Modification to proposal style to allow better use of whatis template

Jump to: navigation, search

So, I made this template to address the issue of including users in the discussion that are newer to wiki terms and syntax. However, because of the style in which I made the new proposal organisation means I cannot use the template within the main guideline phrase, where it would be most useful.

I think I'd like to adjust that style a bit with the guideline specifics remaining in the header, except the main phrase is bolded at the top, and the Mytitle template is only used to shorten the title of the sub-subpage.

It would look a bit like this.

With details.

And examples:

  • like so

Then approvals[edit]

Any complaints against me doing so?

Jesse Groppi (talk)11:18, 24 July 2009

This works for me. I'm interested to see how it all works.

I'm quite new to all of this, and took a few minutes earlier to try out approval and discussion on some of the proposed guidelines. The layout is simple and very understandable -- well done. I did notice that I particularly enjoyed and benefited from reading your quick rationales in the discussion section -- my wiki concept map is more detailed than before. I wonder if a rational should be added to the main section of the guideline template. Or will the discussion be easily accessible from the main guideline page? I think later newcomers might be similarly interested. Just some thoughts. --Alison Snieckus 01:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

ASnieckus (talk)13:28, 25 July 2009


The proposals are created using an inputbox that fills the new page with the content at Help:Guideline proposal. So, when someone suggests a new guideline, the inserted content explains that a rationale should be included first thing in the discussion section. Does that fulfill your concern on it?

Discussion is accessible from the central style guide within two clicks of a mouse. In the guide is the same navigation template found in the workgroup charter, the proposal pages, and the talk pages.

Jesse Groppi (talk)12:56, 28 July 2009

Jesse, Thanks for explaining this a bit more. The help page is very clear and concise. Now I see why you posted a rationale as the first point under discussion. Just want to say (again) that I like the rationales.

I don't really have a concern, just thinking that new members looking to use the finalized style guide could well benefit from reading a guideline's rationale (as I have) and they may not know to go looking for them. I'd vote for keeping them on the guideline page in the final document (if there was a way to do so without cluttering things up). Just a thought.

ASnieckus (talk)11:25, 29 July 2009

I don't see why there shouldn't be a rationale on the final guide, but you're right that it may bog things down. We shall just have to experiment with it when the time comes to determine how the guide will be formatted.

Jesse Groppi (talk)13:00, 29 July 2009

I'm going to go ahead and make the changes since I haven't heard any complaints after a week. :)

Jesse Groppi (talk)12:59, 28 July 2009

In response to a concern about the readability of our proposals, I designed this table to display them in a more understandable fashion. You can see the implementation at User:Jesse Groppi/sandbox01. Any comments?

I've also designed an easy template to list the proposed guidelines, which you can see implemented at the sandbox I linked above. The code is at User:Jesse Groppi/dev04.

Jesse Groppi (talk)07:43, 30 July 2009

As I've said elsewhere, I like the table. In addition to improved clarity, I like that we are expected to include examples.

One thought, I think the additional points on the guidelines that have been proposed so far aren't really 'description' of the guideline. In my mind they're more exceptions, limitations, additional situations.... Is there a word other than 'description' that would better fit the collection of possible additional points?

ASnieckus (talk)12:47, 30 July 2009

What about "additional information"?

Jesse Groppi (talk)15:12, 30 July 2009

Yes, "Additional Information" is better suited to the contents than "Description". I agree.

ASnieckus (talk)02:08, 31 July 2009