Difference between revisions of "Category talk:New report"
imported>Jiml m (Until someone with a "clue" looks at it?) |
imported>Davidc |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
codes on the report. If I work on a report and I'm sure I've got the codes right, I just remove it. If I | codes on the report. If I work on a report and I'm sure I've got the codes right, I just remove it. If I | ||
hope someone else will have insight, I'll leave it on for a few days. (And then forget to go back!) [[User:Jiml|Jiml]] 00:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC) | hope someone else will have insight, I'll leave it on for a few days. (And then forget to go back!) [[User:Jiml|Jiml]] 00:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | I missed any discussion when this was introduced, but it makes sense: anyone adding proper categories should remove the "new report" category - it's there to indicate reports that haven't yet been properly classified. If there are expeditions that have both "new report" and real categories, we might need to reword the default template. --[[User:Davidc|davidc]] 01:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 01:12, 12 May 2010
Perhaps we should have a bot that removes the "New Report" tag from reports that are no longer new. - Robyn
I've always thought "new" applied until someone who knows how things works goes through and validates the result codes on the report. If I work on a report and I'm sure I've got the codes right, I just remove it. If I hope someone else will have insight, I'll leave it on for a few days. (And then forget to go back!) Jiml 00:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I missed any discussion when this was introduced, but it makes sense: anyone adding proper categories should remove the "new report" category - it's there to indicate reports that haven't yet been properly classified. If there are expeditions that have both "new report" and real categories, we might need to reword the default template. --davidc 01:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
