Xenharmonic Wiki talk:Things to do: Difference between revisions
Mousemambo (talk | contribs) →Plain-language writing: Proposed the term "Overview" for a to-be-added plain-language section of technical articles |
Too many short interval pages to fit in "todo:expand" or "stubs": Proposed 3 possible solutions and asked which is best or whether others have their own better ones |
||
| Line 347: | Line 347: | ||
:: Alright. It's not my intention to restrict creative work in any way. [[User:IlL|Inthar]] ([[User talk:IlL|talk]]) 09:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC) | :: Alright. It's not my intention to restrict creative work in any way. [[User:IlL|Inthar]] ([[User talk:IlL|talk]]) 09:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC) | ||
== Too many short interval pages to fit in "todo:expand" or "stubs" == | |||
; The problem | |||
There are 303 pages in Category:Todo:expand, including 42 interval pages. | |||
There are 1,072 pages in Category:Stubs, including 61 interval pages. | |||
There are 1,043 pages in Category:Rational intervals. | |||
Currently, stub interval pages are being under-reported: using the "Threshold for stub link formatting" preference and setting it to a value that lines up with Category:Stubs, it flags about 90% of interval pages as a potential stub. That’d be about 900 pages. | |||
If we were to actually mark those as stubs or todo:expand as current convention suggests, it would completely overwhelm both todo categories and make it difficult to actually use them. | |||
I have three proposed solutions we could choose from. Which one does everyone prefer? Or do you have your own ones to suggest? | |||
; Solution A - stricter criteria | |||
We make the criteria for including interval pages in either category more strict than it would be for other types of pages: | |||
* For inclusion in "stubs", an interval page should have to be extremely barebones, only about one sentence of human text. | |||
* For inclusion in "todo:expand", an interval page should have to be highly notable (e.g. 6/5, 7/1, etc.) OR should have to show an obvious specific way it ought to be expanded (though in that case "todo:complete section" may often fit better). | |||
''If we go with this solution, I will go through all the interval pages currently in "stubs" or "todo:expand", and remove those categories from any pages that don't meet the above criteria.'' | |||
''Then I will to go through the rest of Category:Rational intervals and add “stub” or “todo:expand” to all pages which ''do'' meet the criteria (there likely aren’t many, given the strict criteria).'' | |||
''All edits will be marked as minor.'' | |||
; Solution B - new todo categories for interval pages | |||
We create the categories "todo:expand interval page" and "todo:interval stub". | |||
We continue categorising interval pages exactly the same way we do now, except using those two new categories on interval pages in place of "todo:expand" and "stub". | |||
''If we go with this solution, I will make category pages for "todo:expand interval page" and "todo:interval stub".'' | |||
''Then I will go through all the interval pages currently in "stubs" or "todo:expand", and move them to "todo:expand interval page" or "todo:interval stub".'' | |||
''Then I will go through the rest of Category:Rational intervals and add "todo:expand interval page" and "todo:interval stub" to all pages which they apply to.'' | |||
''All edits will be marked as minor.'' | |||
; Solution C - new todo category for critical pages | |||
We create the category "todo:expand critical page" for any stub or todo:expand pages where the subject matter has especially broad relevance to multiple other concepts in xen, and it makes sense to focus on expanding those key pages first before all the other stuff. | |||
''If we go with this solution, I will make the category page for "todo:expand critical page".'' | |||
''Then I will go through all the pages currently in "stubs" or "todo:expand", and mmove any ones with broad xenharmonic relevance to "todo:expand critical page". I suspect there won't be many, maybe around 20. We can always add others later if I miss some.'' | |||
''All edits will be marked as minor.'' | |||
; Conclusion | |||
Of all of these, I prefer solution B. It seems like the least convoluted or clunky. I’m okay with any of the solutions though. But what do others think? | |||
I'll wait until January 1st, Sydney time, to take any action so there's time for everyone to discuss. | |||
(''If discussions are still ongoing as of Jan 1, I'll postpone amy action until some consensus is reached.'') | |||
(''If no one has commented by Jan 1, I will ask on the talk pages of a couple more experienced editors and I’ll follow their advice.'') | |||
--[[User:BudjarnLambeth|BudjarnLambeth]] ([[User talk:BudjarnLambeth|talk]]) 04:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||