The Big Subpagination -- issues

[Larry Sanger]

Jitse Niesen is now working on a big script that will automate our conversion to subpages.  This is going to be the first step in what we might call (for lack of a better name The Big Subpagination.

Two questions:

(1) What, logistically, do we need to bear in mind when we do this?  What "gotchas" should we look out for?  What needs to be done before what?

(2) What new checklist fields do we need to include, and which existing fields should we exclude?

[Larry Sanger]

On the checklist question.  I just wish I had been paying attention and collected a list of all the different new checklist field proposals people had made.

OK, with subpages, we should bear in mind that we can and perhaps should now keep track the status of the various subpages.  As usual, the question is: is this more trouble than it's worth.

Also, the checklist should be spitting out "<Field> Missing Bibliography" categories and other such items.

I think we should add a whole new "flags" section.  These will have a number of different functions; basically, if an article needs copyediting, we'll be able to mark that; if it needs editor review, we'll mark that; etc.

Another crucial checklist item: a switch authors can throw, if status = 1, inviting editors to submit the article for approval.

[Chris Day]

Also, the checklist should be spitting out "<Field> Missing Bibliography" categories and other such items.

Would the red links at the top not make this obvious enough?

I think we should add a whole new "flags" section.  These will have a number of different functions; basically, if an article needs copyediting, we'll be able to mark that; if it needs editor review, we'll mark that; etc.

Flags are good since it will help us keep track more easily.

Another crucial checklist item: a switch authors can throw, if status = 1, inviting editors to submit the article for approval.

This is just another type of flag and i think this is a must have item. A small problem might be that the author will have to go into the metadata page to activate the switch.  Or could we have a button/script that would automatically change a field in the metadata template?

While we are thinking about these issues, what do we want to do with the dialect field?  i added it to the metadata template but it currently has no function.

[Larry Sanger]

Also, the checklist should be spitting out "<Field> Missing Bibliography" categories and other such items.

Would the red links at the top not make this obvious enough?

Well, category pages would create a centralized location for people interested in filling in missing bibliographies, related pages, etc.

I think we should add a whole new "flags" section.  These will have a number of different functions; basically, if an article needs copyediting, we'll be able to mark that; if it needs editor review, we'll mark that; etc.

Flags are good since it will help us keep track more easily.

Another crucial checklist item: a switch authors can throw, if status = 1, inviting editors to submit the article for approval.

This is just another type of flag and i think this is a must have item. A small problem might be that the author will have to go into the metadata page to activate the switch.  Or could we have a button/script that would automatically change a field in the metadata template?

While we are thinking about these issues, what do we want to do with the dialect field?  i added it to the metadata template but it currently has no function.
[/quote]

Basically, I want to have it set to either AmE or BrE, at least.  Then we can just compile one category for each setting (placed on the article's talk page); I don't think we need any more categories (e.g., it's not necessary to have "Philosophy British English Articles").  But I want to run this idea by the Editorial Council.  In fact, I want to create one unified proposal and get it approved by e-acclamation (so to speak) rather than the full process, if we can.

[Larry Sanger]

Remembered another item for the checklist.  As we were saying earlier: one of the flags could be the rough equivalent to the earlier "dispute watch."  But we must be careful about defining the meaning of the flag.  I'm inclined to think that we should use it always and only when an article is going through a formal dispute resolution process.

[Aleta Curry]

From a user's point of view.  Keep in mind that I have no idea whether these things are easy or difficult to program:

1.  It should work simply.  Instructions for use should be clear.

2.  The instructions for filling out the checklist need to be updated and clarified and more examples added.  e.g.--"abc" =  ?  Okay, G arden.  Fine.  Mcoboy, Stirling.  Fine.  But B otanical garden or Garden, Botanical?  Catalogue of gardens or Gardens, catalogue of?   That sort of thing.

3.  Can Required fields be indicated?

4.  When you depress enter, instead of gobbledigook if you've made keyboarding error, is it possible to get your mistakes highlighted in red, like "you didn't enter a status, genius!"

5.  New fields in checklist:  NAmEnglish, CE.  Maybe a (not required field) space to enter if you're using a subset of these, like Australian or Indian English?  And another optional blank for if specialized language is required, as in a scientific field or animal fancy, e.g.

Delete the cleanup y/n field.

6.  Will the default subpages be every possible subpage under the sun, as in {{subpages9}} (which I couldn't use, Chris--I did give it a go)?  or will the default be like two or three only, and you have to manually add additional ones?  Make it easy to either delete the extras or add in extras.

[Chris Day]

Will the default subpages be every possible subpage under the sun, as in {{subpages9}} (which I couldn't use, Chris--I did give it a go)?  or will the default be like two or three only, and you have to manually add additional ones?  Make it easy to either delete the extras or add in extras.

Didn't you add the subpages to flower, you seemed to do that sucessfully?  I'm not sure what you mean by every possible subpage under the sun with respect to default subpages.  There are only three that are default in subpages9.  Try following the instruction below for adding subpages to a pre-existing page.

• Copy the exact name of the original article.
• Go to "Start article" link in the side bar and create the metadata template page by replacing the ARTICLE NAME in Step 1, clicking the create metadata template button and then paste the article name into the pagename field near the top of the edit window. SAVE.
• Click the TALK tab that links to the Discussion page for the original article. Enter Edit mode. Copy the fields from the checklist. Delete the checklist and add {{subpages9}} to the top of the page. SAVE.
• Click the metadata template link at the bottom of the checklist. Then select the checklist fields from acb to cat3 and paste in the checklist fields that you have Copied into the metadata template. SAVE.
• Click on the "Main Article" link at the top left of the page. Enter Edit mode and add {{subpages9}} to the top of the page.
• Clean up: You can delete all the categories at the bottom of the article. Then SAVE.
• You're done.

[Stephen Ewen]

I just wanted to say many thanks to Jitse for making this script. 

[Derek Harkness]

There are two fields I think we can drop form the existing template:

Cleanup: I went through http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Category:Food_Science_Cleanup and non of them actually need cleaned up. However, I found some outside this category that did need cleaned up. If the field isn't filled in properly, it becomes meaning less. Aside form this, for all the time it takes, we should just go on a clean it up ourselves rather than tag is for someone else to do, or more likely not do.

Catcheck: Many articles have been labeled for the editors to check the categorisation. However, many month on they are still labeled for editors to check. There are 1003 articles marked for Editors to attend to categories. That's a big job for a very small number of people who are busy enough as it is. Are the editors every going to do this or should we abandon this element. Perhaps we should change the wording form 'Editors asked to check categories' to 'Someone please check these categories'. It's also of note that this field seems to have caused some confusion. Many people marked y when they meant n and n when they meant y. This can be seen in categories like http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Category:Food_Science_Category_Check where it is quite obvious to anyone that all of these articles are food articles. I don't need an editor to tell me that. Another example, [[Python programming language]] and [[Linus Torvalds]] are marked for computers workgroup and editor check?  If it's not filled out right, it may as well not be filled out at all.

On a more positive note, there are a couple of fields we should add:

Page type: For check listing disambiguation pages and other non article content in the main namespace.

Cat 4: The checklist was limited to just 3 workgroups, are we going to add spaces for 4th and 5th workgroups or are we in going to technically limit ourselves to 3 workgroups per article.

[Larry Sanger]

Jitse, Chris: please see http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Subpages#A_plan_for_The_Big_Subpagination

[Chris Day]

Jitse, Chris: please see http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Subpages#A_plan_for_The_Big_Subpagination

I added an extra bit that is important. In short, the pagename and abc fields need to be filled.

[Jitse Niesen]

I did a test today. Three articles were converted automatically: Jack Kramer, Jackrat Terrier, Jacksonian Democracy. Have a look at those pages and at [[User:Jitse Niesen/Subpagination]] and see whether I have made any mistakes.

You will find one mistake in the first article (now corrected): I first put the metadata at [[Jack Kramer/Metadata]] instead of [[Template:Jack Kramer/Metadata]]. That seems to be quite a common fault.

[Larry Sanger]

I did a test today. Three articles were converted automatically: Jack Kramer, Jackrat Terrier, Jacksonian Democracy. Have a look at those pages and at [[User:Jitse Niesen/Subpagination]] and see whether I have made any mistakes.

You will find one mistake in the first article (now corrected): I first put the metadata at [[Jack Kramer/Metadata]] instead of [[Template:Jack Kramer/Metadata]]. That seems to be quite a common fault.

Thanks very much for this, Jitse--it seems to be working well.  My comments here: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/User_talk:Jitse_Niesen/Subpagination

[Larry Sanger]

To add to checklist: needs attention from editor

[Jitse Niesen]

I have just let loose the Subpagination Bot. It will slowly go through all the articles and convert all those that used the old {{checklist}} technology to the new and shiny {{subpages}} technology. At this point, it has converted four articles: [[13Q]], [[1 CE]], [[2006]] and [[2007]]. You can view its progress at http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Subpagination_Bot .