Template talk:Narnia-WP
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] RD as quality designation
- Further information: WP-Narnia Talk
As per that discussion, I am trying to add a category for redirected articles to the quality assessment portion of this template. I'm not an expert on templates and may have made a mistake; please take a look. I realize that quality is not really the right term, but it is also how you designate Non Article pages, which these are. To use this new designation, you would add something like this to the talk page for the article that is being redirected:
{{Narnia-WP|class=RD|importance=low}}
I would assume that all pages that are being redirected will be of low importance, but you can give it other priority ratings if you see the need. This may require the upward migration of articles that are currently rated as low priority, as that class will see a large influx of articles. Articles with the RD classification are added to which is a subcategory of. LloydSommerer 15:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Instead of importance = low, you should add importance = NA, since the importance is not-applicable; they're not actual articles. Cheers! --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 16:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- That's a good point. I didn't do something like that because I thought there might be things that we were redirecting that someone thought should have its own article. Perhaps we could have importance = List which would be things that are not important enough to warrent their own article, but are important enough to be on a list (which is where we redirect these things to anyway). Maybe that's too complicated and would maybe tend to grow. Perhaps NA is better (you could always put low if you wanted to). LloydSommerer 18:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- The only thing I would suggest is that "RD-quality" (when it expands out) become "redirect quality" or something like that, for people who don't know what "RD" stands for. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 21:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- And I would also make the importance whatever the importance of the content is; that is, if it had its own article, what would its importance be? --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 21:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- As for the "RD-Quality", it does something like that now. I've been using Talk:Experiment House for a test article. I can't actually change what appears as "RD-Class", but can change what appears in the while box in front of that line. As for the importance, I agree that "low" is the most descriptive. LloydSommerer 21:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- That's a good point. I didn't do something like that because I thought there might be things that we were redirecting that someone thought should have its own article. Perhaps we could have importance = List which would be things that are not important enough to warrent their own article, but are important enough to be on a list (which is where we redirect these things to anyway). Maybe that's too complicated and would maybe tend to grow. Perhaps NA is better (you could always put low if you wanted to). LloydSommerer 18:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
