Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Beatles/Assessment/Archive 3
 | This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Individual songs vs longer album articles
Before we start classifying songs articles we will (given that we have to consider whether to merge) need to decide on some notability requirements and/or a general policy. I've just had a look at Please Please Me, and that's a nice example of an inclusive album article, where the songs are listed within the article. Get Back (song) is an extremely good example of doing it the other way. --kingboyk 12:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Why couldn't we do it both ways? I'm in favor of each song having its own article, but why should that stop us from giving quick facts about each song on an album in its own article? It might be worth comparing Let It Be (album) to Let It Be (song). As a side note, why do certain song/album titles redirect to the same name, but with a parthesized type (e.g. Let It Be, Get Back)? —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 03:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Using the "standard" templates in our tables
We have more colors and more article states... but see Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/WPArts for example. I confess to having done nothing at all on this project for some time! Other stuff seemed to get in the way. ++Lar: t/c 03:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Good find! I don't think we need to adapt their scheme, there's is a different purpose - identifying and reviewing a small subset of key articles. It also looks like they review the articles themselves. Furthermore, our gradings are easily convertible to theres. Anyway, I've left a message on the talk page, added us to the arts list, and staked a claim for the Beatles albums. (Maybe we ought to contact the Albums WikiProject and say "this is our turf now"?)
- Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/WPArts#I_have_seen_the_future_for_WVWP.2C_and_it_looks_like_this.21 is relevant to us. Maybe if we included in our classification tables the colour scheme proposed there for article importance it would enable us to more easily prioritise work, and to identify which articles we put forward for Wikipedia 1.0? --kingboyk 03:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- I've incorporated this into the page. See discussion below. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 05:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Article importance grading scheme
OK... if we want to start using these, we need one more "importance" template, which is "unknown". I know i've been talking about the perlcode for ever and planning to get back to it, but if we want to use importance (and we can) the code needs to take that on as well. What column should it go in front of or behind or whatever? ++Lar: t/c 04:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Hey, I was just working on this. You gotta let me complete my thoughts. At any rate, it's there. And I think I've finalized the colors, so check it out. I've added a tag for The Beatles as an example, but the rest of the articles need to be analyzed. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 05:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Do we want it in a seperate cell maybe? (not a rhetorical question). --kingboyk 11:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Definitely as a separate cell I think, as having it in the article link cell makes it overwhelming. Also we may want to change the color of {{/AfD}} a bit because it's almost exactly the same hue. Having it differ (but still in that general area because of the meaning) might be good. I suggest somewhat more in the purple direction from magenta, and darker. I'd change it myself but Gordon has been doing great in this area, my color sense is atrocious. ++Lar: t/c 11:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- I thought about making it a separate cell (simply by using the pre-existing templates), but then I realized that I'd have to go through each and every listing and add it by hand. I assume that this was an auto-generated listed to begin with, so you can feel free to add a separate cell yourself. As for the color of {{/AfD}}, I'll take a look at it. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 02:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oh yeah, this is so much better. Before, the magenta {{/AfD}} was sticking out like a sore thumb. The deeppink {{/AfD}} blends in with the rest of the colors sooooo much better. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 02:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- I thought about making it a separate cell (simply by using the pre-existing templates), but then I realized that I'd have to go through each and every listing and add it by hand. I assume that this was an auto-generated listed to begin with, so you can feel free to add a separate cell yourself. As for the color of {{/AfD}}, I'll take a look at it. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 02:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Definitely as a separate cell I think, as having it in the article link cell makes it overwhelming. Also we may want to change the color of {{/AfD}} a bit because it's almost exactly the same hue. Having it differ (but still in that general area because of the meaning) might be good. I suggest somewhat more in the purple direction from magenta, and darker. I'd change it myself but Gordon has been doing great in this area, my color sense is atrocious. ++Lar: t/c 11:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Do we want it in a seperate cell maybe? (not a rhetorical question). --kingboyk 11:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)