BoyWiki talk:Curator handbook
In re: section 2.2.3, I am confused as to the placing of personal reviews. first it is said that reviews should be in Category:Life, then it's said they should be in user pages. Where should Bad News Bears, either version, be located, for example? --Afin 06:26, 3 September 2005 (EDT)
- I will have to edit that section (Dealing with highly subjective articles) for clarity then. It should say that Category:Life is not a place where highly subjective articles are a problem. If I were to write a review of the new movie, for example, it would belong at User:Hínandil/Bad News Bears (2005), and I could put a link to that article in Bad News Bears (2005) under a section called User reviews or some such. --Hínandil 14:58, 3 September 2005 (EDT)
I can tell there's going to be ongoing confusion about this :) We currently have a review of a game called Meteos that includes a section on "playability." You've just said it's not a problem for people to post subjective reviews under Category:Life, but then you also said you'd link away to a specific user reviews section. Is this something we should try to enforce? :) --Afin 08:05, 14 September 2005 (EDT)
- But the playability sections deals more with the question of who might enjoy the game and how many players are supported, and whether it's good for yf get-togethers--that sort of thing. Maybe the section could be renamed but with enough qualifying information I think such opinions are more informative than purely opinion-based. Category:Encyclopedia articles can have a section with user essays or opinion pieces, Category:Entertainment articles can have links to reviews, and lots of Category:Life articles will be subjective anyway. To me, I'm concerned about having room in the main namespave for informative articles. I think NAMBLA is a good example of a good user page being saved as a main article. There's no reason a user page won't be categorized anyhow, so I think we should encourage first-person articles to be user pages and see what happens as we grow. --Hínandil 12:22, 14 September 2005 (EDT)
Next, in 2.1, I've seen several cases where I don't have a patrol link available in a diff or new article page, even though there's a red bang on the special:recentchanges page indicating new content. Is that just a bug, or am I the only one seeing it?
- I imagine that's probably just a caching issue, and doing a hard refresh on your browser or clearing your cache might fix it. MediaWiki is pretty complex and tries to cache where it can, but it's always been a little hairy. I always queue up a string of unpatrolled articles in seperate tabs in Firefox and then refresh Special:Recentchanges to look for bangs I missed. Sometimes I enjoy an article so much I forget to scroll back up and hit "patrolled". :) --Hínandil 04:34, 15 September 2005 (EDT)