Forum:Proposed New Maintenance Tags

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Proposed New Maintenance Tags

Note: This topic has been unedited for 6847 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over.

In another forum I proposed adding a handful of detailed maintenance tags, with specific, n00b friendly instructions to replace NRV. I got ambitious tonight and threw together my ideas for three of them:

Format

Short

Funny

The goal of these templates is to function like an NRV, but without the scary, "fix it or it dies in 7 days" message. We'll do that behind the scenes. Additionally, they are supposed to give the author some guidence as to what needs to be fixed. Hopefully, a "this is what needs to be fixed" message will also encourage other editors to fix it up. There was some discussion that an "about to die an NRV death" tag on an article discourages other people from editing it.

While I know I'm sort-of stepping on the toes of other recent policy, I'm assuming that it will take some time for us to agree/disagree on using these, and set up the mechanisms needed to make this work. In addition, most of those rules would still apply.

Will it be more complicated? Quite possibly, yes. However, our current process of spamming every new page with an NRV tag seems to be doing as much harm as good. I'm hoping that with a little extra effort, we can make some decent improvements around here. I mean, not that I get sick of deleting shit, but it would be nice if we got higher numbers of good articles.

Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 23:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments

A few short comments and then a speil:

• I don't see this as necessarily stepping on the toes of this recent policy specifically.
• You'll have to clarify: do you mean these tags to have a seven day expiration period like NRV? or a month-long period like the other Maintenance tags?
• Do these tags serve a new purpose? If they are month-long, how do "Format", "Short" and "Funny" differ from "Ugly", "Expand" and "Fix" in terms of functionality (not just that they have different text)?
• Simplicity is good. For this reason I have been deleting underused tags in order to simplify things.
• These tags are very large and intrusive, much like NRV. They also talk down to the reader a bit. Since I believe these are the two main problems with NRV as it stands, I am warry about more such tags.
• If these tags are supposed to replace NRV, I predict that, despite these rules, many people who tag will see that they dislike a page and just slap the first tag on that they think of. This is already a problem with the current tags. When a page is too old to NRV people will {{Ugly}} it because it is long (and thus hard to read) or {{Expansion}} it because it is short, without really checking to see if there is anything there of substance to be saved or expanded upon.
• I would like to plug my short version of NRV, which seems less threatening, less intrusive, and less "explanation-for-idiots" to me, which is at User:Isra1337/AltTemplates/NRV. I know of course that I can't just impliment it myself without support because Algo will be upset that it does not contain the bold words "No Redeeming Value."

My main comment here is that I think we should avoid trying to reinvent the wheel. We already have a system that works pretty well, that has been test, whose failings are known, and that has been refined by experience. Subtler changes directed at specific ills seem more appropriate to me than trying to engineer more stuff. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 00:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Not a new system - the same system, but more informative for n00bs. Pretty much, picture a merger of {{Ugly}} or {{Expansion}} with "NRV". The goal is a bit more friendly and informative information about what the article is lacking, combined with the ability to track new article growth. I see these replacing NRV, to avoid redundant templates. For if something truly has no redeeming value, it should be on QVFD.

While your NRV template is less intimidating, it still lacks clear information about what needs to be done to fix the article.

And to be quite frank, if people abuse the tags, we ban the hell out of them. I've done so for people who don't know how to NRV, although I don't go searching for abusers. I see no reason not to be hardass about these ones. Idealy, we clarify the rules so that it's crystal clear what and how one tags articles. If people can't do that, they will be "asked" not to tag. Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 00:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I shall repeat my understanding of what you said to make sure it is correct. Currently there are 3 tags used for month-long maintenance. Am I correct in stating that you are proposing the NRV tag be replaced with 3 similar tags that will keep the functionality of NRV (i.e. appear on Uncyclopedia:Maintenance/NRV)? ---Rev. Isra (talk) 00:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes. No loss of the needed functionality of tagging new articles. Improved communication as to what is wrong with the article to facilitate improvement rather than bitter abandonment. Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 01:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

To make that work functionally, you should change the categories that those templates includeonly to Category:NRV. Also, to make them more honest, it shouldn't say "a few weeks" when it is only one. Once you do that, you are within your rights to use the tags from your namespace, or you can move them to the main template namespace without my objection and anyone who wants can use them. My vote is that we wait on deleting the NRV template though. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 01:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, you might want to link to UN:NRV so people can read how to remove the tag, since many people are otherwise to frightened to do it themselves. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 01:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, the above reasons are why I posted here before going "live" - to get some feedback, and to see what others had to say. Once in awhile I need to make it look like I care about what people think. Part of my admin contract or something.

But really, my goal is more than "move these into main-space and let people use them" - I really want us to whack NRV, and make a coherent, clear policy about how and why we use these tags. We might even want to make a semi-organized "tag posse", to keep track of them, educate new users, and check back in on articles to help them along. There are plenty of users who now lurk the recent changes page to find stuff to tag. If we can get them organized into a proper tagging group, where everyone does it right and fixes stuff that's wrong, we'll solve a bunch of our current problems. Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 01:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we really do have a "coherent, clear policy about how and why we use these tags." It just gets ignored. To that end I would absolutely support trying to have a "tag posse" that actually follows those rules.

Clearly the disagreement we have is that I believe that our problems are that NRV is large and off-putting, while you believe the fact that one has to click-thru for suggestions for improving the article is the larger problem. I think it would be great if changing tag text would actually cause people to fix up articles, but I really don't think that is the case. My experience with making the separate month-long maintenance tags is that lack of specificity isn't the problem, its laziness. And frankly I understand it. I have been trying to really make an effort to fix up tagged pages, and it is really pretty hard. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 02:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that identifying what needs to be done to fix the article is helpful, and the current NRV tag does that by allowing a comment to be inserted. My original idea was to make the explanation mandatory and that NRVs submitted without an explanation comment wouldn't be valid and result in the removal of the NRV tag, rather than the article. I think rather than creating new templates explaining why the NRV is being placed, we should consider my simpler policy that NRVs submitted without an explanation aren't binding on the page author and can be huffed.

My position remains that NRV tag use that doesn't communicate to the page author what needs to be done to improve the article themselves have No Redeeming Value here. However we accomplish the goal of improving communication between taggers and page authors, I think that's the overriding principle here.

See this mini-essay for more of my views on this subject.

--Hrodulf 19:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Suck Ups

• Personally, I like famine's system; the current one is awefully vague, this one makes more sense.--The One and Only Czar Yah 00:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• I love Famine....errrrr his new system that is. --Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 01:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Famine did a great job here. And I'm not just sucking up. I actually mean it. Crazyswordsman...With SAVINGS!!!! (T/C) 00:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

L for Admin

AgainstWhat a moron.--The One and Only Czar Yah 00:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• L is old hat. --Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 01:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• I know. Feel free to organize a firing squad. —rc (t) 01:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with Zombie. L would make a terrible admin. I mean, just look at his unoriginal name. It just smacks of laziness. Against. --Sir ENeGMA (talk) GUN WotM PLS 01:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Against Are you freakin' crazy? 01:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Against Fucking horrid idea. Leave it to the real men. Pewpewpew 01:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• For. --L 10:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

How is this even relevant to the topic at hand? --Sir gwax (talk) 17:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)