Help talk:Notice templates
| 38px | Archives for the Notice templates talk page |
|---|---|
| 1
| |
IM lifecycle notices
Margaret Devey recently created {{NotOfficial}}, an awesome template that is used to mark that the page exists as a "copy of convenience" and that the final version exists in document repository x. She did a great job of including documentation with the template so that even an IM/RM layman like myself can understand when and how to use it. Kudos, Margaret! I'm looking forward to seeing the translated version so that we can link to it from Help:Notice templates.
However, I have always had major issues with the majority of the pre-existing IM lifecycle notices because they are super vague and provide no context for when/how/to what effect they should be used. I see from checking the history of most of these templates (like {{conceptual}}, {{planned}}, {{being enforced}}, etc.) that a User:Jason created the majority of them and Claudette Rocan massaged them into something usable. Jason or Claudette - if you're still watching this page, I'd appreciate you weighing in on the question I'm about to pose.
Are these templates necessary and useful? I ask from the perspective of someone who knows very little about IM, but a lot about how people organize their work on GCPEDIA. I have seen very little uptake with these templates and I suspect that is because no one knows what the heck they are for? The new {{NotOfficial}} is leaps and bounds better at explaining the 5W's. So if they are useful (and maybe not all of them are), I would really, really like to see an IM professional create some documentation for them. As a first step, please discuss this issue below. As a second step, once there is some understanding about which templates are useful and some solid documentation to support them, someone needs to add that documentation in two places: 1) the table on Help:Notice templates; 2) the template page itself, using the {{documentation}} template. Jesse Good {tbs-sct.gc.ca} 14:46, 16 March 2011 (EDT)
- Isn't the entire GCpedia "not official"? That being said, I can see the usefulness of all of them (to manage expectations, avoid being marked for deletion etc.) except "operational" and "being enforced". I can't see how those two can have any meaning on this site. If anyone disagrees with my removing of those two in particular, feel free to "undo" that change and state your case here :) Marc Labreche (talk) 15:14, 5 December 2013 (EST)
I love this page
Just thought I'd throw that out there. --Marc Labreche (talk) 16:43, 26 February 2015 (EST)
- +1 jesse.good@{ec.gc.ca} 08:18, 27 February 2015 (EST)