Forum:A system for directing content improvement

<<< Back to Logical Sector • <<< Back to Forum

While the simple trash-marking system does well for marking things that are cruddy in one sense or another, it's not really suitable for marking things that are OK as-is but could still do with improvement. Right now there is nothing in-between "trash" and unmarked stuff - something that works as a wish-list without marking the content as being among the worst. The issue is not so much addressing the range of issues (though I think we could also do with a trash template for vanity, as simply keep-or-delete outright is a rather sharp line) as the range of their severity.

You could make and use another set of templates to mark pages according to things that could be improved, but if such marking became common practice, it could easily get needlessly cluttered; it wouldn't look good to have accepted pages plastered with extra boxes and categories all over the place.

A more transparent solution could be to set up a couple of content interest pages (like little Illogi-departments) concerning different aspects of content. For example, a page where you can list articles you come across that could do with an injection of randomness, or one for ones that you find a bit crude, or too personally directed or vain, or ones that are unpolished in presentation and suited (ie. non-randumb entries) for a bit of link-and-markup-ification.

Whatever things a good portion of editors care about and are willing to help with. That way, those who'd like to help with adding randomness, cleaning up pages, de-stubbing things, etc. can view the lists of interest and take a look at pages where they could put their particular illogi-skills to the best use, and list things that could do with improvement that they don't focus so much on themselves on the other lists.

Then there is also the issue of an article reviewing system. Such would also be useful, particularly for those considering VFH-nominating something.

Comments? --The Divine Fluffalizer 21:17, 31 Octodest 2007 (UTC)

would it not be easier to refine the templates and have different sections on the one page? --Silent PenguinLeave Me Alone 21:39, 31 Octodest 2007 (UTC)

Probably would, for at least some of the issues. Subcategories could be made and the specialized trash templates could become more ambiguous regarding the amount of trashiness they note; that could decrease the discouraging effect on their use. For the truly trashy pages, I guess you could then use the trash template in addition to the milder templates to clearly mark them as such.

I still think having a place where you can suggest further improvement of pages - perhaps fleshing out our "Articulartastic Ministry for Articles" - could be a neat addition, though, as it could cover somewhat different issues, focusing on making good things better rather than bad things more acceptable. --The Divine Fluffalizer 22:32, 31 Octodest 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, in short we need to bring in more subcategories to the trash department (as to differentiate trash articles with potential and trash articles that, well, trash). I think it's a good idea and think it's about time something like this was done - so that are trash system becomes less one dimensional. --Testostereich • (ballsack) 06:47, 1 Novelniver 2007 (UTC)

What about templates for pages that are too short but good enough to not qualify for a mexicans template (articles in need of expanding=stubs)/slightly too graphic or spammy articles but still have potential/too boring (i.e. need some randomness)? --Testostereich • (ballsack) 19:02, 1 Novelniver 2007 (UTC)

There are two basic levels of "trashy" articles, as I see it: articles that need improvement to have potential to be decent (lesser trash) or to stay at all (greater trash). Those could both be addressed by the trash system. (templates for vanity and pages needing general content - as opposed to presentation - cleanup could be added here)

Then there are those that are OK but could still be significantly improved. Right now, if such would be trash/mexicans/etc.-marked, it'd just be a matter of time before they would be un-marked, as they are of acceptable quality, even if not so much more; you could make a couple of additional templates with their own categories for such pages, but I think it'd be a bit messy, and as the standards slowly increase, I'd expect a large portion of our articles to be marked. That's where the other idea comes in - in addition to trash templates, instead having some sort of separate system based not on marking the pages directly but rather manually listing them on a page where the entry can remain without cluttering the article and prompting people to remove and re-add a template based on whether they see the article as being "good enough" or not.

Heh; multiple matters all at once. I guess this discussion will end up rather messy and drawn-out. --The Divine Fluffalizer 20:34, 1 Novelniver 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, couldn't be bothered reading all that stuff above, but may I suggest a 'recycle hub' in between trash tagged and untagged articles. It's not too harsh but it's a bit of a kick up the backside for the article. -- Hindleyak  Converse • ?blog • Click here! 18:06, 2 Novelniver 2007 (UTC)

So what's the verdict? Oh and some one (if I can't be arsed) needs to change the feature/reinstall last quaters featured article. --Testostereich • (ballsack) 20:04, 4 Novelniver 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to randomly put in that I object to the whole notion of somehow trying to monitor the "quality" of a wiki that's supposed to be devoted to randomness, as stated somewhere in our official definition. And our TITLE. How're we supposed to look at an article and say "this isn't random enough" or "this is too random" or "this string of gibberish needs to be improved or deleted, but THIS one can stay." That works for things like uncyclopedia and wikipedia, where stuff is either funny or it isn't, or it's either informative or it isn't. But the idea of anything more than a trash template for one-liners, spam, profanity, and vanity I heartily object to. --THE 22:35, 5 Novelniver 2007 (UTC)

I agree with THE here. We are not Uncyclopedia. This means we aren't vultures tagging an article as soon as it is created: we try and salvage the article first. At least that's what we ought to do. As THE says, terrible vanity etc. is exactly the reason the trash template exists. However at the moment there is no distinction between articles that just need to be censored/watered down and pages in serious need of clean up. I'm not saying that introducing a new template would mean more taggings, which it definitely should not, but it ought to be a different level within that, a bit like {{WTF}} is below the {{Mexicans}} tag. That's all. -- Hindleyak  Converse • ?blog • Click here! 19:38, 6 Novelniver 2007 (UTC)

Where did this come from? I said to make it so people quit making articles die automatically. cant people just not delete the articles with templates. --|Fonchezzz| Quacking| 19:08, 6 Novelniver 2007 (UTC)

This is unrelated to the discussion on your talk page. If you look at the dates of the post you'll reailse its been going on for some time b4. --Testostereich • (ballsack) 19:18, 6 Novelniver 2007 (UTC)