Buzzpedia:Moderator's noticeboard

From Buzzpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Bring issues in need of a Moderator's attention here, to the Buzzpedia:Moderator's noticeboard.


Proposed Site Wide Policy Changes

Changing the naming convention of user pages and source summaries so that the pages can be sorted alphabetically easier. Ex: "Sroka" and "Landscape Master Plan - Source Summary" instead of "User: Sroka" and "Source Summary: Landscape Master Plan." Sroka

Just a point of information here, it would be very hard to change the user names in the way Stephen is suggesting above, because the "User:" prefix is attached automatically by the wiki software. There is, however, no reason why the source summaries couldn't be renamed in the way he suggests. Afamiglietti 21:08, 19 October 2010 (EDT)
Oh, and if you rename the user pages manually, as Stephen has with his, you break the user toolbox, which I use to watch your contributions. I guess you could do that, but you'd need to somehow re-create the functions of that toolbox for me so I could evaluate your contributions. Afamiglietti 21:10, 19 October 2010 (EDT)
The user names aren't that big of a deal. Too much trouble if it's going to break things. Sroka
As has been stated, the "User:" handle is a feature/drawback (based on one's opinion) of the Wiki software. I'd just like to add that a benefit of this convention is that if somebody created an account with the same name as an article, the user would be differentiated by the handle.
As for the source summary renaming, I'd prefer a convention like "Landscape Master Plan (Source Summary)". Not a big difference from what @Sroka already suggested, but it's similar to Wikipedia naming conventions. Also, has there been any discourse on keeping source summary pages after the semester is over (provided that others use the site)? Jmaliakal 22:59, 24 October 2010 (EDT)
I think that naming convention may be better suited and may need to be added to the style guide for "Link conventions." Keeping or deleting them has not been discussed. I would think they would be deemed unnecessary since references need to follow MLA or other advocated format. Sroka
I would agree Sroka. I think that the source summaries may need to be deleted. Or maybe moved into a different type of page than a true "page"? I am not sure how that works... JPMorgan 10:20, 25 October 2010 (EDT)
JPMorgan suggested deleting (at the least) the blank source summary pages, which caused me to consider this question - Will existing source summaries be useful during the second half assignment? So we should decide which summaries should be deleted now and which should be kept. Dn3 11:22, 25 October 2010 (EDT)
That is an interesting point. I think they made still be valid as they provide information to people on what is in the archive. It would be interesting to get Dr. Famiglietti's opinion on this. JPMorgan 11:15, 26 October 2010 (EDT)
I would prefer that source summaries not actually be deleted until this weekend. In addition, I would suggest that some of your classmates might find some of the summaries useful, since they have information about archival sources that may not have been referenced in articles yet, but might still be good sources for future articles. I'd try to get broad input from the class on this. Even if some class members find the summaries useful, they need not be kept in their current format. They may be reorganized. I certainly agree that empty and unused pages should be cleaned up. Afamiglietti 08:39, 27 October 2010 (EDT)
Is there a way to change the search bar options? Can we make source summaries and articles show up in different sections? For example, when you search "swimming," you get a lot of Source Summaries and a few articles. Mhotle 19:49, 16 November 2010 (EST)


Technically, the survey on what sort of drafts we want by November 22 is a site-wide policy. It should be decided on by Moderators, as per policy. I am happy to offer my help in evaluating arguments, however. Afamiglietti 15:29, 8 November 2010 (EST)

I propose that we remove names from article drafts in order to make the site look more professional. Some articles include the original author's name and section, while others do not. We need to keep the site uniform. Mhotle 19:27, 17 November 2010 (EST)

I agree and for those who want to keep it all you have to do is move it under the references portion of your article and it will still be there but it won't show up on the page. Sroka 10:17, 19 November 2010 (EST)

Proposed New Committees

There has been discussion of deleting certain pages from Buzzpedia. At the moment, there isn't much the moderators have queued to do, but is it a good idea later on to create a committee that will find articles that need to be deleted for us? AnziD 17:42, 25 October 2010 (EDT)

I think this is a good idea. That committee could also be in charge of renaming articles and adding links to other Buzzpedia articles within articles. The committee would fall under the umbrella of the electronic mode. Mhotle 17:03, 11 November 2010 (EST)
What if we incorporate this as a job for one of the existing committees? Dn3 19:55, 14 November 2010 (EST)
I agree with creating a committee for that job. This will organize Buzzpedia and make users be better informed. jwon32

Pages in Need of Deletion

possibly the first 37 or so of these. They all have no text at all. JPMorgan 22:04, 24 October 2010 (EDT)

Agreed. At the very least, 1-40 should be deleted... The first 39 are essentially empty (w/ #39 being marked for deletion), and #40 is random text. Additionally, a large number of pages beyond this are simply "reserved" pages with only student/section and/or category listed.
Also - does anyone have any ideas for marking pages for deletion? Maybe a "deletion" category can be used so that regular users can add the category (i.e., mark the page for deletion) and then deletions can be performed on a regular interval? Jmaliakal 23:08, 24 October 2010 (EDT)
i like your @Jmaliakal, marking articles for deletion will help the users to get to the articles faster and it will open to everyone so we can discuss it |Silent Protagonist
A "Needs deleting" category is a great idea! Now, a lot of the topic pages that are just topic suggestions are (in my opinion) still useful and pertinent, because they provide a starting point for people wanted to write more articles. JPMorgan 10:18, 25 October 2010 (EDT)
That's true. I think some source summaries may also be useful because they provide good starting points for research once someone has chosen a topic to write on. Dn3 17:03, 25 October 2010 (EDT)
See my comments above. Afamiglietti 08:40, 27 October 2010 (EDT)


Is there a way to create subcategories? For example, Category:Athletic_Buildings is really just a subcategory of the Buildings category... Jmaliakal 23:19, 24 October 2010 (EDT)

As of right now I'm not sure if this is correct, but I think there isn't an official way to put things in a "subcategory." I did however move the link to Athletic Buildings to the Buildings page. So by appearance Athletic Buildings is a subcategory of Buildings now. Sroka
Great idea, thanks for doing that! We should look into sub-categories though.... Wikipedia uses "portals" as well, but I am not sure that is really pertinent with the limited number of articles that we have JPMorgan 10:17, 25 October 2010 (EDT)
Because of Buzzpedia's small size, what do you guys think of creating a directory page of sorts? For example, we could divide the pages that exist into three categories and organize the links from there. Is there a way to check out all the current articles that exist on Buzzpedia? AnziD 17:22, 25 October 2010 (EDT)
Yes, it is quite easy actually. It is under "Special Pages." I think we are trying to go to a sort of directory on the upper right handside of the main page, with the main category links there. We could also make anther proper directory page. Or we could implement it to be a larger part of the main page. JPMorgan 11:14, 26 October 2010 (EDT)
These categories don't include every article on the site though. I would like to see a "Browse Articles" link to all "finished" articles somewhere on the main page. This will make it easier to edit existing articles and see what we're working with. Mhotle 00:32, 3 November 2010 (EDT)
Good Idea! The categories aren't finished either, there need to be a few more (in my opinion) like Traditions, Athletics, etc. JPMorgan 08:33, 3 November 2010 (EDT)

Sandra Is it not possible to put your articles in a specific category anymore?

I've been going through articles and sorting them into categories, and I noticed that some articles are in 4 or 5 categories. People have created categories that only include their article or theirs and another. What do we do about these categories? kzaman3 17:24, 7 November 2010 (EDT)
I think that we need to just have a few larger categories. They need to at least be able to fit 10ish articles in each category at the least, I would say... Other thoughts? JPMorgan 18:27, 7 November 2010 (EST)
I agree. We definitely want a few larger categories rather than many small ones. Also, I posted below some of the subcategory ideas we brainstormed in class last week. Dn3 20:20, 8 November 2010 (EST)
East Campus
West Campus
Residence Halls
Date of Construction
Type of Sport
making subcategories would organize Buzzpedia better but,,, i honestly think that it should be under main category,, articles with so many categories just make themselves messier. jwon32

Suspected Plagiarism

Committee Membership

Hmmm, it seems that too many people signed up for the Buzzpedia:Grammar and Usage Committee and not enough signed up for Buzzpedia:Plagiarism Committee. This needs to be taken care of. Plagiarism detection will be an important job. Afamiglietti 08:42, 27 October 2010 (EDT)

Mr. Famiglietti! If the plagiarism committee finds the article that has stuff that is not original. Should we email you first about it? or should we categorize at their articles that it needs to be fixed? jwon32

GIS Extension

Given the overwhelming support on the vote page, I have installed the GIS extension on our Wiki. This will permit us to use a tag on our Wiki to link to maps via GPS coordinates. For an example, see User:Afamiglietti. For documentation on using the extension see here Afamiglietti 16:34, 13 November 2010 (EST)

  • Thanks for the link! JPMorgan 19:57, 29 November 2010 (EST)

Proposals by Grammar and Usage Committee

Could the moderators please post a suggestion on the main page that would tell people to check their first round article to see if it has a category tag that says "First Round Articles" and if their article does not then they should add one. --Swatts 12:45, 15 November 2010 (EST)

There are duplicate articles on the "First Round Articles" page, for example the CRC and Bobby Dodd are posted multiple times, please revise the list so that each article is listed only once. Thanks --Swatts 12:51, 15 November 2010 (EST)

Thanks for the suggestion. I removed the category tags from the duplicate articles so that there's only one CRC and one Bobby Dodd article. Dn3 12:05, 21 November 2010 (EST)

I just edited an article that needed extensive edits, and two other grammar committee people said they had checked it. We need to have a check system to make sure people are actually making changes to these articles. How can we make this editing process better to make a very professional Buzzpedia? cpowell32 11/17/10 10:02 AM

Could we have them point out their contributions to a specific article? The only problem is that may keep people from editing, so we have to think about that. Dn3 12:05, 21 November 2010 (EST)
I think that's a good idea. I've been stating my changes on the history page, but your idea sounds easier to check for edits. I have come across one article that was very well written and didn't need edits. But, that's only one article. cpowell32 11/21/10 8:52 PM

I've noticed an inconsistency on capitalization of majors and degrees. Since Buzzpedia focuses on academic topics, it's important that we make a specific rule for this. Standard English doesn't capitalize majors (such as electrical engineering) unless it includes a proper noun (English) Mhotle 17:12, 23 November 2010 (EST)

I agree. I can start a vote to change the style guide; however, I don't think many people will vote considering we are on break. Dn3 10:22, 24 November 2010 (EST)
we could talk about this in class and maybe get everyone to change their own article to match what we deem is the correct way. I could definitely see that working. Gautham Kumar


Some of the unused topics are actually used topics with a slightly different title. For example, my article was about the Freshman Cake Race. An unused topic suggestion is Cake Race. Is there a way we can modify these links that are incorrectly placed as unused topics? Hyarosh3 18:35, 15 November 2010 (EST)

In order to track all the First Round Articles you put them all in a category, so I put my two second round articles in a category called Second Round Articles. Let me know what you thinking. Anmarievanwetering 14:40, 18 November 2010 (EST)

Thanks. I will create a link to second round articles on the main page. Dn3 00:22, 24 November 2010 (EST
Most of the second round articles are now under their own category. On the main page you will find that I posted a link titled "Browse Second Round Articles". If you find any other second round articles that do not have that category tag, please add them. Dn3 10:20, 24 November 2010 (EST)

So nothing from anyone yet. I guess I'll let it figure itself out? Anmarievanwetering 15:36, 22 November 2010 (EST)

See above comment. Dn3 10:21, 24 November 2010 (EST)

An Idea

I found this page: which details Stanford University slang, to be an interesting idea. Perhaps we could create a similar page on our wiki, with brief definitions and links to appropriate articles? I just thought I would put this out there as a simple and interesting way for someone to rack up some last minute participation points. Afamiglietti 19:29, 29 November 2010 (EST)

Mr. Famiglietti!! This looks very good! we should adopt this!!! jwon32 Mr. Famiglietti , Very intresting idea!Sandra

Personal tools