Template talk:Approved

From Citizendium, the Citizens' Compendium
Jump to: navigation, search

Please make this purty. --Larry Sanger 19:24, 12 December 2006 (CST)

Another proposal (April 27, 2007)

How about if article approvals looked like this:

Approved1.png
Article approved by an editor (or editors; see talk page) as overseen by Computers Workgroup. The Citizendium Foundation and participants in Citizendium make no representations about the reliability of this article or its suitability for any purpose. Help improve this article further on the draft page!

instead of this:

Approved.png
The following article has been approved
by an editor (or editors; see the talk page). The Computers Workgroup has overseen this approval. Nevertheless, the Citizendium Foundation and the participants in the Citizendium project make no representations about the reliability of this article or, generally, its suitability for any purpose.

Help improve this article further on the draft page!

Note that this is a faked example only, not a real template. But we could easily make it into a real template.Pat Palmer 17:33, 26 April 2007 (CDT)

Pat, I wouldn't mind it if you were to copy the former template over the latter. I leave this decision in your hands (and Approvals Editor Nancy Sculerati, and others who want to comment here). --Larry Sanger 17:36, 26 April 2007 (CDT)

Well, I just attempted it. Let's see what happens. The code was kinda hairy so I'd like to see it with multiple workgroups. Do you know of an example of an approved article with oversight by two groups?Pat Palmer 17:57, 26 April 2007 (CDT)
Someone changed the graphic back and forced it to resize. Is there some reason NOT to use the other graphic (smaller .jpg)? It will load faster than if we use a larger .png file and force it to resize each time. That can be a performance boost if we start getting tons of traffic on the site. Unless anyone really objects or there's some law against it, I suggest we use a smaller file with no resizing. If it has to be a .png file instead, I can do that. Does anyone care?Pat Palmer 22:46, 26 April 2007 (CDT)

I think Approved need to be the first word for emphasis:

Approved1.png
Approved article! By an editor (or editors; see talk page) as overseen by Computers Workgroup. The Citizendium Foundation and participants in Citizendium make no representations about the reliability of this article or its suitability for any purpose. Help improve this article further on the draft page!

Stephen Ewen 01:25, 27 April 2007 (CDT)

Alternative

With the current Approved template on any given article, I'm barely able to read the entire first paragraph without having to scroll down on my 12" laptop screen. I suggest a smaller format, something like this:

Approved.png
This is an Approved article!
What does this mean?

Or:

Approved.png
This is an Approved article! (What does this mean?)

Or even:

Approved.png
This is an Approved article! [more]

The above template could be placed in the top-left corner of the screen, sitting just above the underline beneath the article's Header (ie, inline with the title of the article). It can be kept very simple: all that needs to be said is that the article has been approved: that's the central point that's being made. The "What does this mean?" think could then point to one of two places:

  • The template page itself, as in the above example. <noinclude> and similar tags allow us to alter the template so that it appears as above when placed on an article, but when viewed directly provide a thorough explanation of Approval.
  • A section at the bottom of the page, providing the same information. This possibility has the additional advantage that providing a link to the article's draft page would be trivial.

What do people think of this? My iBook would certainly appreciate the change. -- David Still 00:02, 23 March 2007 (CDT)


Approval templates Looks useful to me

What you might do is raise it on the forums. Chris Day would be interested I think. He's into that kind of stuff. Space is valuable! The middle one gets my no 1 vote David Tribe 01:24, 23 March 2007 (CDT)

I like the second or third one. Is there a way to place it to the right of the article title? --Joe Quick (Talk) 03:28, 23 March 2007 (CDT)

Forum topic here, if you're wondering. :) And yes, we can set a template to have an absolute position on the page, such as inline with an article title. David Still 05:23, 23 March 2007 (CDT)

I feel like we should have at least the workgroup noticeable on the template, even if it just says "This is an approved Biology article". I also think this would lead to our needing to make a protected subpage to list the approval details. -- ZachPruckowski (Speak to me) 08:52, 23 March 2007 (CDT)

Easy enough. :) -- David Still 15:56, 23 March 2007 (CDT)

I'm opposed to any such simplification. When we make a claim that an article is approved, we should state right up front what it means, not hide such crucial information. Moreover, this information is of extreme interest to users. I am absolutely opposed, in particular, to removing the disclaimer, "Nevertheless, the Citizendium Foundation and the participants in the Citizendium project make no representations about the reliability of this article or, generally, its suitability for any purpose," behind a link. --Larry Sanger 11:45, 23 March 2007 (CDT)

I don't think you've interpreted the suggestion fairly. The second part of the proposal would keep the entire disclaimer and all other information on the same page -- it would be easy enough to keep it in a nice, green box -- but at the bottom of the page, rather than the top. The disclaimer is not so important that every user needs to read it before every single article they come across; it's quite enough for the information to be available on the same page, but away from the header where it disrupts the text. Why else do you have Project:Copyrights, rather than transluding that information onto every page? -- David Still 15:56, 23 March 2007 (CDT)
David, perhaps make a template that includes all the needed info yet is also a little less real estate intensive? Stephen Ewen 18:57, 23 March 2007 (CDT)
David, it does not matter where the link takes you, whether at the bottom of the page or another page. If the disclaimer isn't there front and center, it won't be read by nearly as many people. It absolutely must be read, particularly at this early stage in the project, and particularly with regard to approved articles. --Larry Sanger 21:26, 23 March 2007 (CDT)
The very top of every page reads "All unapproved articles are subject to a disclaimer; please read.". Where is that, if not front and centre? -- David Still 21:36, 23 March 2007 (CDT)
That is a temporary expedient we have put in place to avoid having the two disclaimers atop our approved articles. In the (hopefully very near) future, we are going to have the full text of the disclaimer at the top of every article, except for approved articles, which will have a different disclaimer. The reason for such a more prominent disclaimer--not actually provided by the top-of-page pointer--is precisely to ensure that people see it, read it, absorb it, and take it seriously. Maybe, in the future, we will hide it. --Larry Sanger 12:37, 24 March 2007 (CDT)

abc

i just added the abc fix that is important for biographies. Could someone include that in the Barbara Mclintock page? Just include abc = McClintock, Barbara in the template and she will then be listed under M instead of B. I would do it my self but cannot edit that page. Chris Day (Talk) 11:43, 23 March 2007 (CDT)

__NOEDITSECTION__

__NOEDITSECTION__ should be added to this template - no need to have the [Edit] link in approved articles and they can look poor with some formatting.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 02:34, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

I just went ahead and added it.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 16:11, 15 August 2007 (CDT)