Bigham: new

2009-05-19T17:57:06Z

new

New page

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?
--[[User:Afin|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. --[[User:Hínandil|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? :) --[[User:Afin|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. --[[User:Hínandil|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". :) --[[User:Hínandil|Hínandil]] 04:34, 15 September 2005 (EDT)

BoyWiki talk:Curator handbook - Revision history

Bigham: new