Doom Wiki talk:Criteria for people articles

This is a draft for the timebeing. Consider it my views on how people articles should be written. Any feedback or criticism is welcome. Fraggle 14:02, 6 Aug 2005 (UTC)


 * I've made a few minor changes/clarifications; I'm still not sure how to link to a category properly (instead of accidentally putting the page IN the category) . Bloodshedder 16:04, 6 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Concerns
I'm a little concerned that people who have an inflated opinion of themselves are putting together User articles which, whilst they might meet the criteria (haven't checked thoroughly enough), are pretty scant on information. Naming no names, there are a few user accounts which have edited their own descriptions (note: not User: pages) and scant else.

I would like to know what you think of the proposal that articles about someone are not contributed to by the person in question. I know that sounds pretty radical, and not easy to police. I also know that in many cases, the person is perhaps best versed in what they've done. A solution to the latter might be dumping a list of things which need incorporating into the User article into the Talk page for it.

-- User:Jdowland


 * It's not all that surprising that people want to be immortalised, as it were, in a wiki. But, provided that they meet the criteria and that the information they do provide is factually accurate and not exaggerated in any way, there shouldn't be much of a problem. Other users will almost certainly notice if something that has been submitted doesn't sound right, or isn't suitable for inclusion and will edit/delete accordingly. - DooMAD 21:36, 27 Aug 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with DooMAD. In most gaming forums, whenever somebody makes inflated claims in a supposedly "factually accurate" context, for every user that supports him/her there are three who want to bring the posting back down to earth &mdash; so, inadvertently, the community as a whole ends up exercising restraint. Also, considering that Wikipedia does such a good job with NPOV, when there are far too many articles for a small group of admins to make sure that everything is balanced, I can't help thinking that we, with 100 articles per admin, won't let anything get out of hand here. Ryan W 00:15, 29 Sep 2005 (UTC)

for when an article doesn't meet...
I've created the following template :

opinions? -- Jdowland 13:46, 29 Aug 2005 (UTC)


 * Does that imply that some admin must agree to search for such entries every once in a while, look at the discussions (if it's been a week or two), and erase the pages where no serious objections have been voiced? If not, what would be the good of a non-admin using this template?   Ryan W 00:22, 29 Sep 2005 (UTC)


 * I suppose we need a more formal procedure, outlining precicely who can nominate for deletion and how long things have to be left. -- Jdowland 09:06, 29 Sep 2005 (UTC)


 * After looking over an incredibly long deletion protocol and an even more complicated procedure for changing existing protocols, I would make the following suggestion.
 * [a] Change the text of the template to something like, "This article has been nominated for deletion. If you disagree, please voice your opinion on its talk page &mdash; or better yet, improve the article sufficiently that no one wants to delete it.&lt;BR&gt;This article may be deleted at any time, at the discretion of the administrators, starting on [ date ] ."  (Where [ date ] is maybe a week after the template was applied.)  Then it makes a little more sense for any user to be able to apply it.
 * [b] Make it so that applying this template puts the page in a new category, called "Pages marked for deletion" or something.
 * [c] Make it so that nobody except an admin can remove the template once it has been applied (that way, if somebody decides to sprinkle it around at random, the admins will notice sooner rather than later).
 * [d] Add "Review pages marked for deletion" to the "Things to do" list on Entryway.
 * Obviously, totally ridiculous pages will still tend to get deleted right away, and I don't mind that (we have enough admins in any case that they can keep an eye on each other).
 * A better question might be: do people actually use "Things to do" as it is, or are stubs (for example) expanded only when someone notices them on Special:Recentchanges? I am not sure.  I suppose that when we have 10 or 20 times more eager editors, "Things to do" will become more popular.  ;>
 * What do you think?  Ryan W 19:54, 29 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with all of that, except [c] which I can't imagine becoming an issue (the proposed solution is technically impossible with the current software, in any case). - Fredrik 20:54, 29 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Me too ; and I agree re: point (c). I'll start sorting the templates out :-) -- User:Jdowland
 * Any progress or new bolts of insight on this one yet? (Hmm, I seem to be getting on your case a lot today.  It's not on purpose!   :>    Ryan W 07:18, 17 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, excuuuse me for trying to make the admins' lives easier. :>   I guess if anyone sees the template applied somewhere where it really doesn't seem to belong, they can look at "Contributions" and see if it's a pattern.  But you're right; we haven't exactly had epidemics of users attacking each other individually (AFAIAA), just recurring spam and the occasional graffito.   Ryan W 23:10, 29 Sep 2005 (UTC)