Template talk:PotM

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search

Note[edit]

The OVERFLOW is an indication that for PotM that the project transclusion(s) are completed, and a select list of texts for validation have been included. See Wikisource:Proofread of the Month/notice for further information. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Intention[edit]

At the moment, the PotM is amended each month at Template:PotM and Template:Collaboration, it is my intention to amend the construction so that only one file needs to be amended to transclude the data, and the changes will reflect in this template. Also it will probably be the case that OVERFLOW situations (as above) will be managed by the same process. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Past months has always been Index: link[edit]

… and I have never seen a reason to change it. Always nice to show the people behind the scenes if they are comparing current and last. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh! the current one links to an index too. I can see why that might be, it is targeting contributors. Seeing proofread or validated indexes is delightful to us, but the works would have broader interest. I noticed this when I was trying to fix something on the main page, surely we want to link the main-space results there at least. Newer users (and any visitors with unified login) also get these links, they would be more interested in the results of previous PotM. Cygnis insignis (talk) 06:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
/me does the hand action that sort of looks like a balancing act. I understand what you are saying about main namespace, and in general I agree with you. That said this is an example of the Index:/Page:namespace at work, and it distinctly highlights the work that we are doing and what it looks like in the wild. In this specific case I like the linking through to the back-end. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Would you leave the pipe out? Cygnis insignis (talk) 12:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
That is an idea, though would we do it to both titles? To this point, I have just continued the style, and haven't dug into its evolution. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)