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)