What are your thoughts on this? I would like to propose that we use this navbox for two purposes:
- Its expected use as a navigation tool for wiki editors and visitors
- As an extension of our Big Todo List. I would like to use this navbox to keep track of our lang desc articles. Specifically, I propose we
- Add article links to the navbox if and when we find new loglangs
- Add a link for "minor loglangs" if we need it
- Change the superscripted status from [stub] to [50%], [67%], [75%] as we go along, removing the superscript when the article is reasonably complete.
The result of this process is that we will be able to see the status of all our lang desc articles at a glance. If the idea works we can follow the same routine for other groups of articles in the future. Maiku (talk) 15:30, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
That's a bad idea IMO. I'd do something like categorizing articles into one of three groups:
- [My bad idea is not extremely unlike your idea; it just uses the navbox to do the marking; articles are marked by (1) [stub]s (2) works-in-progress e.g. ([5%-95%]) or [in progress] and (3) complete i.e. (no superscript). The reasons to use the navbox is that (A) it's going to appear on every language page page anyway, plus the Portal (and I want people not to be surprised by a stub when they use the Portal thereby observing principle of least astonishment) and (B) it's easier to get the overall status of the subproject (language descriptions) from a single navbox that's right there than it is to look at three separate category pages. Of course there is nothing stopping an editor from doing it both ways at the same time (stub template at top and navbox at bottom of page) Maiku (talk) 19:35, 13 April 2020 (UTC)]
Now, how do we tell what goes where?
- An article is a stub if it hardly contains any information. (That's pretty obvious — may length be the measure.)
- When an article has points of incompletion like:
- doesn't mention some aspect X which we all agree should be included,
- has sections planned out but empty (i.e., just the headers, no content underneath),
- is poor in content or poorly written
- then it deserves the title of 'work in progress'.
- Otherwise, it's complete.
That's a 'trichotomy' I'd adhere to. ~uakci 11:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)