Consumer Rights Wiki talk:Moderators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions
| Line 112: | Line 112: | ||
::::I'd probably say just keep it on the Wiki with a stub notice for now. Any thoughts @[[User:Mr Pollo|Mr Pollo]]@[[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]]? | ::::I'd probably say just keep it on the Wiki with a stub notice for now. Any thoughts @[[User:Mr Pollo|Mr Pollo]]@[[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]]? | ||
::::It would probably at some point sit under an overarching 'medical consumer rights issues' article or something of the sort, and then this article serves to discuss equipment issues as opposed to ones related to payments, insurance, sales, etc. [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 16:52, 7 October 2025 (UTC) | ::::It would probably at some point sit under an overarching 'medical consumer rights issues' article or something of the sort, and then this article serves to discuss equipment issues as opposed to ones related to payments, insurance, sales, etc. [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 16:52, 7 October 2025 (UTC) | ||
:::::@[[User:Keith|Keith]] I think you and Drakeula made great arguments for why it should stay. Though I guess I should say my personal philosophy, which is basically to assume that others by default ''won't'' work to improve existing articles, especially niche ones. Most users prefer high traffic articles pertaining to large companies or major controversies. My personal opinion is that leaving a lot of low quality stubs ruins the integrity of the wiki, ''especially'' for articles that are 3+ months old. When I add relevance/deletion notices, it's on these articles that: | |||
:::::- have been stubs for 3+ months | |||
:::::- have not had any notable edits/improvements in 1-3 months | |||
:::::- are niche articles that have extremely low probability of further improvements, etc. | |||
:::::As a moderator, I'm ''attempting'' to fill that gap, which is why I sort of informally taken control over articles I feel like I may be able to do justice in fixing (e.g. covid ventilators). When low quality articles are left on the wiki, it's basically the moderators' responsibility to fix them. And since we don't have enough hands or time to fix the hundreds of articles out there in need of substantial work, I tend to err on the side of deletion, simply for maintaining the wiki's integrity. | |||
:::::So I understand completely why you err on the side of keeping articles unless they clearly do not belong. But I do genuinely think it could work against us if we have 900 articles yet half of them are stubs or need substantial improvements. And it's pretty clear that they will continue to stay stubs for months to come, leaving that stub-to-complete article ratio to ever increase. | |||
:::::Just food for thought, I guess. - [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 17:24, 7 October 2025 (UTC) | |||
==Can someone help me on the mess I made here?== | ==Can someone help me on the mess I made here?== | ||