Template talk:ToApprove: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Robert Tito
mNo edit summary
imported>Chris Day
(format for clarity)
Line 2: Line 2:
This is news to me.  I think I get the idea that as long as we have three we can consider it approved ''by the date'', but taking an immediate action after a fourth enters the picture has not been discussed as far as I know.  If I were the constable, I would ignore that part of the template because our [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Approval_Process#Who_may_approve rules] currently do not address that.  Do we want to change the rule, or change the template? --[[User:D. Matt Innis|Matt Innis]] [[User talk:D. Matt Innis|(Talk)]] 12:23, 27 April 2007 (CDT)
This is news to me.  I think I get the idea that as long as we have three we can consider it approved ''by the date'', but taking an immediate action after a fourth enters the picture has not been discussed as far as I know.  If I were the constable, I would ignore that part of the template because our [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Approval_Process#Who_may_approve rules] currently do not address that.  Do we want to change the rule, or change the template? --[[User:D. Matt Innis|Matt Innis]] [[User talk:D. Matt Innis|(Talk)]] 12:23, 27 April 2007 (CDT)
:That is the question. I think this is probably a topic for the constables to hash out. What do you want? [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] [[User talk:Chris Day|(talk)]] 14:41, 27 April 2007 (CDT)
:That is the question. I think this is probably a topic for the constables to hash out. What do you want? [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] [[User talk:Chris Day|(talk)]] 14:41, 27 April 2007 (CDT)
:to me it seemed an easy addition to the approval process. If more than one editor approves of an article she or he now can add his name to the approve template. The approval of nan article based on only ONE editor when more are active seems a bad (science) thing to do. SO why confuse things and in stead allow editors to add their name to the template?
 
It seems clear to me that the moment 4 editors agree an article is to be approved nothing should be able to stop that approval. Provided none actually was a participant other then minor textual edits. No need to scroll through text and sometimes even archive pages to see if the article is worth of being approved.
::To me it seemed an easy addition to the approval process. If more than one editor approves of an article she or he now can add his name to the approve template. The approval of nan article based on only ONE editor when more are active seems a bad (science) thing to do. SO why confuse things and in stead allow editors to add their name to the template?
::It seems clear to me that the moment 4 editors agree an article is to be approved nothing should be able to stop that approval. Provided none actually was a participant other then minor textual edits. No need to scroll through text and sometimes even archive pages to see if the article is worth of being approved.
Make live easier not more difficult. The chabnce to have 4 active editors agreeing in the formal peer review as used by JACS, PNAS is low - when it happens we in CZ should award that unity among editors and approve (as constables and as CZ). My reason to ask Chris to add names is in this reasoning I followed.
Make live easier not more difficult. The chabnce to have 4 active editors agreeing in the formal peer review as used by JACS, PNAS is low - when it happens we in CZ should award that unity among editors and approve (as constables and as CZ). My reason to ask Chris to add names is in this reasoning I followed.
 
::Better practical then not useable. [[User:Robert Tito|Robert Tito]]&nbsp;|&nbsp;<span style="background:grey">&nbsp;<font color="yellow"><b>[[User talk:Robert Tito|Talk]]</b></font>&nbsp;</span> 15:09, 27 April 2007 (CDT)
Better practical then not useable. [[User:Robert Tito|Robert Tito]]&nbsp;|&nbsp;<span style="background:grey">&nbsp;<font color="yellow"><b>[[User talk:Robert Tito|Talk]]</b></font>&nbsp;</span> 15:09, 27 April 2007 (CDT)

Revision as of 15:11, 27 April 2007

Four editors have agreed to approval please contact the constables to process this approval constables@citizendium.org.| or when four editors have agreed to the approval This is news to me. I think I get the idea that as long as we have three we can consider it approved by the date, but taking an immediate action after a fourth enters the picture has not been discussed as far as I know. If I were the constable, I would ignore that part of the template because our rules currently do not address that. Do we want to change the rule, or change the template? --Matt Innis (Talk) 12:23, 27 April 2007 (CDT)

That is the question. I think this is probably a topic for the constables to hash out. What do you want? Chris Day (talk) 14:41, 27 April 2007 (CDT)
To me it seemed an easy addition to the approval process. If more than one editor approves of an article she or he now can add his name to the approve template. The approval of nan article based on only ONE editor when more are active seems a bad (science) thing to do. SO why confuse things and in stead allow editors to add their name to the template?
It seems clear to me that the moment 4 editors agree an article is to be approved nothing should be able to stop that approval. Provided none actually was a participant other then minor textual edits. No need to scroll through text and sometimes even archive pages to see if the article is worth of being approved.

Make live easier not more difficult. The chabnce to have 4 active editors agreeing in the formal peer review as used by JACS, PNAS is low - when it happens we in CZ should award that unity among editors and approve (as constables and as CZ). My reason to ask Chris to add names is in this reasoning I followed.

Better practical then not useable. Robert Tito |  Talk  15:09, 27 April 2007 (CDT)