Additions to Workgroup template

[Peter Schmitt]

But there is still a (red) link to Definition on the subpages template (between Talk and Related Articles)
if there is no definition (and no link, if there is a definition).

To me who sees red links as an invitation to contribute, that is a feature, not a bug.

I have 2-3 reasons for suspecting a bug:
* The link to the definition is only shown when there is no definition - it vanishes when a definition exists.
* On the talk page it is shown three times that there is no definition: red link, in the template, and by an infobox. An overkill, I think.
* Though I could not swear to it: I am quite sure that this red link started to appear only recently.

To me, all this indicates that the link to the definition is not intended and therefore a bug (even if it might be useful).
(CZ is not so far as TeX that a yet undiscovered bug might become a feature

The subpages template (at least on the main page) is intended for the reader, not for the author.
Therefore I think that red links should rather be avoided.

[Daniel Mietchen]

But there is still a (red) link to Definition on the subpages template (between Talk and Related Articles)
if there is no definition (and no link, if there is a definition).

To me who sees red links as an invitation to contribute, that is a feature, not a bug.

I have 2-3 reasons for suspecting a bug:
* The link to the definition is only shown when there is no definition - it vanishes when a definition exists.
* On the talk page it is shown three times that there is no definition: red link, in the template, and by an infobox. An overkill, I think.
* Though I could not swear to it: I am quite sure that this red link started to appear only recently.

To me, all this indicates that the link to the definition is not intended and therefore a bug (even if it might be useful).
(CZ is not so far as TeX that a yet undiscovered bug might become a feature

The subpages template (at least on the main page) is intended for the reader, not for the author.
Therefore I think that red links should rather be avoided.

Still, as far as I can tell, all three occurences were intended by Chris, which makes them a feature. Whether that's still useful (particularly if we are going to move definitions to the main page), is of course another matter. However, we do allow red links in the text of the main article, and so allowing them in the header would not seem unreasonable to me. But even this may be reconfigured if we go for displaying {{subpages}} at the top and bottom of the main page, as discussed elsewhere.

[Peter Schmitt]

Still, as far as I can tell, all three occurences were intended by Chris, which makes them a feature. Whether that's still useful (particularly if we are going to move definitions to the main page), is of course another matter. However, we do allow red links in the text of the main article, and so allowing them in the header would not seem unreasonable to me. But even this may be reconfigured if we go for displaying {{subpages}} at the top and bottom of the main page, as discussed elsewhere.

So these links were there before?
I had the impression that they were a side effect of your work on the templates.

[Daniel Mietchen]

Still, as far as I can tell, all three occurences were intended by Chris, which makes them a feature. Whether that's still useful (particularly if we are going to move definitions to the main page), is of course another matter. However, we do allow red links in the text of the main article, and so allowing them in the header would not seem unreasonable to me. But even this may be reconfigured if we go for displaying {{subpages}} at the top and bottom of the main page, as discussed elsewhere.

So these links were there before?
I had the impression that they were a side effect of your work on the templates.

I haven't touched them, though I added non-definition subpages to the To Do list.

[Joe Quick]

Still, as far as I can tell, all three occurences were intended by Chris, which makes them a feature. Whether that's still useful (particularly if we are going to move definitions to the main page), is of course another matter. However, we do allow red links in the text of the main article, and so allowing them in the header would not seem unreasonable to me. But even this may be reconfigured if we go for displaying {{subpages}} at the top and bottom of the main page, as discussed elsewhere.

So these links were there before?
I had the impression that they were a side effect of your work on the templates.

The links in the subpages template were there before.  In fact, it was an intentional choice.  The link was meant as a reminder that the definition still needed to be done.  It was set to disappear as soon as the definition is created because it wasn't needed as a reminder any more.

[Daniel Mietchen]

I (and others) did similar things but not exactly this. It would be trivial if we had http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Multi-Category_Search , though, which allows for category intersections.

This certainly would save us a lot of these book-keeping categories.
But even without this tool: Isn't similar to the active/inactive editor task?
Add (instead  change) a category depending on a condition (presence of a phrase, instead of contribution data.

There is an alternative to the Multi-Category Search extension: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:DynamicPageList_%28Wikimedia%29 :
Example:

<DynamicPageList>
category=Africa
category=Politics and conflicts
</DynamicPageList>

This list will output pages that have both the [[Category:Africa]] and [[Category:Politics and conflicts]] listed.

There are also options to sort entries in categories by date, which might be interesting for http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Category:Approved_Articles at CZ:

<DynamicPageList>
category=Approved Articles
ordermethod=addcategory
addfirstcategorydate=true
order=descending
</DynamicPageList>

should give a list of approved articles, sorted by date of approval (which is also listed on the left of each entry).

[Joe Quick]

There are also options to sort entries in categories by date, which might be interesting for http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Category:Approved_Articles at CZ:

<DynamicPageList>
category=Approved Articles
ordermethod=addcategory
addfirstcategorydate=true
order=descending
</DynamicPageList>

should give a list of approved articles, sorted by date of approval (which is also listed on the left of each entry).

That would be great.  I just did that by hand for a project I'm working on.

[Daniel Mietchen]

There are also options to sort entries in categories by date, which might be interesting for http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Category:Approved_Articles at CZ:

<DynamicPageList>
category=Approved Articles
ordermethod=addcategory
addfirstcategorydate=true
order=descending
</DynamicPageList>

should give a list of approved articles, sorted by date of approval (which is also listed on the left of each entry).

That would be great.  I just did that by hand for a project I'm working on.

OK, I am going to test that extension over the weekend in another wiki and report back here then. In the meantime, suggestions for a policy on extensions are welcome via http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:MediaWiki_extension_policy .