Talk:Herodotus: Difference between revisions
imported>Pat Palmer (added article checklist and TOC) |
imported>Pat Palmer (revising article checklist) |
||
Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
| cat_check = y | | cat_check = y | ||
| status = 2 | | status = 2 | ||
| underlinked = | | underlinked = n | ||
| cleanup = | | cleanup = y | ||
| by = [[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] 13:46, 23 April 2007 (CDT) | | by = [[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] 13:46, 23 April 2007 (CDT) | ||
}} | }} |
Revision as of 12:49, 23 April 2007
Workgroup category or categories | History Workgroup [Editors asked to check categories] |
Article status | Developing article: beyond a stub, but incomplete |
Underlinked article? | No |
Basic cleanup done? | Yes |
Checklist last edited by | Pat Palmer 13:46, 23 April 2007 (CDT) |
To learn how to fill out this checklist, please see CZ:The Article Checklist.
Cleanup
This page needs some definite cleanup in the way of removing unnecessary "Template:" tags. I'll try to get around to that in the next day or so. In addition, can we squash the "earlier version" note at the end of this article? While I appreciate James Allan Evans' contributions, having a note like that, especially with characters that refuse to render except as ?s, seems rather unprofessional to me. Unless someone thinks we should keep it, I'll probably remove that note in the next couple days, as well. -Jonas Wisser 02:03, 10 February 2007 (CST)
Please don't; we should credit the original source of the article. I don't know what you are referring to with regard to the ?s. --Larry Sanger 17:38, 24 February 2007 (CST)
- Never mind; someone removed the bit I was talking about without removing the attribution; an elegant solution if ever there was one. --jwisser 12:41, 28 February 2007 (CST)
"Top" Categories
What are these, and why remove a non-top category in favor of its "top" sibling? -jwisser 17:34, 24 February 2007 (CST)
- While I was removing the interwiki links, I also removed the non-top category on Herodotus because that seemed to be the practice that I have seen elsewhere, namely, to put the article in either Top or non-top but not both. Now that it has been brought to my attention, it does seem more logical to put Top articles in both. And now it appears there will be some changes in WG cats overall.
- I'm going to be working on the Classics WG home page in the next few days. Care to help? James F. Perry 20:42, 24 February 2007 (CST)
You can ignore them for now. I think we're going to scrap them--I haven't heard any objections to the suggestion that we do so (on the Forums). Just use the non-top category. --Larry Sanger 17:37, 24 February 2007 (CST)
- History Category Check
- General Category Check
- Category Check
- Advanced Articles
- Nonstub Articles
- Internal Articles
- History Advanced Articles
- History Nonstub Articles
- History Internal Articles
- Developed Articles
- History Developed Articles
- Developing Articles
- History Developing Articles
- Stub Articles
- History Stub Articles
- External Articles
- History External Articles
- History Underlinked Articles
- Underlinked Articles
- History Cleanup
- General Cleanup
- Cleanup