CZ Talk:Approval Announcements

Isn't this page along the lines of what David Still was trying to set up? Is he still around? Chris Day (talk) 01:35, 25 April 2007 (CDT)

His account is still active: User:David_Still, although he has not contributed in a month. Stephen Ewen 01:40, 25 April 2007 (CDT)

Aikido

The first Sports article nominated for approval had been nominated to be Approved April 1, and was overlooked. The time date was changed to the future and the nomination was listed here. However, the article was deleted before the new approval date.

Why?

Copyright violation spotted by Stephen Ewen. As he has suggested, a plagerism test with available web tools is optimally incorporated into the approvals process.

Articles from copyrighted websites are not to be used for many reasons, (1) CZ aims to provide original contributions rather than mirrored articles. (2) Even if a CZ author wrote the content of a copyrighted website, unlike the situation when a CZ author authored a Wikipedia article, a copyright violation still applies unless permission is granted by the website owner or the copyright is clearly stated to be owned by the CZ author in the website. (3) Even if the latter is true, then (1) still applies. Unless this content is incorporated into a larger contribution, such that the whole article is original, it is better cited as an external link. (4) If the content is of a commercial nature, such that goods or services are promoted, then the author risks violating one of our fundamental policies. CZ is not to be used for marketing. Nancy Sculerati 03:00, 25 April 2007 (CDT)

In this case, the other fundamental policy this article not only risked violating but did is CZ:Policy on Self-Promotion. Stephen Ewen 04:13, 25 April 2007 (CDT)

Follow-up on Aikido

(This post has been copied from the Editor's talk page by the Poster of the message) Gary, as you know, Aikido was up for approval- as per your nomination. The Assistant Chief Constable ran a "web check" and found that it was nearly identical to prose on a private website. He deleted the article, and I backed the action. That's all documented as it happened on the Approvals talk page. [1]. Meanwhile he contacted the author, and has obtained verification that the author owns the copyright to that text, and has generously allowed its use on CZ. He has (or is in the process) restored the article. Would you like the approval template back on? Please let me know on my talk page, If you would like me to help in any way with putting up the template. If you let me know when you would like to see the article approved (date) I will feature it on the Approvals page.[2]. I apologize for all the grief this has caused everybody, but I am glad that everybody cares so much. That's so much better than the alternative. Meanwhile- I am going to put a copy of this message on the Approvals talk page, so the continuing story is evident. Trying my best, as we all are- Nancy Sculerati 13:21, 27 April 2007 (CDT)

I have copy edited this article, now. Please would someone approve it? Wahib Frank 06:49, 13 May 2007 (CDT)

Conventional?

Nancy, the main page says "A conventional means of indicating important facts (such as nominating editor- date approved) is also needed". What is the definition of conventional in this sense? Chris Day (talk) 13:38, 27 April 2007 (CDT)

I guess a convention that is part of the approval process - convention in the sense of a step that is incorporated every time. For example- the approval template, and the nominating templates, as we have it now, either has right on it or is linked to such information as:Date the nomination was made, name of nominating editor(s), Workgroup of nominating editors, date that the article will be approved. It's good to have that information. If we change the template or the whole system, that information still needs to be incorporated. It could be incorporated in headers, in text on the actual page, on a template- lots of ways (that you know better than I). But the form must impose the user to fill in that the information so it is always incorporated - that's what I meant. Nancy Sculerati 14:15, 27 April 2007 (CDT)

Yes, this exactly what we need. A consistent protocol. For some reason i was thinking this might mean not using templates, conventional, as in, let's just discuss it. I think the constables need to figure out what they want from the ToApprove template. Matt has started a discussion on the talk page of the {{ToApprove}} template. Chris Day (talk) 14:49, 27 April 2007 (CDT)

I think, as an ex-constable, I know. Of course, that discussion can go on, uninterrupted, but we don't have to wait for it to continue our work here- what they want is: clarity. What they hate is: ambiguity. If I may explain- as it stands only one editor is needed to approve an article if that editor is in the appropriate workgroup and did not act as author, in other words, is not nominating his or her own work for approval, but is instead nominating others' work. In Biology, as you recall, we had every single Biology editor who was active at that time already having been an author. So we said- (or Larry did) ok, then if 3 Editors (who have all been authors) agree to approve, the article can be nominated, even though these editors are nominating their own work. Since then, we have had individual cases of confusion. That's one reason I invented this job for myself,(Approvals Management Editor), which I see as a friendly Rottweiler as shepherd. So- what confusion am I talking about? Look at the talk page of Tux, it was unclear to everybody that since the authors were not editors that only ONE Computers Editor was needed (Rob Tito). Another example, Christo Muller wrote Infant colic, when it was formed, I edited, called for "eyes". When it was ready for approval the Constable was confused- shouldn't we need 3 Editors? No, I said, because I am honestly not an author- I have acted as Editor throughout. Frankly, had Gareth been around, I may have asked him, just to make it easy- but I know Larry looked it over and thought fine, she's acted as Editor, she's approved- it was done fairly. Now, back to Matt's comment- my reading of that talk page you refer to for the To Approve Template is that a template is being made that HAS SPACE for 4 Editors. That's confusing, Matt is pointing out, because the constable can be misled that 4 Editors are NEEDED, when in fact we have never had a case yet that has required more than 3, and - as in Tux, One can be enough. Savvy? The template has to make things clearer not add confusion.Nancy Sculerati 14:58, 27 April 2007 (CDT)

But that was what Rob Tito, a constable, requested. There is a mixed message here. Chris Day (talk) 15:05, 27 April 2007 (CDT)

Let's get him to comment. He's a very smart man. His intention may have been to leave room for those articles that have more than one workgroup and so might need multiples of the required editors. Let's get Matt to comment here, too. Shall you ask them or shall I? Nancy Sculerati 15:10, 27 April 2007 (CDT)

Hi Nancy, Rob just commented with his rationale; see Template_talk:ToApprove. I think it might be better to keep that discussion over there. Chris Day (talk) 15:15, 27 April 2007 (CDT)

Well, we need templates that work for the approval process as it is, rather than as it might be. If and when the approval process is changed, our templates should be flexible enough that they can be easily modified to accomodate change. Nancy Sculerati 16:23, 27 April 2007 (CDT)

Concurrent use registration

I feel that Concurrent use registration is ready for the approval process, but am unsure about initiating it myself. What next? Brian Dean Abramson 13:04, 3 May 2007 (CDT)

Towards finalising approval

There seem to be six outstanding issues that have not been tied up.

Approval area

• This page is important to bring together all the commentary specifically related to the approval process (e.g. Talk:Biology/Approval). There are two specific advantages, 1) The history of this page will be separate from the talk page history. 2) the approval discussion will be more coherent rather than being fractured in the talk page and between talk page archives. 3) this is useful for the constables that might need to find approval related edits in the future since it keeps the approval edits away from the talk page history.

  Every article, even before the approval process begins, should have an approval sub-page that is transcluded at the top of the talk page, so its content is clearly visible. This can be added to the top of the talk page using the {{Approval history}} template (e.g. Talk:RNA_interference/Draft) or incorporated into the checklist (e.g. Talk:Biology/Draft). If added to the checklist this ensures that every talk page has a link to the approval area (I favour this change to the checklist). This is good since it reminds authors and editors to work towards approval rather than moving onto to other pages without first approving. Chris Day (talk) 00:54, 16 May 2007 (CDT)

I agree with Chris Day on this but can add it seems to be current practicve to move Talk:Article to Talk:Article/Draft at the time the first version is approved. This retains all records at the Talk:Articcle/Draft, which is very sensible. Hence it is true that the approval ALWAYS occurs at the talk page of the article being revised and edited.David Tribe 02:44, 16 May 2007 (CDT)

Agree that the addition of the Approval page to the checklist would make it considerably more efficient for constables and anyone interested in the Approval process. It even looks nice. I can't think of any significant reason not to do it. --Matt Innis (Talk) 07:25, 16 May 2007 (CDT)

• I forgot to mention that the articles talk page should be moved to the Draft talk page (as David mentioned above). This is important to keep edit history intact. At the end of each of these sections we should add the "How=to-version" of this discussion. Chris Day (talk) 07:45, 16 May 2007 (CDT)

I'd appreciate it if you would incorporate these changes to the checklist. Nancy Sculerati 14:14, 16 May 2007 (CDT)

Location for the {{ToApprove}} template

• There seems to be confusion for where the ToApprove template should be placed. i think we all agree that for the first approval it is placed on the talk page. For subsequent approvals it is less clear. There are three posible locations. The draft article (e.g. Biology/Draft), the draft talk page (e.g. Talk:Biology/Draft) or the approval area (e.g. Talk:Biology/Approval. I believe the latter page is the most sensible since all approval related edits can then be tracked in the history of that sub page. Chris Day (talk) 00:54, 16 May 2007 (CDT)

See above there need be no confusion if it is remembered that at the time of approval of the first version the Talk:Article page is moved to Talk:Aticle/Draft. Hence the To approve is aways placed at the Talk page of the article being edited (Talk:Article for the first version, Talk:Article/Draft for subsequent versions.) David Tribe 02:59, 16 May 2007 (CDT)

David, just to clarify, if the ToApprove template is placed in the approval area (such as Talk:Tux/Approval then it will be on the talk page. Look at what appears in the ToApprove category when the ToApprove template is placed in the articles approval area (see Talk:Tux/Draft for a current example)

Yes, another good reason for the Approval page. --Matt Innis (Talk) 07:27, 16 May 2007 (CDT)

It seems to me that the essence of the confusion is that it is unclear what is meant by "the article being edited". The Draft page is the article that is literally being edited, but upon approval, it's not (just) the draft article, but the article itself that will be changed. It seems to me that there ought to be a uniform procedure for handling version 1.0 and subsequent versions of the article. Having an Approval page seems convenient (and I think it's probably a good idea), but it makes it less clear how to gollow the progress of an article. It would be nice to be able to start from the article itself (e.g., Tux) and be able to go directly to the right page for the approval template and discussion and, conversely, be able to go directly from the approval area to the article iself (not the draft of the article that will be approved). Greg Woodhouse 08:03, 16 May 2007 (CDT)

I agree and this can be achieved easily by tweeking the approval templates. Chris Day (talk) 11:48, 16 May 2007 (CDT)

Could you do so, Chris? I am not sophisticated enough to know what you mean by an approvals page. Do you just mean the top portion of the discussion page? Or are you talking about making a new tab with an entirely new page? Nancy Sculerati 14:17, 16 May 2007 (CDT)

Number of editors

• Above, the mention of a fourth editor was broached. I am not sure this disucussion reached a conclusion either here or on the forum. Where do we stand since the approved template needs to be updated to reflect the consensus of that discussion? Chris Day (talk) 00:54, 16 May 2007 (CDT)

Currently, as a constable, I would have to go with the rules from the CZ:Approval Process page which make no mention of the 4th editor. Of course that is apt to change. --Matt Innis (Talk) 07:31, 16 May 2007 (CDT)

I have not yet seen a situation where we have had 4 editors. If you think it is worthwhile to see if this works as a method, I am happy to continue having it on the template. It may be that it will help us. However, ifr you think it -at this point-just adds confusion, please remove it from the Template. Chris, I think that decision can be left up to you. I will back it, just state your preference, please and the reason for it. Nancy Sculerati 14:20, 16 May 2007 (CDT)

Proof reading phase

• There was extensive discussion on this topic (i'll get the forum link). At present I have no opinion (i need to refresh myself on the opinions offered on the forums). Chris Day (talk) 00:54, 16 May 2007 (CDT)

This can be solved by the fact that reversals (reverts) are permitted if a reason is given. Its revert without explanation that are verboten (Ive recently realised!).. It will be necessary sometimes if there are substantial edits occurring before all copyedits have been completed for the managing editor to revert them with a note that there is a proofing phase in action for a final article. Alternatively, they remain in place and the approval takes place with an earlier version and the managing editor (or whatever Nancy's title is) is empowered to complete all approptiate copy edits to the approved article. It will be (probably) be necessary to define a limited proofing period, or a definite proofing step or responsibility carried out by Nancy Sculerati.David Tribe 02:59, 16 May 2007 (CDT)

This process continues to mature. It is quite obvious that no matter how perfect our initial Approval process there will be a period of finding "errata" that needs either "copy editing" by the Approval Managing Editor or "re-approving" via the same approval process. I do think it is important, as Nancy pointed out last week, that the Approval tag should be much harder to remove once it is placed to avoid trivial reasons for removal in controversial articles. --Matt Innis (Talk) 07:40, 16 May 2007 (CDT)

Here's where we stand- if one of the editors who nominated an article for approval asks the approvals management editor to make a copyedit, then approvals will carry out that change with Sysop privileges. It is important that it be one of the nominating editors for several reasons. First, it must be an editor, as only an expert can judge the difference between a copyedit and an edit that is really more than that. Secondly, the nominating editors have stood behind the article that was approved. It cannot be that after approval, an entirely different editor, without consulting any of them, decides that changes must be made and contacts approvals to make them without the agreement of any of the nominating editors. This is a particularly dangerous possibility where controversial articles are concerned. The one way to be sure that at least one of the nominating editors wants the change is to make a rule that only a nominating editor can request a copyedit from approvals. Ideally, the nominating editor who is requesting the copyedit will be doing so only after there is discussion of that copyedit on the talk page, and all the editors involved in the nomination have clearly rendered their opinion. This was exactly what took place in Complex number.Nancy Sculerati 14:29, 16 May 2007 (CDT)

Gallery pages

• Are the gallery sub-pages to be treated as separate articles or as part of the main article? I am in favor of treating them as part of the main article. As soon as they are created their talk pages should be directed to the articles talk page. After the first approval the gallery talk page would be redirected to the draft talk page (similar to the article talk page being redirected to the draft talk page). Any changes to the gallery would be discussed on the draft talk page and require approval of the set (article and gallery). The gallery would be protected at the same time as the article. The advantage I see here is one unified talk page for the suite of pages (article, draft and gallery) since they are so closely related. There is nothing worse than fractured discussion. Chris Day (talk) 00:54, 16 May 2007 (CDT)

General {{Approved}}template

• For simplicity i am in favor of one approved template to be pasted onto all related subpages (article, approval, draft and gallery (if it exists)). This makes the job easier for the closing constable. the template will be tailored to give a different out put depending on which page it is placed. Why is this an advantage? Two reasons for starters, the closing constable does not have to remember to place the draft category onto the new draft sub page, it will be automatic. The closing constable does not have to juggle mutliple templates. Chris Day (talk) 00:54, 16 May 2007 (CDT)

This would be great. We need to work in this direction. --Matt Innis (Talk) 07:43, 16 May 2007 (CDT)

What are you talking about?

(Sorry, I couldn't think of a good heading) Is the current best practice described somewhere? I know of CZ:Approval Process but that is rather incomplete and it looks like you guys are much further. For instance, the approval subpage that you're talking about is completely new to me.

When we (the maths workgroup) had our first approvals, the following questions came up:

• How much work can editors do on an article before they are considered authors, and hence they need to go for group approval instead of individual approval?
• Should changes in the nominated revision in the ToApprove template be documented in the approval area? I saw at least one editor doing this diligently.
• If a nomination is supported by another editor, can the nominating editor change the revision to approve? The supporting editor? Logically, they would probably need to agree before changing, but that could be rather hard to organize.
• How to archive the talk page once approval is achieved?
• What is Template:Experimental about? It's used on Talk:Biology/Draft and Talk:Life/Draft, which we used as guidelines.

Probably, none of these questions is terribly important (except for the third one, for which I'd like to know the answer), but if you rewrite the Approval Process you may take them on board. -- Jitse Niesen 08:12, 16 May 2007 (CDT)

You are correct that many of these issues are not even addressed on the CZ:Approval Process page. This is the primary reason to have this discussion so we can get this whole thing nailed. I wonder if this discussion would be more appropriate at CZ_Talk:Approval_Process? The reason it is here is that Nancy brought up the "what to do with galleries during approval?" issue on this page. I then added several other issues that i thought needed to be discussed.

The idea of an approval area has been around for a while, as part of the regular talk page, but i thought that it would be a lot more efficient if it was on its own subpage (and then transcluded to the relevant talk page). This is unofficial but i think it has enough support that it should be considered as an update for the approval process. In my opinion, all discussion related to approval should be on this subpage, including all the ToApprove templates and this should start when the article is created.

I agree your third point is very important, i believe this is related to the proof reading issue too, although i do not think there is a definitive answer. With regard to the experimental template i apologise for the confusion, I should probably strip that out ( a better model would be the talk:RNA interference/Draft page. The experimental template is a modified version of the checklist template that incorporates the talk archive box and the approval area. The use of that template, rather than the regular checklist template, means the archive box and approval area are generated automatically on the talk page or draft talk page. Chris Day (talk) 11:43, 16 May 2007 (CDT)

Everyone, I think it is time for this to happen. I will move this discussion to the CZ:Approval Process discussion page. I will post an note on the Constable list and on the Editor list for anyone interseted to join us in updating the rules for approval. Let's then work together to get a thumbs up or down on as many of these as we can so we can move on to other exciting adventures. --Matt Innis (Talk) 11:51, 16 May 2007 (CDT)

I recently edited CZ:Approval Process to reflect the actual appovals process. The main problem with the original rough draft was that the "Approval template" and the "Nominate for Approval" otherwise known as the "To Approve" template were both called the approval template. This is what led to the misunderstandings about revoking approval. Any editor in a workgroup can stop an article that is nominatd for approval from being approved by removing the "to approve" template. We have never worked out how to revoke approval after an article is approved. That needs to be discussed. Nancy Sculerati 14:34, 16 May 2007 (CDT)