Forum:DWM issues: please help (re)write leads: Difference between revisions
([url=http://www.standardwords.com]asme code download[/url]) |
m (Reverted edits by 222.12.151.233 (talk | block) to last version by Mini-mitch) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Forumheader|Panopticon}} | |||
<!-- Please put your content under this line. Be sure to sign your edits with four tildes ~~~~ -->[[Category:Panopticon stickies]] | |||
There are a lot of different ranges that need help, but I'd like to shine a light on [[:category:DWM issues|DWM issues]]. I thought that maybe having awards in the [[Game of Rassilon]] for this range might help, but we're making only marginal improvements. So let me nudge your attention back in the direction of our favourite magazine. | |||
The big thing that needs to be done across the board is that '''issues need to have a proper and accurate lead'''. Many articles have gotten a lead in the past six months, but most of these new leads are just one sentence long, and they're misleading or just plain wrong. This is mostly because most editors don't really understand how the DWM cover dating system works. | |||
For instance, the current lead to [[DWM 165]] says this: | |||
:The '''165th issue''' of ''[[Doctor Who Magazine]]'' was published in [[October]] [[1990]]. | |||
This is false. The cover date is [[3 October]] [[1990]]. That means that 3 October 1990 was '''the last date on which it was current'''. It was in fact published the day after the previous issue, or [[9 September]] [[1990]]. | |||
Please remember this when editing DWM issues: '''after [[DWM 164]], the cover date is ''not'' the publication date, but the ''expiration date''.''' | |||
Leads are very tricky to fix with a bot, so I need your help to fix these fallacious intros. Better phraseology on everything post-164 would be something like: | |||
:The '''xth issue''' of ''[[Doctor Who Magazine]]'' was the one that was pulled from [[British]] news stands on <cover date>. | |||
or | |||
:'''''Doctor Who Magazine'' #nnn''' was the current issue of [[Doctor Who Magazine|the publication]] from <cover date of last issue + 1 day> to <cover date of this issue>. | |||
The other point to make is that a lead which just points out dates is '''the absolute, bare minimum.''' It's not the standard to which we should be working. Like any other article, the lead should try to contextualise the subject in terms of its most notable features. Every issue of DWM is unique, so every issue has ''some'' point of notability. Often, the salient thing about an issue is its biggest non-regular feature or interview. Because most issues contain a pretty thorough list of its contents, you can generally figure out which are the unique features of the piece. To see some examples of issues with longer leads, drop by [[DWM 164]], [[DWM 354]], and [[DWM 238]]. | |||
So please, if you can, drop by the DWM issues category and help out! Thanks :) | |||
{{user:CzechOut/Sig}} <span style="{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}">16:22: Thu 29 Mar 2012 </span> | |||
:Can the Bot do a mass wipe of the intro for all DWMs? of does it need to be done by hand? If by hand, we can start by getting rid of both date and month and leaving the year, and then we can work on trying to get the date. I think having the publication date is a really good thing to lead with for DWM. [[User:Mini-mitch|MM]]/<small>[[User talk:Mini-mitch|Want to talk?]]</small> 21:43, April 6, 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 04:55, 8 April 2012
If this thread's title doesn't specify it's spoilery, don't bring any up.
There are a lot of different ranges that need help, but I'd like to shine a light on DWM issues. I thought that maybe having awards in the Game of Rassilon for this range might help, but we're making only marginal improvements. So let me nudge your attention back in the direction of our favourite magazine.
The big thing that needs to be done across the board is that issues need to have a proper and accurate lead. Many articles have gotten a lead in the past six months, but most of these new leads are just one sentence long, and they're misleading or just plain wrong. This is mostly because most editors don't really understand how the DWM cover dating system works.
For instance, the current lead to DWM 165 says this:
- The 165th issue of Doctor Who Magazine was published in October 1990.
This is false. The cover date is 3 October 1990. That means that 3 October 1990 was the last date on which it was current. It was in fact published the day after the previous issue, or 9 September 1990.
Please remember this when editing DWM issues: after DWM 164, the cover date is not the publication date, but the expiration date.
Leads are very tricky to fix with a bot, so I need your help to fix these fallacious intros. Better phraseology on everything post-164 would be something like:
- The xth issue of Doctor Who Magazine was the one that was pulled from British news stands on <cover date>.
or
- Doctor Who Magazine #nnn was the current issue of the publication from <cover date of last issue + 1 day> to <cover date of this issue>.
The other point to make is that a lead which just points out dates is the absolute, bare minimum. It's not the standard to which we should be working. Like any other article, the lead should try to contextualise the subject in terms of its most notable features. Every issue of DWM is unique, so every issue has some point of notability. Often, the salient thing about an issue is its biggest non-regular feature or interview. Because most issues contain a pretty thorough list of its contents, you can generally figure out which are the unique features of the piece. To see some examples of issues with longer leads, drop by DWM 164, DWM 354, and DWM 238.
So please, if you can, drop by the DWM issues category and help out! Thanks :)
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ <span style="">16:22: Thu 29 Mar 2012
- Can the Bot do a mass wipe of the intro for all DWMs? of does it need to be done by hand? If by hand, we can start by getting rid of both date and month and leaving the year, and then we can work on trying to get the date. I think having the publication date is a really good thing to lead with for DWM. MM/Want to talk? 21:43, April 6, 2012 (UTC)
