Forum:Rewrite Tag rework

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forums: Index > Village Dump > Rewrite Tag rework
Note: This topic has been unedited for 5327 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over.


Roman Dog Bird brought up some issues on VFD about the {{rewrite}} tag on VFD. Basically, I see the following issues:

  • The instructions encourages the author to be too timid in editing. I would say if something is bad enough the need a maintenance tag, then a future editor should feel free to make any needed changes, including restarting from scratch, as it were.
  • I don't think the "soft, medium, hard" division makes much sense. I would suggest turning "medium" into a "trim" category for long articles that need a purging. The medium rewrite template already looks a "trim this" template, and I've used it as such. I would also suggest changing the "character" rewrite templates from medium to soft.
  • Lastly, some of the "sub templates" [for lack of a better term] need rework. RDB mentioned that the hard-rewrite template encourages ips/noobs to blank articles, like how {{Number of Bans}} encourages page blanking. Similarly, some [actually, all to some extent] of the character templates seem a bit nasty. --Mn-z 05:20, March 31, 2010 (UTC)
    Iz wiki. {{sofixit}} • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} Wednesday, 05:56, Mar 31 2010
  1. I can haz consensus?
  2. quoting:
Warning: do not edit this template unless you know exactly what you are doing.

--Mn-z 14:39, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

What, you don't know what you're doing? Give it a shot, Mnbvcxz, and if you mess up you or we can just revert and you can try again. • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} Wednesday, 14:55, Mar 31 2010
(And you can has my consensus.) • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} Wednesday, 14:56, Mar 31 2010
Needz moar consensus. --Mn-z 16:34, March 31, 2010 (UTC)
Well, the {{rewrite|hard}} template is pretty large and doesn't have enough emphasis on rewrite if you ask me. (Good points on the VFD#Template:Nigga_Please VFD now.)  ~ Avast Matey!!! Happytimes are here!* Happytimes.gif (talk) (stalk) Π   ~ Xkey280.jpg ~  31 Mar 2010 ~ 23:23 (UTC)
What, my consensus isn't good enough for you, Mn-z? I thought you cared about me — about us! /runs away crying • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} Thursday, 05:10, Apr 1 2010
The problem is you don't have enough consensus to allow me to change the rewrite template. --Mn-z 06:25, April 2, 2010 (UTC)

Soft vs. Medium vs. Hard

The "soft, medium, hard, (VFD)" division makes sense if you view it as a level of difficulty to consider when tackling a particular rewrite. What we may want to do is add functionality to the templates to provide feedback much like the {{idea|summary=text}} template allows now.  ~ Avast Matey!!! Happytimes are here!* Happytimes.gif (talk) (stalk) Π   ~ Xkey280.jpg ~  01 Apr 2010 ~ 00:04 (UTC)

New Header

I think 3 levels of rewriting based on the badness on an article is probably too much. Hence my suggestion of moving the medium-rewrite to a prune-rewrite category. In fact, I think we do have too many "fix categories" since much of it was created rather haphazardly. In Category:Fix This Metacategory, there are 17 different categories. I would suggest going to 4 main categories: (I'm basically thinking out loud here.)

  1. Articles needing formatting &/or spellcheck. This would cover proofreading and Category:Ugly
  2. Articles that need expansion. This would cover Category:Ideas, Category:Stub, and Category:Articles to be expanded.
  3. Articles that that need to be rewritten. Current contents may or may not be of use in the re-write. This would cover Category:Rewrite.
  4. Articles that need to be improved in 30 days or face deletion. This would include Category:Articles to fix

I would suggest limiting the "delete if unedited for 30 days" to the fix template alone. The other time-stamped maintenance tags are generally formatting, and I don't think salvageable material should be deleted solely on bad formatting or anything a "maintenance monkey" could fix.

I could see keeping some, or actually most, of the other categories, but I'd suggest putting them as sub-categories of the 4 main ones, sort of how the rewrite subcategories work.

Right now, the current system is a bit confusing since all the "fix this" categories aren't completely & systematically laid out anywhere. For example, this page overlooks {{Stub}} and {{ugly}}, this category (of my own creation for bot work) was missing 3 or 4 until I just added them while typing this message. --Mn-z 05:25, April 1, 2010 (UTC)

Here is my suggested division of the existent fix this categories into 4 main categories. Formatting means those articles which can be improved without "originality" on the part of the improver. Expansion means short articles need to be longer and probably have salvageable ideas. Rewrite if for articles that need concept fixing, current content may or may not be usable in the rewrite. "Slow ICU" is for the fix tag, basically stuff the needs improvement by the original author. Like I mentioned earlier, I'd propose moving all these categories, except Category:Articles to fix out of timestamp maintenance, since I'm against deleting workable material on the basis of bad formatting.
  • Formatting
  • Expansion
  • Rewrite
  • "Slow ICU

As for merging, I think the 4 expansion categories are the only really redundant ones. I think one would be enough, 2 if we decide to keep an "expand in 30 days or delete" category. --Mn-z 18:43, April 1, 2010 (UTC)

Good ideas all

(I think we need to separate out the concepts of template & category)

The reason why I didn't put {{Stub}} and {{ugly}} on this page~ (UN:PS) is because (well I first overlooked them to be truthful, and then found them to be outside of the proof service area; I now realize I did mention the {{cleanup}} template so I guess it would be nice to mention others as well (as long as I keep it brief I suppose)):
  • For {{Stub}} I am a firm believer that short articles if well written are good in their own right and don't have to be expanded. (Besides we do have the {{Expand}} template for the proofer to add if they think it is necessary.) For me the stub is a valid non-rewrite/expand/fix category.
  • For the {{ugly}} I didn't really take it seriously, (It is pretty ugly after all,) and a proofer really shouldn't be adding links, headers, or paragraphs to a story; just spelling, grammar and punctuation really.

My thoughts on categorizing the cleanup/fix templates (for proofers) are pretty clearly designated by the color scheme I assigned to the links: {{fix}}, {{cleanup}}, {{idea}}, {{expand}}, {{rewrite}}, {{rewrite|medium}}, {{rewrite|hard}}, {{AAP}}, & {{Help}}.

Anyway, it does seem to me though that whatever we decide to do, we should have a common style theme set up for each of the templates (see here for the templates in action).
I think ALL categories should be "time stamped" with the {{Oldcatlist}} just so users can see the oldest items when they scan the category for items to work on. However, I think only a few of the templates should have a time stamp verbiage which calls a third party to action when the date is up.

Lost my train of thought & have to go to bed... Category:Uncyclopedia maintenance, Category:Timestamped maintenance (minor)

Formatting
Expansion
Rewrite
Slow ICU

 ~ Avast Matey!!! Happytimes are here!* Happytimes.gif (talk) (stalk) Π   ~ Xkey280.jpg ~  02 Apr 2010 ~ 06:14 (UTC)

Reply: in list format
  • I would say Ugly is more along the lines of proofreading than say {{Expand}}. Its not spell checking per say, but anyone who is spellchecking should also be able to wiki format.
  • With respect to the timestamped, when I said something was timestamped, I meant an admin is supposed to delete it if it is unedited for 30 days. Basically like {{ICU}} or {{Construction}} only slower.
  • With respect to the stub category, if the stub template isn't there to solicit expansion, it really serves no purpose as far as can tell. In fact, it would be a clutter template, which I loath, but I digress. --Mn-z 06:24, April 2, 2010 (UTC)
Response: 1.) Oh, {{Expand}} was to be put on after proofing had been done.  2.) Oh. didn't get that. Does it always mean delete, or could it trigger another action or tag?  3.) I look at the stub template as something like, "this article is small but well written" or some-such. Wikipdedia has all kinds of stubs for small needed things which don't merit expansion... as a parody I feel we should mirror that as well. However I also believe we should use it sparingly. Happytimes.gif

Anyway, what should we do at this point? I'm all for organizing a maint template area for simple use.  ~ Avast Matey!!! Happytimes are here!* Happytimes.gif (talk) (stalk) Π   ~ Xkey280.jpg ~  02 Apr 2010 ~ 23:54 (UTC)

Your thought on this thought:

 ~ Avast Matey!!! Happytimes are here!* Happytimes.gif (talk) (stalk) Π   ~ Xkey280.jpg ~  03 Apr 2010 ~ 00:01 (UTC)

I think some people use the {{stub}} as an expansion template, and more importantly, it asks the reader to expand the article its on. About the other thing, are you suggesting putting the medium rewrites into the soft category, and the hard ones into the medium and soft? --Mn-z 05:03, April 3, 2010 (UTC)
Yes, by putting them there it would make it easier to find them... once the user went to the page they would see the template & the 'level of difficulty' placed their by, well, whomever put the template there.  ~ Avast Matey!!! Happytimes are here!* Happytimes.gif (talk) (stalk) Π   ~ Xkey280.jpg ~  05 Apr 2010 ~ 06:04 (UTC)

Comment

Hm,m,m,m,m,m....  ~ Avast Matey!!! Happytimes are here!* Happytimes.gif (talk) (stalk) Π   ~ Xkey280.jpg ~  06 Apr 2010 ~ 06:29 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://uncyclopedia.com/w/index.php?title=Forum:Rewrite_Tag_rework&oldid=4487473"