User talk:CBM/Archive 21

Archives: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Note re: Partial Functions
Carl, Thank you (belatedly) for your kind Welcome Timlevin (talk) and for your answer to my question about partial functions. I converted the answer to a clarification in the PF article, so as to make the discussion more complete with respect to the examples. Timlevin (talk) 20:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Peer reviews
Hello! I see you're the creator of the bot maintaining the peer review process, so I am humbled coming before such a wiki-giant. I am at the moment trying to make WP:PR a more livable and usable place. I do this so that it is more inviting for new users and not so intimidating. One thing I really want to do is get all the reviews to a separate page: Wikipedia:Peer reviews by topic, so that (1) one can then link to reviews by topic and (2) not have a cluttered main page. I did some digging, and found that you've created a rather ingenious set of templates that display the reviews based around the pagename.

With your permission, I'd like to propose a change to the templates used to represent the peer reviews so that transclusions can be made easier, and so that the page name isn't hard-coded into each set of templates.

Proposed change
I propose a unified page (Template:CF/Peer review listing) be used for all peer review listings in various categories by the bot, with a slight change to the header of this page to read:
 * Change to the peer review listings


 * Current situation: Template:CF/Language and literature peer reviews
 * Proposed change: User:LT910001/Peer review listing)

When listing the categories, the bot, instead of should transclude this: transclude=. For example:
 * Change to the listings made by the bot

would become:


 * Proposed change: User:LT910001/sandbox/Peer reviews)
 * Current situation: User:VeblenBot/C/Language and literature peer reviews

This would have no difference to the current use of categories, but would allow users to explicitly state whether they do or don't want the category of peer reviews to be transcluded in full. Users could state:
 * Result of change - allowing transclusions to be specified


 * Example of use: User:LT910001/sandbox/7)
 * Current use: WP:PR

Benefits of change
This change has the following benefits:
 * 1) 1 There is a single end template, which is easier to edit in the future
 * 2) 2 The page name is no longer hard-coded into the template means that transclusions can happen on multiple pages, including user sandboxes and project pages
 * 3) 3 The peer review process can be made more visually appealing and, hopefully, emerge from the doldrums
 * 4) 4 Current transclusions of the peer review categories will not be affected

That said, (1) I have very little experience presenting code to other people, so I hope that this is clear and readable, (2) I am not sure what the appropriate forum to present this in is; sorry if this is the wrong page, and (3) I am really not sure how to format the code for display to you properly, so if you can suggest a template I'd be happy to fix this up first and then let you have a look when it's a bit easier to read.

I'd value your feedback and, hopefully (!) action, as this would help improve the very useful peer review process we have here. Kind regards, --LT910001 (talk) 14:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Please feel free to edit the system. Although I am nominally in charge of the bot, I am not planning to take any active role in upgrading it. In fact, I would be very glad to see it re-implemented so that no bot was required; short of that, I would be glad to hand off the bot to a willing maintainer. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 18:17, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your prompt and courteous reply. I will spend some time thinking a bit more about what change to make and get back to you. --LT910001 (talk) 09:07, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
Regarding Template:Zero. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:24, 15 February 2014 (UTC)