On Wed, 2011-11-30 at 13:32 -0500, Shaun McCance wrote: > On Tue, 2011-11-29 at 09:54 -0500, Daniel Bartholomew wrote: > > I'm fine with the idea of stubs, as long as they don't get lost or > > forgotten about. They are a good way to encourage participation and > > plot a course for what to add to the KB next. > > > > To keep track of them, we could add a checkbox to the edit page to mark > > whether or not a page is considered a stub, and then have a special > > page that lists all stubs. > > Instead of a boolean flag for stubs, how about an enum field for status? > Stubs would be one status. This could help you keep track of which pages > you've thoroughly reviewed, for example.
(Just throwing ideas in the ring. Take them or leave them.) Another option would be to have a stub macro, like this: <<stub>> This article is a stub. [[contribute|Help us write it.]] <</stub>> I don't know the internals of the KB. If it parses pages when they're saved, it could store a stub count per-page, and generate a report of all pages with a stub count > 0. Pros: * It encourages people to write a blurb telling users the page is a stub, and what they can do to help. * It can be used to stub sections in a page, which I think is useful sometimes. Just do this: == SSL Options <<stub>> This section is a stub. [[contribute|Help us write it.]] <</stub>> This would be picked up by a save-time stub counter as well. -- Shaun _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~maria-docs Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~maria-docs More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
