Forum:Page maintenance page

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Page maintenance page
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 19 September 2010 by Psycho Robot.

I have realised that my alternative proposal for Forum:Merge discussion on VFD. is no longer "merging discussion" so I have created a new thread for it.

Note: I have also moved some of the discussion of "Alternative proposal" to this page.

I would also like to request closure for Forum:Merge discussion on VFD..

A page will be created called "Page maintainance" or something better, if possible. It will incorporate RFD, RFU and anything else relating to maintaining pages. We could also create a directory of articles with the Merge or Split templates and add it to this page. A lot of other stuff could also be included here.

Important - The layout will be similar to the [[RS:RFC|"request for comment" page]], just with a lot of those on one page. Obviously every single active RFD, etc. will not be transcluded here. Instead active RFD's will be in bold, etc. similar to the RFC page.

The previous RFD, RFU, etc. pages will be kept and deletion/undeletion discussions will still be run off them. This page will just a directory to the forementioned pages.

I may begin constructing a proposal in my sandbox. I doubt I know how though... Ok, [[w:c:thebrains222:Page maintainance|heres a rough example, run off my testing wiki.]] Obviously on our big wiki, the list should be a lot more comprehensive.

A few things that need to be done if this is passed:

  • A separate category for RFD's need to be created for the request itself (i.e. this. Actuallly, that's archived. But the RFD pages itself not the article.)
  • Separate category for RFU's need to be created as well.
  • The RFD template will need to be modified to have a "complete" parameter (what exactly does that mean?) as well as adding this category to it automatically.
  • And a few other things along the lines of the above for Splits, Merges and Moves.

What do you think? 222 talk 09:54, August 2, 2010 (UTC)


Support - As nom. 222 talk 09:54, August 2, 2010 (UTC)

Support - That looks great. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 10:20, August 2, 2010 (UTC)

Question - This is related to the proposal I am running. How can I prevent categories in transcluded pages from appearing on the page they are translcuded to? 222 talk 10:28, August 2, 2010 (UTC)

<noinclude>wut</noinclude> I think. Chicken7 >talk 10:39, August 2, 2010 (UTC)
That doesn't seem to be working. 222 talk 06:47, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

Support + Suggestion - I love what you've done; I never considered that idea! I was working on this awhile back and ran into many problems, but can't see many in this. If you want to see my ideas, This is what's left of my testing. Anyway, please also include Requests for Split and Move. One more thing. We may have an issue of when a proposal changes from being, say, a delete to a merge or something. Do we move it to merge? Leave in delete and just vote differently? What if some people are still voting delete and not merge? Kthxbai. Chicken7 >talk 10:39, August 2, 2010 (UTC)

Yeh, I haven't gone around to adding split, etc.DONE! True, we may have an issue if a RFD becomes a RFM. 222 talk 10:47, August 2, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - why did you make a new page, it was fine where it was.Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 05:40, August 7, 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, this proposal is no longer "merging the VFD" but creating a separate directory while keeping the existing pages. 222 talk 05:53, August 7, 2010 (UTC)

Strong oppose - The current page for RfD's is fine. The current layout places all the requests on one main page (though they are stored in memory as separate pages). Your change would create a main page that links to the individual RfD pages, making it impossible to view all the requests' text in one central location. The only reason that this would be done is if the requests are too long or too numerous to contain on one central location, which is certainly not the case with RfD's. That is also why things like FIMG, AOTM, UOTM, etc all contain their content on one main page. The Yew Grove uses the directory because the number of active threads just gets too high to put on one page. --LiquidTalk 02:08, August 9, 2010 (UTC)

This is just a directory. It's not going to replace the RfD, RfU, whatever pages. 222 talk 06:53, August 9, 2010 (UTC)
I think he understands that. What's wrong with the current system? HaloTalk 16:29, August 11, 2010 (UTC)

Support - It makes sense to have all of these related subjects on one page. ajr 03:49, August 9, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - Per Liquidhelium. The current system is fine. This is like Jagex doing a freaking forum reshuffle. HaloTalk 03:57, August 9, 2010 (UTC)

This is nothing like a forum reshuffle. Nothing is shuffling and nothing is being moved. 222 talk 07:07, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Just pointing out - There was a "rough consensus pass" at Forum:Merge discussion on VFD. See near the bottom for closure rejection comment which should be noted as this is a similar thread. 222 talk 07:24, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

Oh and someone still needs to get the "Requests for deletion" page off the listings. It shouldn't be there, but it is because of the transcluded categories. 222 talk 07:37, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

Strong support - Currently the system is broken. Requests for split/merge go completely unnoticed, and this proposal solves the problem. While putting them on one page as a directory may not be the best move, it seems like the page that would have everything on it would be getting a bit large, as RS:D is already a bit too big for my tastes. Perhaps separate pages for Undelete/Split/Merge? @ Liquid: It seems like you are opposing the layout of the "Page maintenance page" rather than the idea of having it all together. I'm not sure I completely support your layout, but we need the Undelete/Split/Merge to be centralized, because it's really all over the place. ʞooɔ 08:00, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I'm all about the using common sense+being bold on splits/merges etc. If it doesn't need tools, it shouldn't require consensus. And sometimes it shouldn't even if it does need tools. HaloTalk 19:05, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

Comment I really like the idea presented in the previous thread, of merging all discussion onto one "request for maintenance" page. There would be 4 sections there, Deletion, Undeletion, Merge, and Split, and each section would have one of the lists you have proposed on your test wiki. The actual structure of the pages would be something like RuneScape:Requests for Maintenance/Deletion/Fake. We can use the templates to ensure pages are created in the right location. We could even use them to create automatic archives for when an item is nominated for the same maintenance more than once. What you're suggesting here (the page name should be RuneScape:Requests for Maintenance by the way) would work, but its not preferable, to me anyways, due to potential confusion about there being 5 project pages for 4 different and similar actions. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 20:11, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

I created a bare-bones sample of what I mean here. Like I said your current idea is nice and I support it, but I really do think it would be best to go with your previous idea. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 20:37, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Psycho's page - That page jumbles up unrelated processes into one page. For example, RfD's are for deciding whether or not content is worth keeping on the wiki. RfU's are for deciding if a certain RfD was valid, given a new set of circumstances. Request for merges is dealing with whether or not pages have similar content, and request for splits deals with whether or not a page is too long/burdensome. At most, I would support four separate pages for the processes mentioned above. I agree that merge and split discussions should be in a centralized location rather than on individual talk pages, but putting them all on one page is too much. --LiquidTalk 21:57, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

Meh I don't consider it jumbled. Each section would just have a list of the pages that are relevant to that section. I think that despite their different goals, the processes are all extremely similar. You state your case and the community discusses it. I don't see the benefit to relegating each of these to four different pages. Typically when people visit the main rfd page, they provide input to every page there. This would encourage people to continue that trend and provide input to all maintenance related discussions. How about a compromise though? RuneScape:Requests for maintenance exactly as was proposed by 222, but instead of keeping RuneScape:Requests for Deletion, its simply moved to RuneScape:Requests for Maintenance/Deletion. There it would be exactly like you see it now, including viewing all the discussions at once via transclusions. This satisfies me by keeping everything under one umbrella, Requests for maintenance, you by allowing people to still veiw the old RFD page (but on a different page) and adheres to the current proposal as well. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 22:48, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

New proposal - User:Cook Me Plox/Split and User:Cook Me Plox/Merge. It would work the same way as RS:D. Nothing would change for RS:D. All the request pages (delete/move/undelete/split/merge) could be found on a "hub" such as RS:MAINTENANCE. It would just have links to Request for delete/merge et cetera. This seems like the easiest thing to do, as the only changes are centralizing requests for split and merge, and having a page that has links to all the pages. What do you think? ʞooɔ 22:45, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

Support Cook's idea - with the exception of the Latin (if it is Latin and not gibberish). Anyways, I always supported having a central location. I just never liked the format changes. I like Cook's compromise more than Psycho's compromise. (See, some people don't want to type out a long name like RuneScape:Requests for maintenance/Deletion/Pagename for every RfD nomination they start. I would be one of those people.) --LiquidTalk 23:25, September 8, 2010 (UTC)
The page would automatically be created by clicking a link on the rfd template. You just add it ot the page and click "start nomination" kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 23:34, September 8, 2010 (UTC)
Anyways I support cooks idea (though I dont' think its any different than the proposal, apart from the creation of RS:RFM/S <_<) however I still don't like the idea of the hub being in the same hierarchical level as the actual request pages. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 23:37, September 8, 2010 (UTC)
The infobox templates are all at the same hiearchial leve. RS:POLICIES is at the same level as all the policies we have; it's not like RS:BLOCK is at RuneScape:Policies/Block. Anyways, it's fine. I like this proposal because it addresses my issues while leaving the RfD page alone. --LiquidTalk 23:40, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

Notice of intent - I will implement my proposal in 24 hours unless anyone has objections. ʞooɔ 18:44, September 16, 2010 (UTC)

Will my page be used? If so, just tell us and I'll add it along with the rest of it. 222 talk 06:25, September 17, 2010 (UTC)
If I understand your question correctly, no. We would have separate pages for Requests for Deletion/Undeletion/Moves/Merge/Split (DUMMS for short Smile), all of which would function the way RS:D currently does. Requests for maintenance would have links to all five of those pages. ʞooɔ 07:01, September 17, 2010 (UTC)
My page is basically links to all the above. 222 talk 07:06, September 17, 2010 (UTC)
We should use his page as it is a useful consolidation of all similar maintenance actions. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 07:38, September 17, 2010 (UTC)
Either way is fine with me. ʞooɔ 07:47, September 17, 2010 (UTC)
K then, there are a few maintenance issues that need dealing with when we use my page. First, RfS and RfM need categories for the page to function. Second, someone needs to dream up a wonderful colour scheme for it Smile. 222 talk 08:17, September 17, 2010 (UTC)
It has been a bit more than 24 hours now. 222 talk 07:02, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
You failed the test of patience! You no longer get your page! And this sysop closes this thread, disgusted with your impatience. May the gods of the wiki have mercy on your soul! Ok yea, so its closed and I figure we should just copy the format from [[RS:RFC]]. I'll see about doing the things tomorrow. Yay! kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 07:06, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
I'm just gonna create the page. Hopefully I can solve the category thingys later. 222 talk 07:09, September 19, 2010 (UTC)