Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dance/Archive Dec 2006
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Stablepedia
Beginning cross-post.
- See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 23:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
End cross-post. Please do not comment more in this section.
[edit] Substub listing
FYI, I created Wikipedia:WikiProject Dance/substubs because I noticed a large number of substub dance articles. Please add (and remove!) as you see fit. --Fang Aili talk 18:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Portal:Dance
The portal seems a little unloved currently - do you guys need a hand with cheering it up? I'd be glad to help out. Rfrisbie is doing some great things around the place with portals, eg at Cats, Dogs, Education and Psychology, and I think there are some things that could be added to this portal, too. Let me know what you guys think :) Cheers, riana_dzasta 12:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think that you would hear any complaints from us. In fact, I'm sure that all of us would greatly appreciate any changes you make! —Cswrye 15:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] WikiProject banner
I have created a banner for this WikiProject:
 |
WikiProject Dance/Archive Dec 2006 is within the scope of WikiProject Dance, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Dance and Dance-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. |
| NA | This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the quality scale. |
| NA | This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the importance scale. |
|
Please rate this article, and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
|
This can be added to the talk pages of any article that we want to be covered by this project. I might add some of the features of WP:1.0 in the future if there is interest in it. —Cswrye 18:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Stablepedia
Beginning cross-post.
- See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 23:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
End cross-post. Please do not comment more in this section.
[edit] Substub listing
FYI, I created Wikipedia:WikiProject Dance/substubs because I noticed a large number of substub dance articles. Please add (and remove!) as you see fit. --Fang Aili talk 18:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Portal:Dance
The portal seems a little unloved currently - do you guys need a hand with cheering it up? I'd be glad to help out. Rfrisbie is doing some great things around the place with portals, eg at Cats, Dogs, Education and Psychology, and I think there are some things that could be added to this portal, too. Let me know what you guys think :) Cheers, riana_dzasta 12:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think that you would hear any complaints from us. In fact, I'm sure that all of us would greatly appreciate any changes you make! —Cswrye 15:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] To do list?
Is there a to do list around here somewhere? I don't see anything. --Fang Aili talk 16:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Well I started one. It's on the main page. Cheers, all. --Fang Aili talk 17:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Userbox
I created a userbox for this project: Type {{User WikiProject Dance}} to get:
 |
This user is a member of the Dance WikiProject. |
It's a bit less intrusive than the big template. Cheers! --Fang Aili 19:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I like it, however, I have troubles putting it into my Babel box. --Roland2 20:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- I was bold and fixed it for you. I think the "Babel" tables only work with languages, though I'm not sure of that. I used a general table on your page. --Fang Aili 21:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- This solution does not count. ;-) I had problems with non-language templates on my German userpage and then someone told me that variant: de:Benutzer:Roland2. It seems to be a workaround as well. --Roland2 22:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I would love to join the WikiProject Dance team - I think its great!!!!!!!.....what do I do? I am new to Wikipedia, so please help. I am primarily interested in creating articles pertaining to ballet history. So far I have created articles on Leon Minkus, Marius Petipa, Riccardo Drigo, Cesare Pugni and the Bolshoi Kamenny Theatre. I very much want to be a part of the Dance team!!!! Mrlopez2681 07:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Here are two common ways to put userboxes in grouping boxes. Rfrisbietalk 02:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
{{babel-N|1={{user WikiProject Dance}} {{user WikiProject Dance}} }}
| Wikipedia:Babel | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||
| Search user languages | |||||||||
{{userboxtop}}
{{user WikiProject Dance}} {{user WikiProject Dance}}
{{userboxbottom}}
|
[edit] Article assessment department?
Is there any interest in adding an article assessment department to this project? Rfrisbietalk 18:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Yes. --Fang Aili talk 19:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, I'll set it up. :-) Rfrisbietalk 20:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- I added the Version 1.0 assessments department. The bot will add the first summaries at the red links tonight. Enjoy rating those articles! :-) Rfrisbietalk 21:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you! Hey, is there any way of changing "importance" to "priority"? I just think "priority" is a better word and doesn't imply that any subjects are unimportant. If you disagree that's ok. Thanks, Fang Aili talk 14:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- That's the way the V1.0 project bot is set up to track the ratings. See Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index for examples. Personally, I would prefer the wording stay consistent with the larger project. By the way, the bot added this project to the index, but it didn't update any projects last night because of some technical concerns the bot programmers are trying to work out. However, rating articles now should be fine. The summary will catch up sooner or later. Rfrisbietalk 16:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Ok. I know that some projects have changed the wording, but we can keep it the way it is now. Thanks for setting it up. --Fang Aili talk 16:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- If you can point to an example, maybe I can figure out how they did it and make sure the bot still works right too. If I can do both, I'll make the changes. :-) Rfrisbietalk 16:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- WikiProject Biography changed "importance" to "priority" on their template (WPBiography). They also chose not to display the priority on the box because that still bothered some people. Part of the reason why they made the change was to comply with WP:BLP (Rating someone a low-importance could be perceived as an attack on them). I don't know of any other projects that have made that change, but I think it comes up at WP:1.0 every now and then. From my understanding, they treat "priority" the same as "importance", so the difference is really just in semantics. —Cswrye 16:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Looking at their template, they didn't replace "importance," they added "priority." You know those assessment templates are a bit dicey, so I'll have to study it a bit. Maybe I can just add a "priority" pipe/parameter to the existing "importance" coding. I still prefer to keep the same categories. I think that's what the bot looks for. If you want to make the changes, just say the word. Otherwise I'll try something later. :-o Rfrisbietalk 17:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- They may not have taken it out of the code, but the are no longer using it. Note that "importance" is not listed in the usage section that explains how to use the template, and I've also seen several discussions at WikiProject Biography that say that they have decided to replace "importance" with "priority". Also, the "importance" parameter does the same thing as the "priority" parameter (for example, rating something as high-importance will put it in the category for high-priority articles, just like rating it high-priority). They probably did that because there were already thousands of articles tagged with "importance", and they didn't want to have to change all of those to "priority". But again, WikiProject Biography is a special case, and their template is far more complicated than any other WikiProject banner that I've seen. —Cswrye 17:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Looking at their template, they didn't replace "importance," they added "priority." You know those assessment templates are a bit dicey, so I'll have to study it a bit. Maybe I can just add a "priority" pipe/parameter to the existing "importance" coding. I still prefer to keep the same categories. I think that's what the bot looks for. If you want to make the changes, just say the word. Otherwise I'll try something later. :-o Rfrisbietalk 17:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- WikiProject Biography changed "importance" to "priority" on their template (WPBiography). They also chose not to display the priority on the box because that still bothered some people. Part of the reason why they made the change was to comply with WP:BLP (Rating someone a low-importance could be perceived as an attack on them). I don't know of any other projects that have made that change, but I think it comes up at WP:1.0 every now and then. From my understanding, they treat "priority" the same as "importance", so the difference is really just in semantics. —Cswrye 16:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- If you can point to an example, maybe I can figure out how they did it and make sure the bot still works right too. If I can do both, I'll make the changes. :-) Rfrisbietalk 16:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Ok. I know that some projects have changed the wording, but we can keep it the way it is now. Thanks for setting it up. --Fang Aili talk 16:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- That's the way the V1.0 project bot is set up to track the ratings. See Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index for examples. Personally, I would prefer the wording stay consistent with the larger project. By the way, the bot added this project to the index, but it didn't update any projects last night because of some technical concerns the bot programmers are trying to work out. However, rating articles now should be fine. The summary will catch up sooner or later. Rfrisbietalk 16:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you! Hey, is there any way of changing "importance" to "priority"? I just think "priority" is a better word and doesn't imply that any subjects are unimportant. If you disagree that's ok. Thanks, Fang Aili talk 14:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- I added the Version 1.0 assessments department. The bot will add the first summaries at the red links tonight. Enjoy rating those articles! :-) Rfrisbietalk 21:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, I'll set it up. :-) Rfrisbietalk 20:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Here's an example, Talk:Blaise Pascal.
{{WPBiography
|living=no
|class=FA
|priority=Top
|core=yes
}}
The "priority" is not displayed on the talk page. It's listed in Category:Top-priority biography articles, and it's rated as "Top" importance at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Biography articles by quality/1. Considering these ratings are about articles, not people, I'm personally not convinced what they're doing in biography is necessary here. If the project folks have a consensus on changing it, then you and/or I can figure out how to do it. :-) Rfrisbietalk 17:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- This is getting a little too technical for me, so--how about we keep "importance", but can we hide it except for Top Importance articles? It's less clutter on the talk pages, and won't discourage people from working on lesser important articles. --Fang Aili talk 19:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I think I can do that, if that's what we decide to do. I'm undecided about how I feel about it because I can see both the advantages and disadvantages of hiding the parameter. —Cswrye 21:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- I am positive other WikiProjects hide the importance parameter (just don't know which off the top of my head). One reason for doing this is so people are not discouraged about contributing to an article of "lesser" importance. Another is to put the emphasis on the quality of the article (Stub-FA) instead of how important it is in the scope of encyclopedia. Imagine if we had a FA with a "low" importance.. to the casual observer (not a Wikipedian familiar with 1.0) it would look like we put all this effort into something unimportant. That's not true, but that's how it can be interpreted (this is another reason I wanted to change the word to "priority"). Whereas if the parameter is hidden, those who actually care about that stuff can look at the assessment page and see what's what. Just my 2 cents, Fang Aili talk 22:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Those are all good points. On the downside, hiding the parameter makes it less apparent to other editors, especially those who are not familiar with the assessment process. That could suppress discussion about the assessment if there are editors who might disagree with it. I'd like to see what others think about it, but if no one else comments about it, I will probably go ahead and hide the parameter. —Cswrye 22:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- I am positive other WikiProjects hide the importance parameter (just don't know which off the top of my head). One reason for doing this is so people are not discouraged about contributing to an article of "lesser" importance. Another is to put the emphasis on the quality of the article (Stub-FA) instead of how important it is in the scope of encyclopedia. Imagine if we had a FA with a "low" importance.. to the casual observer (not a Wikipedian familiar with 1.0) it would look like we put all this effort into something unimportant. That's not true, but that's how it can be interpreted (this is another reason I wanted to change the word to "priority"). Whereas if the parameter is hidden, those who actually care about that stuff can look at the assessment page and see what's what. Just my 2 cents, Fang Aili talk 22:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- I think I can do that, if that's what we decide to do. I'm undecided about how I feel about it because I can see both the advantages and disadvantages of hiding the parameter. —Cswrye 21:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] Jacob Lyons
The above page is currently being considered for deletion. Anyone who can establish the notability of this individual should do so. Thank you. Badbilltucker 18:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
