Consumer Rights Wiki talk:Moderators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions
| Line 122: | Line 122: | ||
::::::I suppose my hope on that front has been that a good pool of 'stuff that needs work' will encourage people to work on it. Because we want the wiki to end up being reasonably comprehensive, I think that having a stub article basically just saying 'this should be an article, and here is at least enough stuff to justify it being more than just a row on article suggestions' has value in 'holding place' on the wiki and allowing other articles to link to it, and giving a bit of visibility that it needs to be properly written. | ::::::I suppose my hope on that front has been that a good pool of 'stuff that needs work' will encourage people to work on it. Because we want the wiki to end up being reasonably comprehensive, I think that having a stub article basically just saying 'this should be an article, and here is at least enough stuff to justify it being more than just a row on article suggestions' has value in 'holding place' on the wiki and allowing other articles to link to it, and giving a bit of visibility that it needs to be properly written. | ||
::::::Realistically, it will be quite some time before we are at the point where we'll expect the wiki to be useful to a reader. At that point, when it comes (maybe around ~2000 articles? next year once the UI overhaul is done?) it might made more sense to have a 'step-up' in how strict we are about zombie articles. So for now I'd say that policing the deletion zombie articles should probably be mostly restricted to articles that make you go 'this could just be an entry in the article suggestions page' (although if an article feels irrelevant or is just complete trash, that's a different matter). [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 20:36, 7 October 2025 (UTC) | ::::::Realistically, it will be quite some time before we are at the point where we'll expect the wiki to be useful to a reader. At that point, when it comes (maybe around ~2000 articles? next year once the UI overhaul is done?) it might made more sense to have a 'step-up' in how strict we are about zombie articles. So for now I'd say that policing the deletion zombie articles should probably be mostly restricted to articles that make you go 'this could just be an entry in the article suggestions page' (although if an article feels irrelevant or is just complete trash, that's a different matter). [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 20:36, 7 October 2025 (UTC) | ||
:::::::That makes total sense, especially considering how young the wiki still is. I see where you're coming from and I can adopt that philosophy lol. Thanks for explaining it [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 21:22, 7 October 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::::I’m fine with either approach, though for now adding a Stub template is good. I agree we should be more strict on "zombie articles" once the wiki becomes more fleshed out. [[User:Mr Pollo|Mr Pollo]] ([[User talk:Mr Pollo|talk]]) 20:42, 7 October 2025 (UTC) | :::::I’m fine with either approach, though for now adding a Stub template is good. I agree we should be more strict on "zombie articles" once the wiki becomes more fleshed out. [[User:Mr Pollo|Mr Pollo]] ([[User talk:Mr Pollo|talk]]) 20:42, 7 October 2025 (UTC) | ||