Rosetta Code:Village Pump/Review templates

From Rosetta Code
Review templates
This is a particular discussion thread among many which consider Rosetta Code.


"Needs review" templates


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)

I think we tried reasonably hard to get the collapsible text boxes and it didn't go so well. Anyone is welcome to try again though. The second of your ideas is definitely useful. The first one might be too but I can't think of where. Wouldn't be so bad to have it lying around. Does any one of those three look like it can be removed? --Mwn3d 01:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I think that as stated, it may be a good idea; but it could be open to abuse - i.e. writing the barest of attempts at too small a part of a problem. People need to know that it if the task is written as a series of sub-tasks then it might be good to use the templates if an entry attempts most of the sub-tasks; but it might be best to not have an entry at all if you are attempting only a few subtasks?

Their is also the case of what happens if an entry has the template on for "a considerable time" and clearly does not complete the task or a significant part of the task? Maybe we should also have a "completion needed" flag so someone could mark an entry for completion or deletion after a reasonable period? I guess I would not like to see RC filled with mere place-holder entries, (that is not the case at present). Just my thoughts --Paddy3118 03:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

expand the template

Could the   needs-review   template to be expanded to include a reason (explanation), much like the   incorrect   template has?   That would make it much more usefull instead of just stating it   may be incorrect due to a recent change in the task requirements ∙∙∙.  

Adding an   explanation of the problem   thingy to the template would really help in elaborating the why and whyfor of the flagging. -- Gerard Schildberger (talk) 14:44, 18 March 2014 (UTC)