# Help talk:Guideline proposal

Jump to: navigation, search

## Contents

Thread titleRepliesLast modified
Suggested re-ordering and additions401:59, 1 October 2009
Suggested name clarification203:45, 31 August 2009
What's up with this page?402:00, 21 July 2009
Linking back to /Proposed guidelines503:15, 20 July 2009

## Suggested re-ordering and additions

The style guideline approval process starts with discussion and then moves to voting where the choices are Approval, Conditional, Disapproval. After reading the process, I had these thoughts on changes to this guideline template:

• Putting the Discussion section directly after the table, might help people see that discussion comes first before voting.
• A field indicating the opening date for voting might also help people with when to start voting.
• Suggest adding a section for "Conditional" votes to the voting options, to include instruction for where to put conditions (i.e., specified changes).

I thought about just going in and making these changes, but wanted to discuss first given the proposed guidelines already in place.

07:17, 22 September 2009

Great thoughts, Alison. I also had been thinking about this, but decided to sit on it until we got around to having a more official policy. See my table idea at my dev page. The idea is that whilst a guideline is in discussion, only the orange table is shown, with the date voting would open in the header. When voting opens, a facilitator or suggester changes the section to the three voting areas. I think this would be easier and less error prone than cutting and pasting as the proposal goes through the stages. What do you think?

02:07, 30 September 2009

I was waiting to make the suggestions also. I figured you already had something in the works. The Council didn't have time at their meeting earlier this month to review the policy for approval. Their notes indicate that they will do so by special meeting. Hopefully that will be soon.

The colored tables will work well. Look forward to trying out the signature templates. I like the difference in shading btwn the title and rows, but I think they're generally too dark. The colored links don't display well in some spots. I suggest using lighter shades but keeping the difference in shading. Just my opinion.

12:37, 30 September 2009

Yeah, I don't like the darkness, either. Atm it doesn't fit with the "energy level" of the colours already in use. I was mostly just experimenting with Inkscape as a method of choosing which colours to pair together. When it's time to adjust the template for the approved policy, I'll choose new ones.

Also, do you think there's a reason the templates would be too complicated?

15:06, 30 September 2009

I'm not very experienced with this kind of process in a wiki, so I don't have a sense of what's too complicated. I use and help teens implement google forms for collecting opinions and votes from a small group. We use it quite successfully. I guess the key is that the user interface is simple.

01:59, 1 October 2009

## Suggested name clarification

Should this page be called "Help:Style guideline proposal"?

Adding "Style" as a qualifier might help the issue of understanding what the page is all about. I think guideline is too broad to use without qualifying. It might also be useful to add some info about why the page exists and links to other relevant pages in the talk page header.

Just some thoughts.

BTW, I like the new template -- concise, yet very informative.

14:00, 25 August 2009

I had considered that when creating the page. In the end I thought it was possible this boilerplate could eventually be used for guidelines other than style, and so I left the word out for the sake of universality. Do you think there is a part of this boilerplate that is specific to style? I know Style guidelines are our only current working policy for guidelines atm, but I expect that if the policy works well, it could be used in the future for a broader spectrum of guidelines, and thus the boilerplate would be handy elsewhere.

08:30, 27 August 2009

I hadn't thought about this option. You're right, there's nothing specific to style statements in the template. Good idea to leave it general. Thanks for explaining.

03:45, 31 August 2009

## What's up with this page?

This page is used as preload content for articles created by the inputbox at WikiEducator:Style guide/Proposed guidelines. Because of the nature of the preload, there are no instructions in the content page, and there are no <noinclude> or other tags of the sort. Unfortunately the page needs to remain that way until inputbox allows for the inclusion tags to work.

DO NOT delete this page without specifying a new preload page for the inputbox, or otherwise making sure this page is no longer needed.

14:53, 17 July 2009

Have you tried the preload page as a template? I seem to remember using templates for the preload and editintros but will need to look into <noinclude> working or not.

03:23, 20 July 2009

According to the extension documentation, there is no fix for the inclusion tags, yet, unless I read that wrong. I put it in the Help namespace because that's where I'm used to putting documents like boilerplates, the contents of which are copied, rather than transcluded. I think putting them there helps differentiate it from regular templates, where changes are easily reverted across the entire wiki with just one edit. But, if a preload page or a boilerplate gets edited, all the pages using that preload or boilerplate need to be edited by hand to reflect the changes. However, I didn't actually try to verify a precedence, I just put it where I thought it would be logical. If WE would rather have it in the Template namespace, it's no problem to move. ;)

15:17, 20 July 2009

Using Help:PageName seems logical to me. Using a template does not work either --anymore? -- as per your link. I must be getting old. Sorry to send you on a wild goose chase.

18:29, 20 July 2009

I don't think the bug has to do with what namespace it's in, rather it's about how the code for the extension works. I find that a little strange since {{subst:}} uses inclusion tags just fine.

02:00, 21 July 2009

## Linking back to /Proposed guidelines

I'm not a fan of using the prev template here, so I was thinking there are two other options... there's Template:Up or we could make a navigation template (preferably for the bottom of the page)?

02:01, 18 July 2009

A nav template with the other guidelines under discussion would be my preference. And yes at the bottom so as not to be to distracting.

07:21, 18 July 2009

I completely agree. We need a to-do list!

14:29, 18 July 2009

I have added a draft version of a nav template to the page. It starts in the collapsed state so only the link to the Proposed guidelines page is visible. I slightly favor having it collapsed so it is less obtrusive but would be fine with it the other way. In addition, I added a link up to the Style guide. It could go below the links to the proposed guidelines -- no real preference for me.

The Add new guideline link just goes to the Proposed guidelines page and is there to make it slightly easier for someone to edit the navigation bar in the future. It does not need to stay if you think it is confusing.

To Do:

1. A nav template for Wikieducator:Style guide/Proposed guidelines??
2. Settle on the navigation for WikiEducator:Style_guide/Proposed_guidelines
1. Update current under discussion subpages
2. Add more proposed guideline subpages
3. Update Guideline proposal nav template
18:45, 18 July 2009

The nav template is marvelous! Great job! I agree it should stay collapsed, and I like that it just links to the proposed guidelines page, rather than having an input box.

02:49, 19 July 2009

Thanks. Subpages are enabled now so I changed the page to use SUBPAGENAME in the category. I have updated the three proposed guideline pages with subpagename and the nav bar. Looking good.

03:15, 20 July 2009