1. Use a subpage of the official page for proposals, this makes it easy to determine what the page will end up being.
  2. Use a Proposal: namespace and title the proposal with the same title (additional proposals could receive a '2' or '3' at the end to distinguish).
    +1 - the User:foo pages make for really ugly looking Category page lists (look at any of the 3 proposals categories... they sort on User name, not proposal page name). Then we just redirect Proposal: page for passed proposals back to the 'real' page, while leaving failed/abandoned/withdrawn proposals to rot in Proposals: BrianSchweitzer 18:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
    Just an FYI, the category sorting issue can easily be fixed via a sort key. --navap 21:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
  3. Simply include a link to the final resting place in the "Proposal has passed" email.
I think the third point is easiest and makes the most sense. --navap 16:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Bogdan; sure, that's what I've been doing on most of them. For the sortname one, I had to run to work (was out of time :P) so I made sure the text moved over, but didn't have a chance to snag the correct page title to redirect to. I'll do that now though, if it's not already done. Longer term, though, I'd agree with navap - the *passed* proposal page shouldn't really be linked to outside of proposals, and any remaining links to it (outside Proposals) should be fixed, then the *passed* proposal page deleted, when the passed proposal, umm, passes. For failed ones I'd suggest keeping them unredirected, and undeleted, over in the History: namespace - thoughts? BrianSchweitzer 18:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. --navap 21:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Ok, let's assume we add a Proposal: namespace... Would an RFC be needed to then update Proposals > Process for Idea Champions > #2 > location of proposal do you think? BrianSchweitzer 12:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC) Oh, and a total mediawiki wishlist question... Is there any way to set mediawiki to auto-insert (initial text) into any new page within a namespace? It'd be really clever if a new page within a Proposal: namespace could automatically have a blank version of the {{proposal|...|}} template... BrianSchweitzer 12:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
My personal opinion is no, an RFC would not be required. I strongly feel that a proposal's location in the wiki is purely an administrative decision, and not a style decision. But I don't know how others will take it, it's possible that other members of mb-style feel that they should also be making administrative decisions like this in addition to style decisions. As for the auto inserting of text, that does sound like an excellent idea, unfortunately I don't think it's possible without the addition of an extension designed to do that (or alternatively, manual modification to the source code). --navap 18:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I think the minor change would be ok too (and moving all proposal pages over to that namespace), without RFC - just wanted to make sure I wasn't the only one who thought so.  :) BrianSchweitzer 22:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)