Forum:Origin of articles that need updating policy

From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
Forums → Archive index → Panopticon archives → Origin of articles that need updating policy
This thread has been archived.
Please create a new thread on the new forums if you want to talk about this topic some more.
Please DO NOT add to this discussion.

The Sarah Jane Adventures have been on the BBC iplayer lately, and I've noticed that a lot of the articles for the episodes are stubs and in need of cleanups. A lot of them don't correctly place references, continuity and story notes in the correct sections, and the plots are very undetailed. I know that I've been criticised before for the length of my writing plots, but The Temptation of Sarah Jane Smith actually started with the plot half way through the episode, summing up the time before with a quick "which they discovered earlier".

These are in serious need of updating. I have a suggestion as to how to do this. Perhaps, as a weekly thing, we post a "community project" kind of thing on the main page, with the selected article being linked from there. Then, users will be invited to help out clean up and update each of these pages every time they visit the site.

But I'd like to hear others' opinions as well. The Thirteenth Doctor 20:41, July 26, 2010 (UTC)


"Community project" sounds great! But I'm afraid I can't help... You should really start that. You could even give limited edition "medals" at the end for user that partipated more than other and made great improvements. Even if it's just some golden circle with a date and a legend, I'm sure people would love to get them. :) --4me 22:31, July 26, 2010 (UTC)

I certainly like the idea of getting the community involved in a weekly community project.
I'm not sure it would be best to just base it around stories being accessible on the BBC iPlayer though, as many of our users can't actually get the BBC iPlayer.
I think it should be a group of pages rather than a single page, as anyone who's tried to edit a recently broadcast story (or in fact any highly edited page) will know you finish making an edit and find someone's edited the page while you've been changing things around and you end up with an edit conflict. --Tangerineduel 14:38, July 29, 2010 (UTC)
Good point. The Torchwood episodes could also do with cleanups as well. It was just while I was watching SJA that I had the idea, so brought that into it, but it would help. I see what you mean about edits. Perhaps we could do it a series of SJA at a time... that spreads it over six pages, then once SJA is finished, we can move on to Torchwood, half a series at a time. That would be three weeks for SJA, four weeks for 2 Torchwood series and then Children of Earth. That would be eight weeks, bringing us up to the beginning of October, if we start it soon. The we'd have another seven or eight before the Christmas special which we could use to cleanup the pages with cleanup tags, pages that need updating and such. Plus, it may also increase traffic to the website during the off season. --The Thirteenth Doctor 18:13, July 29, 2010 (UTC)
I agree the pages need cleanup, but the edit conflicts will be a problem. The only was around it I see is we make and currently being edit template ({{editing}}) which a User puts onto a page, save it - so people see the page is being edited - then the User make their edits and takes it of once they are finished. If the page does not have the edit template on it, User know they can edit it without conflict. If a User edits a page, and does not the edit template, this can be viewed as vandalism (if it happens often). If a User edits a page that deliberately edited when the edit tag on it, it will be viewed as vandalism. Mini-mitch 19:21, July 29, 2010 (UTC)
The thing is, if we spread it across the six pages, I don't think we'd need that. TW and SJA are less watched, so there will be less editors, even with the community project. We generally get on fine with DW pages, like the series 5 one without many problems. None of the pages need major overhalls, so it is unlikely that a person would take longer than a few minutes to add an edit. And isn't there already a template for that? I'm sure there is, cause I saw it on a page before, though it wasn't actually being edited at the time. --The Thirteenth Doctor 18:32, July 29, 2010 (UTC)
Yep, the template is the {{inuse}} template. --Tangerineduel 14:38, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
We need to do something about the articles stub, not just the TV ones, but the species, audio, prose and the general article stubs. If we could have a box on the home page, above the Quotes of the Week, we could have a daily article (or articles) that are stubs, and a caption saying - Can you help to improve this page? or Can you help us to improve these pages Mini-mitch 18:18, July 31, 2010 (UTC)
Well we're all agreed that something needs to be done. We know people will hardly ever look for the pages that tell you which need cleanups, which need updating etc... Humans are just too lazy that way, they need to have it easily available before they do anything about it.
One thing I've noticed is that on the main page, the newest audio/comics/magazines are shown. If we can shift them slightly to the left or right, we could easily fit in another few pictures in each section. Add a divider and we could list the weekly comic/magazine/audio that needs updating, next to the relevant section for those who listen to audios, read the magazines and comics more, and of course the same for the TV bit.
Unless what we do is just have a brand new section on the main page. It might be good to put it above the "latest" sections. If they have to pass it to get to the latest ones (which will get enough attention as it is) they will be more likely to click and help in the needed ones.
We just need to put it somewhere where the majority of people for each type of media will see it, which is most probably on the main page. How about we draw up some images to show our ideas, then we can discuss it further. That is assuming everyone is agreed this thing is going ahead? --The Thirteenth Doctor 18:39, August 1, 2010 (UTC)
Something like this?

Articles we need updating:

To suggest a Article that need of improving for next week see Tardis:Articles needing improving. ✍

Stubs would then become a category called Articles in need of improving - this would be links of the main page, and all articles that are in need of improved (stubs) listed in their categories. We would then ask people to vote comment on what ones they want improving. Mini-mitch 20:00, August 1, 2010 (UTC)
Something like that on the main page, yeah. As for voting, would that not make extra work? Is there any way where it can automatically take the page with the highest traffic (or highest number of revisions which is usually more visited) from the list of pages with that template, then put that page onto the correct section on the main page? --The Thirteenth Doctor 19:06, August 1, 2010 (UTC)
I think the Did you know section could be re-purposed to suit this function; Template:Doctor Who Wiki/DYK. I don't think we need to re-name it or anything, use the space/format that it's allowed for. That should give enough space and prominence on the main page without needing to re-work the spacing on the main page or a new template for the main page.
Must we really create another category when we've already got Category:Articles in need of major additions and the stub categories?
I agree on the voting creating extra work, we don't need to institute voting for what is essentially part of the wiki creation process or a maintenance process.
It just needs a lead that reads something like this; "These articles are picked out of a pool by a regular contributor with the aim to improve the wiki." Or something like that, it's just like the Tardis:To Do Lists or like the Tardis:BFA To-do List which was worked out by a group of users and worked through the articles as a group, without the need for voting. What we're doing now is the important part of the process, the discussion about how we're going to put this together to improve the wiki. --Tangerineduel 16:47, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

Rekindling[[edit source]]

Is there any way we can continue this discussion so we can get this project going? --The Thirteenth Doctor 13:41, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I am in the process of working on a copy of the DYK box (and backflipping in the process) of creating a space based on it, rather than appropriating it. I've got one or two other projects in the works, but it's near the top of my list, once it's done I'll work on the frame work and a basic page to wrap all these ideas into one thing. --Tangerineduel 14:14, August 28, 2010 (UTC)
Alrighty this has been done, see Tardis:Articles that need updating policy and Template:Doctor Who Wiki/Articles that need updating. I've tested it on the main page and then undone my edit, the undone edit can be re-done if there's no issues with both the policy and the template page. --Tangerineduel 14:12, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

Archivist's notes[[edit source]]

I'm closing this as "out of date", because it's not currently being used. It was, however, once in active use, and I suppose it could be used again one day.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 18:01:35 Thu 26 May 2011 

Actually this isn't really around anymore. The thing that was originally Doctor Who Wiki/Articles that need updating is now Doctor Who Wiki/Help, and it's all an automated process of pointing out certain classes of articles that belong to sub categories of category:Maintenance. So this thread describes something that actually doesn't exist at all anymore.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 19:40: Tue 11 Oct 2011 
Retrieved from "https://tardis.wiki/w/index.php?title=Forum:Origin_of_articles_that_need_updating_policy&oldid=1982776"