Talk:Archive:Watch Rating for Articles: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Louis F. Sander No edit summary |
imported>Stephen Ewen (reply to Lou) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
Possibly have only one category to start, reserved for articles that need special attention because they've been involved in some controversy. See how that works, and as things develop, implement the more detailed scheme. [[User:Louis F. Sander|Louis F. Sander]] 14:31, 5 June 2007 (CDT) | Possibly have only one category to start, reserved for articles that need special attention because they've been involved in some controversy. See how that works, and as things develop, implement the more detailed scheme. [[User:Louis F. Sander|Louis F. Sander]] 14:31, 5 June 2007 (CDT) | ||
:For me, the Low-Watch rating is every bit as important as the other ratings, to allow fair use media to placed into article PRIOR them being nominated for approval. [[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] 15:26, 5 June 2007 (CDT) | |||
Revision as of 14:26, 5 June 2007
I think the watch rating scheme should be developed in full as shown on the article page for this discussion page. But in the early stages, I think it should be implemented in a much-reduced way.
Possibly have only one category to start, reserved for articles that need special attention because they've been involved in some controversy. See how that works, and as things develop, implement the more detailed scheme. Louis F. Sander 14:31, 5 June 2007 (CDT)
- For me, the Low-Watch rating is every bit as important as the other ratings, to allow fair use media to placed into article PRIOR them being nominated for approval. Stephen Ewen 15:26, 5 June 2007 (CDT)