Forum:The Rewriters

Forums: Index > Village Dump > The Rewriters

Note: This topic has been unedited for 5269 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

So, I was foolin' around here at the forum the other day. I saw the "five bastardizations of wikipedia" thing, and checked that out. Later, I went through the old VFH pages and asked why voting has seemingly deminished. One of the answers I got was "because all the obvious pages were taken." (This is going somewhere, don't worry.)

One of the bastardizations listed in the article thing was Encyclopedia Dramatica. I took a look at the site (which I had never really done prior), and it--as I'm sure you're all aware--sucks balls. It's all bullshity "lulz" meme "internets" shit. Then I looked at a lot of the pages on "obvious" subjects here, and they're very much the same way. This should not be the case. We're better than that, dammit.

Therefore, I'd officially like to suggest a new usergroup-type-thing, in the vein of Imperial Colonization, called "The Rewriters," or something similar. The job of The Rewriters--much like IC--would be to re-write shitty articles on notable topics and make them not suck as much. Kind of like a year-round Conservation Week, or something. This way, we can A) greatly improve the quality of the site, B) add to our own article counts (always a plus), C) distance ourselves from ED as much as we can (for they suck, you see), and D) make awesome templates and pages for a new usergroup, which is always fun.

So yeah. Does anyone else like this idea? —Sir Guildensternenstein 23:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

It does seem far too identical to the theory of IC to avoid mentioning it, this idea just sounds like an extension, which I doubt agree with anyway. Furthermore, I could care less who gets more traffic, Uncyc or ED. --

-kun "whisper sweet nothings into thine ear..." 23:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

But thinking about it, in the same way that there are numerous unofficial wanking groups (UNSOC and whatever), I wouldn't see any problem in having numerous groups that actually have an objective, even if they are the same. --

-kun "whisper sweet nothings into thine ear..." 00:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Well my prospective group would be different in that instead of making re-writing a group affair, it's an individual affair. Basically, there's no red tape, no rules, no deadlines--just re-write articles at your own pace and behest. I simply think having it be a usergroup would motivate people to do it more, especially if there are cool titles and bragging rights to be won. —Sir Guildensternenstein 00:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

So... like... a wiki? • Spang • ☃ • talk • 02:34, 13 May 2009

I just bought a defective KitKat bar. It's a solid block of chocolate. I'm just sayin'. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 02:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Per Spang That would be a bit broad for a usergroup, and usergroups don't solve everything, templates do! What we need is some sort of template to mark articles that need work. Like a Rewrite template or something. Because its always better to mark stuff that needs fixed than to fix it yourself. --Mnb'z 07:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Pages on notable subjects tend to suck precisely because they're notable. Everybody has a one-liner for, say, Michael Jackson. What they don't realize is that a page of a hundred unrelated lines (in any sense besides subject) equals a mess of suck. There's a fine balance between everybody editing and knowing when not to edit, which the pages on popular subjects often miss. Unless you're willing to constantly police those pages after rewriting them (which, to a certain extent, goes against the wiki ethos) they will eventually return to a state of 90% random cruft. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 00:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

We "police" articles all the time around here. Almost all the Highlighted articles (except some from 2005) are basically the same as they were when they were highlighted. --Mnb'z 06:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually

I was thinking of starting something similair to this, only make it about unknown articles with the "idea" template. This way, they're less prone to IPs and they could get the attention they deserve. Don't try to tell me that writing Antbortion wouldn't be fun. Saberwolf116 00:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I visit Encylopedia Dramatica on occasion.

Fascinating stuff. De-evolution, self execution. No solution. -- Hi, hey! I'M A MOTERFUCKING NIGGER BITCH LOVER 01:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

As a chemist, I have a solution for everything. In ED's case it's 16 molar hydrochloric acid.

(talk) 01:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

That's "molars". One molar, two molars. As a chemist you make for a terrible dentist. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 02:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Isn't someone forgetting some template that has something to do with something? --Pleb SYNDROME _{CUN medicate (butt poop!!!!)} 03:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Probably. I'm a flake. Don't even try to deny it, me! Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 03:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Good ol' village dump, off topic after a few posts. W00T! Saberwolf116 04:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Rewriting

I have done some rewriting of late. Augustus (with permission) , Sulla (otherwise destined for delete) and Cleopatra which I thought was inadequate and checking the previous pages - the work of many hands. I think as regards Cleopatra I should have asked but what started as a re-edit became a complete change. That what happens. It is like trying to repair a house and then find yourself forced to make a complete demolition job as that is the only way to continue because the option for a total revert isn't feasible anymore (like restoring your house from rubble in a skip) . My suggestion would be to post a message on the talk page of the article indicating you would like to make changes. If the writer is new and not known to the admins - then it should go through the normal process. However other writers who have been on the site for sometime and have shown they would be able to do a rewrite could be on the 'more trusted' fast track list. This shouldn't be a hard and fast rule but I think proof of work already done should be counted in favour of a writer. So I guess I am in favour of Guildy's idea. --Romartus 10:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I fully support this idea!

Moreover, I would like to see it integrated into Imperial Colonization. Instead of always starting from scratch, we could just as well try to rewrite based on the original article. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 10:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we could divide IC into two clans: one for rewriting well known articles, one for rewriting unknown ones? Saberwolf116 12:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The Sharks and The Jets? (*snap*, *snap*) Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 13:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

There are written knowns , Unwritten knowns and unwritten unknowns to parody a well known former American politician. --Romartus 12:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Coco the Clown? --

-kun "whisper sweet nothings into thine ear..." 13:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

You know what would be cool? Some sort of site where people could rewrite articles at will. Maybe we should start one of those.

FU Spang. -OptyC Sucks! CUN14:33, 13 May

But how about this:

One thing that might improve the overall quality of articles would be: articles allowed into mainspace only when they're ready. "Under Construction" is one of the least professional-looking things possible, or even probable. Alternately, we could start publishing a magazine with at least half of the articles "Under Construction". Also, MrN9000:s collaboration page is too hard to find. And so forth. -- Style Guide 17:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Most experienced users do use the "construct in userspace" method. The only people who create "under construction" articles are noobs, who lack the wiki skills to know how to use the construct in userspace method. Unfortunately, we need to allow ips to edit, in the hope that a few will become established users. --Mnb'z 17:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes - I mean it should be the Law. Maybe it would attract better contributors, all in all. -- Style

Guide 04:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

No. The last thing we need is "better contributors". *Blech*. Also, I'd rather not risk pushing someone away by forcing them to do something a certain way. You can't put writing in a box, man. I mean, a wiki can barely contain it. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 06:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

One of the easiest thing to do is get me to argue but I abstain this time. -- Style

Guide 06:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

A wise person once said something along the lines of "Rules < Funny". Then someone here said it and ruined it completely. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 06:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Writing

But on a more serious note, a "no-under-construction-articles" rule would just scare away noobs. Almost everyone who knows how to create articles in userspace does it, and that process is suggested in most welcome messages. --Mnb'z 06:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't make me abstain a second time! -All right, if almost everyone does it right anyway, I stand corrected. Wait, I sit. -- Style

Guide 06:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Another Header

I was thinking this would be a seperate usergroup--a sort of foil to IC. While IC would tackle the big articles (and the big messes), the small, nible Rewriters would fix up "smaller" existing articles, or--if need be--rewrite them completey from scratch. I've been doing a lot of the later, actually--three of my last four features have been total overhauls of existing articles. If we had four or five other people doing this same sort of thing (yes, I know there are users who do do this sort of thing), we could and would increase site quality manyfold. So yeah. —Sir Guildensternenstein 22:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I like that idea. Would it be little known or well known articles? Saberwolf116 02:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I think he's saying that IC tackles the big (read: well-known) articles, and The Rewriters (it's gotta sound cooler than that) would take on lesser known articles such as Antbortion. • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} 03:17, May 14

Yeah, basically what Necropaxx said. And I was thinking that this usergroup would be based around an Imperial German aesthetic--with German titles and ranks--to counter the British feel of IC. That would be the balls. —Sir Guildensternenstein 03:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure, just keep the Swastika out of the picture. When do you want to set up the group? I'm in. Saberwolf116 04:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Against, based purely on the quality of your spelling. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 05:04, 14 May 2009

Yeah, I'm at a friend's house and his keyboard doesn't exactly work very well. Also, I was (and am still) very high. So yeah. —Sir Guildensternenstein 06:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

How about instead

Instead of all this "rewriting", how about some creating? Take a look at A) The list of articles all encyclopedias should have, and therefore we should probably have a page on too. B) The list of articles that some people think would be a good idea, or C) The list of wanted articles with the most redlinks.

Just pick an article and then do what the Imperial Colonisation does, but without any previous article to get in the way. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 05:16, 14 May 2009

Good idea. Said usergroup can do that too. Just a usergroup dedicated to improving the overall quality of the site. With an Imperial German aesthetic. We could call it "Wehrmacht," or "Der Ünseikjugend" or something. I like the second name. Yeah. —Sir Guildensternenstein 06:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

"Kaiser"? "Commandant"? "Reich"? German fetish ahoy! --

-kun "whisper sweet nothings into thine ear..." 11:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The German Empire consists of a small sausage factory in Alsace. --

-kun "whisper sweet nothings into thine ear..." 11:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

And so on. --

-kun "whisper sweet nothings into thine ear..." 11:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

German fetish indeed. I'm thinking about calling myself "Reichsmarshal." Yeah. And, if that second thing is the Blackadder refference I think it is, the line's "A sausage factory in Togoland." I <3 Blackadder. —Sir Guildensternenstein 15:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Out of curiousity Guildy, maybe we could start with 9/11? Saberwolf116 17:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

If Guildy's Hitler Youth are going for unknown articles, such as Antbortion, then I'd consider 9/11 to be an IC topic. --

-kun "whisper sweet nothings into thine ear..." 17:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Alright then, NVM. Saberwolf116 17:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

A German fetish vid for Guildy. --Mnb'z 19:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

These lyrics are all wrong! I want to hear about the three german soldiers who crossed the Rhine! Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 19:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)