Forum:New Policy on Rewrite, NRV, etc. tags

Forums: Index > Village Dump > New Policy on Rewrite, NRV, etc. tags

Note: This topic has been unedited for 6446 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

Once upon a time category:rewrite was a useful page. Linked from the front page, it gave a list of articles that people might want to work on. That all changed when we turned it into a timestamped tag, but I intend to return us to those golden days. Thus, by the power invested in me by my ego, I am implimenting a new tagging policy:

New Policy

• Public Rewrite: Pages that are about notable topics that every encyclopedia should cover should be tagged with {{rewrite}}.
  • These are pages that won't be deleted because we need to have a page on them, or pages that we must keep because they were once featured when they were still good. Appropriate articles are about important people, major literary works, major historical events, etc. The point is that these articles will be in the category that is linked to the front page.
  • Do not use any other tag to mark pages for rewrite as all others are being phased out, changed or deleted.

• Maintenance Tagging: Pages that need fixing, rewriting or other attention, but which are about less notable subjects should be tagged with one of the following tags:
  • {{fix}}: a general catch all
  • {{cleanup}}: for content that needs better organization or that needs fine tuning
  • {{ugly}}: for pages that need better formatting
  • {{expansion}}: for pages that need to be made longer before they are acceptable
  • {{deadends}}: for pages without any links
    • These are for pages that the original author should take care of because the subject matter is not something that a wide variety of editors would be interested in working on. Pages marked with these tags are not on essential subjects and may be deleted if no one addresses them for a month.

• NRVing: Pages that are worthless and relatively new should be marked with {{NRV|~~~~~}} as they are now. Older pages should be given more time to redeem themselves and should therefore be marked with one of the above tags.

• Insta-huffing: Pages that are one liners should continue to be placed on QVFD.

Policy Signed: ---Rev. Isra (talk) 01:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments

We should keep {{Fixed}}, for when someone is rewriting an article but it could take a few days. Also, the template {{stub}} is probably a better idea than {{expansion}} Scythe33 02:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

For the first case use {{construction}}. Stubs are an entirely different non-maintenance related set of templates. Expasnison has been in use for quite a while doing what it is now doing and there is no point to changing it now. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 02:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The only use that I've seen for {{expansion}}, is to save articles from being NRV'd or deleted. It seems that once they're tagged, nothing really happens...   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 03:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Things get expanded because of that tag about as often as NRVs get cleaned up or rewrites get rewritten. That is to say: not very often. Once they are tagged they now have one month before being deleted. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 03:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Side note: {{rewrite}} wasn't meant to be an insta-huff-on-expire tag, but more of a 'should-this-tag-still-be-here-after-two-months' tag. As were some others. I think. Nobody cares. --Splaka 05:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the rewrite tagg thing. If an article about a main historical event or literary work is bad it should be treated just as the rest of the crap. I'd rather have an incomplete encyclopedia than an unfunny one. Besides, those entries will eventually be recreated, so the encyclopedia will be filled anyway, little by little.--Rataube 10:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Tough call. Deleting a substandard article with a good title often does cause something to be recreated at that name. Sometimes that may be good thing, other times what gets created the second time is even worse than the original rubbish. There is also the question of what to do with a weak article which is part of an otherwise-valid series (or linked from a series template), for instance one individual province or state article which is weak but which, once deleted, leaves redlinks in every other page in the series. Hard to say what to do with something like {{USpades}} or its parody {{UStates}} - just delete the template as "non-notable country" and be done with it, or be left with Wisconsin-sized redlinks to places like "Cheeselen"? --Carlb 16:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)