Rosetta Code:Village Pump/Review templates: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
(comment on my experience) |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
For my part what I felt was missing was a "incomplete" or "inelegant" template. Many of the programing tasks have multiple goals to reach, e.g. [[Reversing a string]] and [[Closest pair problem]]. For both of those, since I'm not an expert with R, I picked the low hanging fruit. But each had a slightly more complex goal that was somewhat out of my reach. I knew that if I marked it as being "done", I'd have sold the capacities of R somewhat short. I wanted to be sure that others still knew there was work to be done on that problem. [[User:Russell|Russell]] 23:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC) |
For my part what I felt was missing was a "incomplete" or "inelegant" template. Many of the programing tasks have multiple goals to reach, e.g. [[Reversing a string]] and [[Closest pair problem]]. For both of those, since I'm not an expert with R, I picked the low hanging fruit. But each had a slightly more complex goal that was somewhat out of my reach. I knew that if I marked it as being "done", I'd have sold the capacities of R somewhat short. I wanted to be sure that others still knew there was work to be done on that problem. [[User:Russell|Russell]] 23:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC) |
||
For my examples, I have often just directly written <nowiki>[[Category:E examples needing attention]]</nowiki> (sometimes with a HTML comment) to put it in the category without any bold notice box. I think it would be not a bad idea to have both "incomplete" (does not yet meet task criteria, but is useful to present anyway) and "inelegant" ("does not meet the quality my language's examples ought to have"). The latter, in particular, should be a particularly quiet box -- e.g. no colored backgrond, maybe even smaller text and/or collapsed until clicked. --[[User:Kevin Reid|Kevin Reid]] 00:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 00:54, 28 July 2009
So it looks like we need to review the review templates. Recently a new user (Russell) added a task to a "lang examples needing review" category because the example accomplished the task, but not as well as it could have. I think this is a valid reason for review, but none of the templates really fit. Here are the current templates:
Which should be used for what? Do any need to be removed/changed? Am I crazy? --Mwn3d 23:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
For my part what I felt was missing was a "incomplete" or "inelegant" template. Many of the programing tasks have multiple goals to reach, e.g. Reversing a string and Closest pair problem. For both of those, since I'm not an expert with R, I picked the low hanging fruit. But each had a slightly more complex goal that was somewhat out of my reach. I knew that if I marked it as being "done", I'd have sold the capacities of R somewhat short. I wanted to be sure that others still knew there was work to be done on that problem. Russell 23:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
For my examples, I have often just directly written [[Category:E examples needing attention]] (sometimes with a HTML comment) to put it in the category without any bold notice box. I think it would be not a bad idea to have both "incomplete" (does not yet meet task criteria, but is useful to present anyway) and "inelegant" ("does not meet the quality my language's examples ought to have"). The latter, in particular, should be a particularly quiet box -- e.g. no colored backgrond, maybe even smaller text and/or collapsed until clicked. --Kevin Reid 00:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)