Forum:Featured cleanup articles
Last night, I and a couple of others were talking about how some pages could use an overhaul that would be helped by having multiple collaborators. What I'm proposing is that we make a page (preferably in the RuneScape namespace) for featured cleanup articles. We could have a list of these articles in the community portal and have people work on them.
Anyone would be free to add a new article to this page, where people can discuss and work on those articles. So that it doesn't get cluttered, it would be periodically cleaned out. I think an optimal number of pages at any one time is about 4 or 5. Few enough so that people will be able to focus on those pages, but enough that there won't be edit conflicts.
I'm hoping that something like this can be very informal and have as little bureaucracy as possible. Individual people could tackle certain sections. If an article was added to that page, people would discuss some of the major changes, but of course they can also be bold (no, I'm not going to link to it )
Right now there are lots of articles that are eitheror in need of . Most of them stay that way, either missing information or poorly written, and no one takes charge to get them fixed. I'm hoping this will change that a bit.
I've made a mockup of what this page might look like here. If anyone has suggestions on how to make this better, please tell me. I think there was a proposal similar-ish to this, but of course, it's nowhere to be found.
- A clarification - This would be for very large articles, not ones that are simply stubs. ʞooɔ 20:21, November 17, 2010 (UTC)
Sure - Per above.20:55, November 17, 2010 (UTC)
- Hmm, that's a bit confusing. But that's for featured articles that need cleanup. ʞooɔ 21:23, November 17, 2010 (UTC)
Oppose unless the Sesame Street names are removed; support otherwise - I HATE Sesame Street. But, I do like the idea. My main concern is that it will become inactive. I'd be happier if this thread had a mandate to review how the page is working a month or two after it goes into effect. --LiquidTalk 23:35, November 17, 2010 (UTC)
- Sure, I suppose we could have a review section. However, I will never, ever remove Oscar, Elmo, Big Bird et al. ʞooɔ 23:42, November 17, 2010 (UTC)
- <-Couldn't resist. fetus is my son and I love him. 02:20, November 18, 2010 (UTC)
- How the hell can anyone hate Sesame Street? --Degenret01 10:21, November 18, 2010 (UTC)
Support - Per ajr. fetus is my son and I love him. 02:20, November 18, 2010 (UTC)
Support - As long as there never more than 5 pages listed, otherwise it will just have to many pages and people wouldn't bother doing it.06:34, November 18, 2010 (UTC)
Support - Per above. Suppa chuppa 19:33, November 18, 2010 (UTC)
- hmm... is that allowed? JOEYTJE50TALK pull my finger 21:15, November 21, 2010 (UTC)
- Strong oppose early closure - This is an unnecessary breach of RS:CONSENSUS, which states that legitimate threads must remain open for a period of a week. While it is possible to use RS:UCS or RS:BB to override that clause, this does not warrant such an action. UCS should only be used for threads that are very important and urgent. This certainly does not qualify as urgent and important. Waiting an additional three days will not kill the wiki.
- As for your comment about "snow being a useless buffer that prevents things from being done in a timely manner", I disagree. SNOW stipulates a period of one week. That is half the time that an RfA runs for, and the same time that things like FIMG run for. Most threads last much longer than one week. (For example, Forum:Quest difficulty ratings). A one-week period does NOT stop things from being done in a timely manner, or else the wiki would have imploded already. --LiquidTalk 22:24, November 21, 2010 (UTC)
- UCS was made exactly for things like this, when we have policies that are useless in some situations. This is obviously not urgent, but there's absolutely no reason to leave it open when there's 18 people supporting and nothing else. There's nothing wrong with waiting a week, but there's everything right with closing it now. We can get to work on it three days earlier and get more done. Simple as that. And I don't mean that SNOW is always a useless buffer. In some cases it's quite useful. In this case, as I mentioned above, the outcome is immediately clear and there's no reason that will keep it open. ʞooɔ 22:37, November 21, 2010 (UTC)
- @Liquid: Why do you first create the Forum:Shorten SNOW wait times and then kinda "rant" at cook for doing exactly what you said there? For an example: "This is an unnecessary breach of RS:CONSENSUS" "Therefore, I am proposing that the one-week waiting period be shortened to three days" (both by you). And about the "UCS should only be used for threads that are very important and urgent. This certainly does not qualify as urgent and important": Use common sense, when 18 people support, without any opposes, it is quite obvious this passes, and there will not be any opposition, so you could as well immediately close it. Also about his comment about the buffer: quote marks means a quote most times, not a description. When placing quote marks around a little bit twisted description, it is no quote. the actual quote was "At this point, snow becomes a useless buffer that prevents things from being done in a timely manner." and that is true. He wasn't talking about it being a buffer in general, but only in this case. And as it is a little bit of a buffer in this case. JOEYTJE50TALK pull my finger 11:13, November 24, 2010 (UTC)
- Liquid, Your just being an asshole now... As per above... Go ahead and have a good whine of the user treatment policy at me, but right now, your just making unnecessary arguments. 18:15, November 24, 2010 (UTC)
- In most cases the "discussion has died" is only used when 1-2 weeks have passed without discussion, not when only 3 days passed. Just FYI. JOEYTJE50TALK pull my finger 11:13, November 24, 2010 (UTC)
Closed - Now that the allotted time has transpired, this can be closed. I will name the page RuneScape:Featured articles for cleanup because it sounds better; Cook is free to move it to Featured cleanup articles if he so chooses. I will be implementing the steps he outlined in his proposal. --LiquidTalk 19:24, November 25, 2010 (UTC)