Template talk:GOCE-ab

Grace period

I don't know how complicated it might be, but a way to make the time period shorter/longer might help.

Defaulting at 7 days seems fine, but for urgent requests a shorter, or for relaxed editing a longer period, might be more appropriate? Chaosdruid (talk) 22:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Chaosdruid; the "seven days" is "hardwired" in the template's text at the moment, but we could use the "2 = " parameter (the same way the date/time is inserted) to alter the period if necessary. The seven-day period is based on the conversation here. The intention isn't to impose a seven-day period in which a c/e must be completed; it's meant to be used when the copy-editor hasn't edited the article after seven days of his/her acceptance of a request, or when c/es stop without explanation. The idea is that we don't keep old, apparently abandoned requests on the page for a long time. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 10:35, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking of difficulties to do with urgent edits, for example an FA that has been stagnant and needs to be done asap, and preferably in 7 days, where the article is very large and may take a couple of days to do a ce. I thought that we could perhaps have an option to give say four days notice, especially if it has been open a long time, started, and not touched for a while. I know that may be an issue if an editor is only around every weekend for example. I also notice that the conversation mentions "has not started", but I was thinking more of "has not finished". We did used to just put a message on the req page, but it always was a problem as it "washes our linen in public" so to speak. Chaosdruid (talk) 23:07, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Surely no edit (apart for vandalism reverting etc) is urgent enough that it can't wait seven days. Please understand the purpose of this template; it's not here to chivvy editors along for the benefit of reviewers et al. I think "seven days" is a suitable period; no copy-edit is that urgent that it can't wait a week, and re-opening a request doesn't mean it will be completed any more quickly. Perhaps you might ask my fellow coordinators about this on the requests page talk page. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 06:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

No that's fine, I was just making a suggestion. Though I am confused as to why your fellow coordinators should be consulted rather than all GOCE members, as I thought a coordinator was simply a position to house-keep rather than be "someone in charge" - that is at least how I saw it when I was one. I also thought this page was still in a user-space sandbox - or at least that was what I believe was stated when I clicked the link - apologies, I would not have gone into discussion here if I had realised it was already in mainspace. Chaosdruid (talk) 03:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

No worries sorry I was a little bitey there. It's just that the coordinators tend to be active and more likely to respond to discussions there, and probably aren't watching this page. I don't mind anyone discussing the template (or anything else for that matter) there. Anyway do feel free to discuss things on one of the project's talk pages; I (or anyone else) can modify the template if needed. And there's nothing to stop anyone asking respondents about the requests they accept; the template is just to reduce typing and save time. I'm just trying to make things easier for myself and whoever's looking after the requests page in the future. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 06:56, 27 November 2013 (UTC)