User talk:VAwebteam/To do list

This is an archive of an earlier version of the User page ... I have removed all of the article:link pairs and comments and left just the section headers for reference. —72.75.70.147 02:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

---

---

Created as a courtesy for VAwebteam (talk · contribs)

These are the articles that had External Links (ELs) added by VAwebteam, but they were reverted by Some Other Editor because they were thought to be a violation of WP:COI ... since there were supposedly "around 40" of them, I've dubbed it the Top 40 list.

We need to check the edit history of each article to find the deleted URL, add it here to create an article:link pair, and then for each proposed pair decide:

1. Is it appropriate to add, or is it too off-topic?
2. Should it be used as a citation, or just added to the EL list?
3. If no place already exists to hang a citation, should something be added for which it can be cited?

---

Well, I've had some distractions (like the housekeeping from having my IP address change again), and haven't been able to devote as much time to this over the weekend as I had planned, but I'll try to complete the second half of the list by the time you see this ... BTW, I note that User:Johnbod (talk · contribs) has already taken care of a few of them in the first half, so I feel validated that doing it this way was a Good Idea, and maybe some of the others will drop in with their tuppence, or 2¢ worth, as we say on this side of the pond. :-) —72.75.70.147 (talk · contribs) 23:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's an update on what I've done in the past 36 hours:

1. I have extracted and moved the "completed" pairs to the end of this page in a section titled #Reviewed article:link proposals … the ones that do not require any further attention are marked with a "†" character, i.e., at least two editors besides VAwebteam have agreed that it is OK to add a that V&A link to the article, and the appropriate kind of inclusion has been implemented using a {{cite web}}.
2. I have completed adding the reverted links to the pairs in the second half of the Top 40 list in the section titled #Final group, but I have not examined any of them except a few things I noticed while recovering the URLs.
3. I will come back later and do the same URL recovery for the remainder of the first half of the list in the section titled #Still TBD @ 09:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC) #Reviewed article:link proposals, again working from the bottom up so as not to edit conflict with anyone else.

That's all I plan to do until VAwebteam pings me again … their plans to work here yesterday morning got derailed (like everyone else's, including mine) by Wikipedia's MSDG (Moby Server Delay Glitch :-) —72.75.70.147 14:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

---

Assignment for VAwebteam

Go through the rest of this list of articles, find the deleted link and add it it here along with the associated article, make a new subsection heading, look at both and add a comment/conclusion.

Ping me when this is done and I'll review it ...

There are 13 more in this batch @ 17:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC) ... I have a larger list (did someone say they reverted 40 contributions?) and still haven't collected all of the reverts yet ... my assignment is to keep adding reverts to the end of the list until we've found them all, and to review VAwebteam's comments/conclusions.

By the time we've finished with this Top 40 batch, VAwebteam will be able to take an article:link pair as a "proposed addition" (selected by whatever criteria was used to decide "let's add this link to this article) and decide what to do.

How I did it ...

1. For each article, I hit the History link
2. On the edit history page, find the edit that says something like "removed link per WP:COI; see WP:COIN#Victoria and Albert Museum"
3. Select appropriate versions and then click the Compare selected versions button
4. The column on the left shows what was deleted in yellow; select that text, copy & paste it below the article link (with a "*" in the first column), and you have a article:link pair
5. Put ---- on the line below that to separate the new pair
6. Use the article name to make a new section header, replacing the ---- in the line above it

The point is, on this pass, don't even attempt to look at the article or to follow the link ... this is the "collect article:link pairs" pass ... when you finish these 13 the Initial group (when you hit the section header "New articles added ..." "Final group/half"), then go back and examine article:link pairs and add comments as the second pass.

Ping me when you're done with those ... by the time you complete it, I will have added more articles, so I'll place a "New articles added ..." break at the point where I am then, and you can make the two passes on the new section while I continue to add more. I've finish creating the article:link pairs for the Final half of the Top 40 list (the bulk of the first pass grunt work, missing only the section headers), and given your part-time schedule for this project, may even complete the first pass work on the Initial half of the list before you can really get started on the examine/comment pass.

The point is that based on what's been done with the ones in the Reviewed article:link proposals section as examples, VAwebteam needs to make the second path through the Initial half, and then the rest of us can review and comment ... the the second pass on the Final half should then proceed much more smoothly.

Here are three examples of what a proposed article:link pair should look like when the first pass is completed:

Initial group/half

I see that Johnbod did some restores as just ELs, and made comments on others … I gave each one flagged as "fine I readded" only a cursory look, and in nearly every case it was an addition to an existing External links section that included similar links … in most cases they are a link to a page within an "exhibition site" with its own navigation menu for related pages, and that being the case, I merely edited the EL to use this {{cite web}} boilerplate:

{{cite web 
 |publisher= [[Victoria and Albert Museum]]
 |url= http://www.vam.ac.uk/ … /filename.html
 |title= copied from <TITLE> in HTML source file
 |work= [optional - name of "collection/" root page for site]
 |accessdate= 2007-06-07 
 }}

Personally, I try to do as little "editorializing" as possible when it comes to titles, so sometimes it includes the name of the exhibition, and in others it's just the name of the page without mention of the parent site … if included, I always omit "from the Victoria & Albert Museum" as part of the title since it's already displayed (and wikilinked, which it couldn't be if it were part of the title) courtesy of the |publisher= field.

If the page is part of the www.vam.ac.uk/collection/ subdirectory structure, then supply the title from the appropriate parent site's root page.

Stylistically, I have no preference, but I believe in consistency within an External links section, so if most of the links have ancillary descriptions, I'll try to compose one for those that just have the linked title, whereas if "title only" predominates a particular list, then I remove the descriptions from the minority links … do it either way, but do it the same way for all members.

I'll come back later and move these into sections of their own, and I'll lump them into a Completed Reviewed article:link proposals section at the end (already done @ 14:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)), along the the ones I left above as examples of what we should do by way of evaluation. —72.75.70.147 10:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

---

Celia Birtwell

… discontinuity in (reverse) chronological sequence caused while initially creating the list

… the articles in this range have already been addressed in other sections

William Morris

End of "initial list" started @ 17:53, 1 June 2007

Initial group half pairings complete, comments to follow - hope I'm doing this right! VAwebteam 15:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Final group/half

This portion of the Top 40 list (2nd page of User Contributions) covers Special:Contributions/VAwebteam for the period 12:45, 7 May 2007 to 12:22, 15 May 2007 (in reverse chronological order.)

I have added the reverted links to each article (without actually looking at any of them) … now each article:link has to be investigated and then evaluated as to appropriateness/disposition. —72.75.70.147 12:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

---

Discovery of a use for the |work= field (while recovering the EL for #Cristobal Balenciaga ‡) has left a New Question; as an example, the full URL is

http://www.vam.ac.uk/collections/fashion/1960s/fashion_designers/balenciaga/

Each subdirectory's home page is essentially a directory for its immediate children, so I have to ask, "This page is a leaf of a very large tree (nested as follows), so which parent branch should be used to to supply a value for the |work= field?"

• "V&A Home".

• "Collections".

• "Fashion, Jewellery & Accessories".

• "1960s Fashion and Textiles".

• "1960s Fashion Designers".

• "Cristóbal Balenciaga".

When I made the cleanup, I used the immediate parent, "1960s Fashion Designers", but upon further reflection, "Fashion, Jewellery & Accessories" might have been more appropriate, based upon the fact that most of the proposed links have the "Collections" directory in common, which would make its child a logical choice ... this is the kind of decision that will have to be made into a guideline for future use before I can recommend the use of this field, and for now we should consider "whichever directory is immediately under www.vam.ac.uk/collections/", so I'm going to go back and change it. —72.75.70.147 23:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Based on the above, I think I should go back to the articles in the #Reviewed article:link proposals section and add |work= fields that contain the name of the page directly under the collections/ directory, if that is where they are located … if they are under vastatic/, then there is nothing to add … on second thought, I'll just do the ones that have not been reintegrated yet, and the ones still to be collected, until there's some kind of consensus … I'll add the field to the boilerplate in #Initial group/half. —72.75.70.147 07:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

---

Reviewed article:link proposals

These are the article:link entries that have been reviewed, but only some of them (with "†") have actually undergone the suggested revisions … as this section grows, it will need to be better organized, probably alphabetically, certainly into Resolved and Pending sections, but for now they are just in the order that they were addressed. —72.75.70.147 20:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)