2,785
edits
FamilySearch Wiki talk:WikiProject Improving the Help content: Difference between revisions
FamilySearch Wiki talk:WikiProject Improving the Help content (view source)
Revision as of 14:51, 2 August 2011
, 2 August 2011comment
(→FamilySearch Wiki Namespace: reply) |
(comment) |
||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
::The [[FamilySearch Wiki:Policies/Proposed enhancements]] article documents what the procedures were for policy and guideline issues, plus identified if there was a template (aka flag) already created; if there was a help article; and what category(s) were needed or in place for the policy. Each of the tables could be revised to change the word "Flags" to "Template" and we may know what the categories are and can populate that information. We also tried to identify what "Role" in the wiki was required in order to act on the consequence based upon the policy. (If deleting was needed, the person has to be an administrator). --[[User:JensenFA|Fran]] 21:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC) | ::The [[FamilySearch Wiki:Policies/Proposed enhancements]] article documents what the procedures were for policy and guideline issues, plus identified if there was a template (aka flag) already created; if there was a help article; and what category(s) were needed or in place for the policy. Each of the tables could be revised to change the word "Flags" to "Template" and we may know what the categories are and can populate that information. We also tried to identify what "Role" in the wiki was required in order to act on the consequence based upon the policy. (If deleting was needed, the person has to be an administrator). --[[User:JensenFA|Fran]] 21:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC) | ||
:::Sorry for the confusion, the idea isn't to give things only a week for the entire discussion. The idea is to give it a week to see if anyone has any concerns about it. If no one comes in to discuss in a week, then action could be taken. If discussion is happening, then it will wait as long as the discussion needs to take. Does a week still sound too short for that? We could give it two if need be, we just want to be able to take action if no one raises concern after a set amount of time. And thank you for the reminer about that link, that is <u>very</u> helpful. I knew about it at one point in time but had forgotten it was there. -- [[User:VasquezJL|janellv]] ([[User talk:VasquezJL|talk]] | :::Sorry for the confusion, the idea isn't to give things only a week for the entire discussion. The idea is to give it a week to see if anyone has any concerns about it. If no one comes in to discuss in a week, then action could be taken. If discussion is happening, then it will wait as long as the discussion needs to take. Does a week still sound too short for that? We could give it two if need be, we just want to be able to take action if no one raises concern after a set amount of time. And thank you for the reminer about that link, that is <u>very</u> helpful. I knew about it at one point in time but had forgotten it was there. -- [[User:VasquezJL|janellv]] ([[User talk:VasquezJL|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/VasquezJL|contribs]]) 20:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC) | ||
::::Yes, I still think a week is too short. Considerations such as vacations, sick days, assignments, etc. When it comes to policy pages, I think we should be more thorough with the communication. In most cases I think the communication will be easy and quick, but for those times when it take a while to reach everyone, we should allow for that up front. Have you looked at the timing of policy discussions on Wikipedia? I'm just curious about their timing for things like this. I've seen how they have used Bots to auto-manage many communications and if issues are not acknowledged or replied to within a specific timeframe, then the issue is automatically removed from the list of things to do. Managing this wiki is going to get harder, so keep in mind how a Bot could help and I will get it on the backlog. --[[User:JensenFA|Fran]] 20:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC) PS: I like what you've done with your signature by adding links to your talk page and contributions. Good idea. Assume those links are manually added? | ::::Yes, I still think a week is too short. Considerations such as vacations, sick days, assignments, etc. When it comes to policy pages, I think we should be more thorough with the communication. In most cases I think the communication will be easy and quick, but for those times when it take a while to reach everyone, we should allow for that up front. Have you looked at the timing of policy discussions on Wikipedia? I'm just curious about their timing for things like this. I've seen how they have used Bots to auto-manage many communications and if issues are not acknowledged or replied to within a specific timeframe, then the issue is automatically removed from the list of things to do. Managing this wiki is going to get harder, so keep in mind how a Bot could help and I will get it on the backlog. --[[User:JensenFA|Fran]] 20:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC) PS: I like what you've done with your signature by adding links to your talk page and contributions. Good idea. Assume those links are manually added? | ||
:::::Ok, it can be longer, I can see changing to two weeks. I really don't want things to drag out forever though because then they don't get followed up on. And things can always change back. I haven't looked at Wikipedia timing..that's interesting that they just remove those things. | |||
:::::About the signature, there's something you add to your preferences to make that automatic, I'll see if I can find it and send it to you... -- [[User:VasquezJL|janellv]] ([[User talk:VasquezJL|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/VasquezJL|contribs]]) 20:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC) | |||