|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | {{Sign1}}
| |
| − | ==Articles to feature in newsletter and carousels==
| |
| − | I'd like to feature some wiki articles in the Hotrodders.com image carousels and weekly newsletter. Suggestions? Needs to be a good article that has been either recently started or recently improved upon significantly, with a really good pic.--[[User:Jon|Jon]] 11:51, 11 March 2012 (MDT)
| |
| − | :Let me give it some thought; I should be able to come up w/a few suggestions within the next day or two.--[[User:Cobalt327|Cobalt327]] 21:28, 11 March 2012 (MDT)
| |
| | | | |
| − | ==Consolidating similar articles==
| |
| − | I've been mulling over how to go about consolidating some articles that have similar titles and contents like on Q-jet carbs and RPO codes to name two.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | I (and others) have gone to linking the various articles to each other but this is a temporary solution at best, IMO. It will take some time to do this right, but in the end it should result in much easier navigation to the subjects.
| |
| − | :How about more categories and subcategories? "Quadrajet carburetors" would make a good category. That would at least hold us over until a full and thorough merge of interrelated topics could be completed--[[User:Jon|Jon]] 12:18, 8 February 2012 (MST)
| |
| − | ::Jon- I've been talking to 'lt1silverhawk' (who I've invited to add his thought here) about doing something along those lines (you may recall he started a page "How to Rebuild a Rochester Quadrajet 4MV Carburetor"). We had discussed, and subsequently discounted, the idea of combining '''all''' the Q-jet info into some huge single "Master Article", the thinking being it would be too unwieldy and cumbersome for someone looking to ID their carb or do a simple rebuild, etc. I have almost 1 GB of "raw" Word docs on Q-jet carbs (72 folders and 906 files) and another 5.5 MB in jpg images that I'd like to eventually have available here after it's been edited.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ::Now when you say to make "Quadrajet carburetors" a category, would that be like "Engine" or "Transmission"? Let me know if I've misunderstood this.--[[user:Cobalt327|Cobalt327]] 8 February 2012
| |
| − | :::Yes, that's correct, make it a category like "Engine" or "Transmission". Agreed on avoiding a huge unwieldy page. One strategy is to do a "Master Article" that links out to the sub-articles. For example, check out [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy the Wikipedia article on "Energy"]. Many of the article sections have headers like: "Main article: Conservation of Energy", etc., that lead the reader to other full articles.--[[User:Jon|Jon]] 14:33, 8 February 2012 (MST)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ::::Hello Jon and cobalt. Thank you for inviting me to this discussion. As cobalt mentioned, he has been in touch with me and we have talked about the various ways of taking many articles on similar subjects and merge them into a few detailed articles. I did take a thorough look at the ''"Energy"'' article you linked. If I understand correctly, you wish to see one master article that that branches out to several main articles, all on one page. Is that correct?
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ::::I believe the best approach is to have a master article on one page that covers every related topic in a general manner, and to have the specifics covered on other pages and linked to the master article. From my perspective, both as a user and an editor, few inter-related articles are not as overwhelming as an all-in-one. Chances are that if someone is looking for procedures on something, he or she is not going to want to skim through everything else first.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ::::For example, sticking with the Quadrajet, the page titled ''"Quadrajet"'' can cover every thing related to the carburetor in a general sense: history, variations, applications, pros and cons, significance, etc. More specific sub-topics that require detailed explanations can be given their own pages: how to rebuild specific versions (2bbl, 4bbl), identification, tuning. Also, anything that can be covered in a general sense should be spared a specific page. For example, if someone decides to do a page on cleaning carburetors, there is no need to cover it again in any other page.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ::::I look forward to reading any thoughts you guys may have. - --[[User:LT1Silverhawk|LT1Silverhawk]] 20:17, 9 February 2012 (MST)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :::::Agreed on all counts.--[[User:Jon|Jon]] 20:28, 9 February 2012 (MST)
| |
| − | ==Q-jet categories==
| |
| − | Cobalt, there are now two category pages for the Quadrajet carburetors. The original is titled "Quadrajet", and the one you created is titled "Quadrajet carburetors". We will have to decide which one to stick with.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | My opinion is that we use "Quadrajet" category, as it has been is use for some time. The other can be used to create a fresh master article on the Quadrajet carburetors,. Once its ready, the contents can then be transferred over to the original article on Quadrajets: [[Quadrajet]]. What are your thoughts on this? Thanks. --[[User:LT1Silverhawk|LT1Silverhawk]] 15:14, 15 February 2012 (MST)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :I like it.--[[User:Cobalt327|Cobalt327]] 18:08, 15 February 2012 (MST)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ==Cleanup and deletions==
| |
| − | Just wanted to catch up on recent deletions. Most are junk and it's nice to see them eliminated. What's your position on the 'stub' articles -- basic frameworks like [[Ignition]], etc. Do you think they encourage future additions? Make the wiki look sloppy overall?--[[User:Jon|Jon]] 21:57, 9 June 2012 (MDT)
| |
| − | :I believe preexisting stubs that contain no information- if placed in the main Article categories- don't encourage contributions. Instead I believe the Article categories should contain only articles (or stubs) containing at least ''some'' information, the more the better. However, bare-bones stubs could be kept in the Undeveloped articles category so they don't disappoint someone doing a search for info.
| |
| − | :But that said, I am open to ANY tactic that would generate interest. Some options:
| |
| − | *compiling some basic framework stubs and submitting them individually into the 'active' article Categories (i.e. adding the stubs to the Brakes, Cooling, etc., categories, I could add some basic info as a start)
| |
| − | *adding the framework stubs to the Undeveloped articles
| |
| − | *adding the stubs as a category unto itself (like "Articles needed"), to the categories TOC (along with Brakes, Cooling, etc.)
| |
| − | *adding the Undeveloped articles page to the 'active' categories TOC
| |
| − | :By the way, I added a link to the Undeveloped articles on the Start a new article page.--[[User:Cobalt327|Cobalt327]] 06:16, 19 June 2012 (MDT)
| |
| − | ::Agreed that preexisting stubs with no information don't encourage contributions. They may even '''dis'''courage contributions, because they make the wiki look like it has no content. Agreed on keeping stubs with some information, but keeping them out of the main categories. In looking at your recommendations above, I think one of the best options might be to add an "Undeveloped" sub-category to each of the main categories.--[[User:Jon|Jon]] 11:59, 19 June 2012 (MDT)
| |
| − | :::Re "add an "Undeveloped" sub-category": Sweet; better visibility while at the same time keeping the stubs separate from the active articles. So, I'm thinking the sub-categories would be taken from the Undeveloped articles as well as any obvious subjects that may be missing, while leaving the Undeveloped articles page intact so the links to it will stay valid? --[[User:Cobalt327|Cobalt327]] 13:56, 19 June 2012 (MDT)
| |
| − | ::::Yes, that's what I had in mind. Something like "Undeveloped engine articles" as a subcat of Engine. Or "Undeveloped", or whatever looks correct on the category pages, and sticks out. Another option is to '''not''' make it a subcat, so it doesn't appear in the alphabetized subcategory list, and instead link to the Undeveloped category in each category description. Etc. Whatever looks and feels correct, and I'm sure we'll adjust and tweak it over time anyway. As long as we start moving away from just lumping in the undeveloped articles with the good ones.--[[User:Jon|Jon]] 14:13, 19 June 2012 (MDT)
| |
Your Privacy Choices