User:Jaz/Future

Discussion
Let me start by stating that I think this discussion is long overdue. I do not want to see these concerns to be just swept under the carpet (Which I submit is the number one problem with MA at the moment). We have a chance to re-evaluate our policies here in the context of each other. At the outset, I apologise if this goes away from the issues you mentioned Jaz, but these are definitely related problems.

Category Suggestions: I have to disagree with the idea that categories should be created ad hoc. Look at discussions such as the one about "Category:Professors" to see how discussion can lead to better categories. By discussing categories beforehand we can deal with the issues better and with much, much less effort. This process also ensures naming conventions are followed: it would be a pain to change the cat name on 50 pages just because someone capitalised the category name incorrectly.

What is the problem with categories is that they take months to get created. Seriously. If discussion is closed they should be made within a week. If there is no consensus after a month or so, they should be archived. Don't just let them sit in limbo.

Peer Review and FA: I cannot say it enough, but PEER REVIEW DOES NOT WORK. People do not seem interested in commenting on the quality of an article unless it's being deleted or FA. My solution? Scrap PR altogether. I'd change it so if you're looking for what can be better be done with an article, you can just submit it to FA. If people think something else should be done, they can say so there with constructive object votes "ie. I'll vote for this if you flesh out the info on X". I think there's no harm in more FA nominations.

Merges: Likewise with merges. They sit there for months... I suggest putting merges on a more visible central page, like pages for deletion. All discussions can then be ARCHIVED on the talk page, so after the decision is made the net result is the same. As it is, merge discussions on the talk pages of obscure articles tend not to be seen.

I'd recommend that exactly the same rules that govern deletions should apply, and that all merges MUST be resolved in the same period. To go even further, the two processes could be merged (pardon the pun), and we deal with all article deletions/merges in the same process. Already many deletions end up as merges, so there's no reason this couldn't work.

I intend to further reply to your other points Jaz when I have the time. I would ask other regular contributors that see this post to seriously consider Jaz's points and the proposals outlined above, and to reply. I think we can and should all agree that change IS needed.– Cleanse 04:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I totally agree with your PR comments. I've always thought it would be better to have a two-stepped Featured Article process, where, first an article is submitted and it is discussed and worked on for a week or so, and then after is vote is taken. --- Jaz 19:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Here are my thoughts. Also, let me preface my thoughts with this: Yes, I know we are not, and that some of my ideas do come from what I have seen there. However, as Robin Lefler said, "You gotta go with what works."


 * Administration: I do agree that a revamp of how administrators are chosen needs to be done. One of the things that I saw at Wikipedia was that each perspective administrator is asked three boilerplate questions and then each user who is eligible to vote is allowed to ask questions as well. These questions cover their experience at the site (i.e. "What do you consider your best work") and administrative policy (i.e. "How would you deal with vandals"). How would that work here? A perspective administrator is given a certain number of days to respond to questions before voting is opened. Why do I feel this would be a good idea? There are times that I (and others) would like to vote for administrators, however I might not have the time to research the user's edits. It would also give them a chance to respond to what would otherwise be "oppose" votes.


 * Peer Review/Featured Article: As mentioned here, Taduolus questioned why the Peer Review tag is only added to the talk page. It was argued that it may or may not get more people involved, however it was something very similar that got me to join. I stumbled across a "PNA" page, started clicking around to all of the various "background" pages and thought "Wow, I could join and help out." Renegade54 stated that (and I quote) "Administrative stuff shouldn't clutter up the articles any more than necessary." If it gets more people involved in Memory Alpha, why not. As for people not being involved in either process (as well as several others)...


 * Memory Alpha-Wide Announcements: It has probably been brought up somewhere, and shot down, but in my opinion several areas don't get the attention they deserve because people simply don't know about it. Is it possible to have a message sent to users when a new discussion is started at things such as Nominations for administratorship, Category suggestions, Peer review, Featured Article nominations, etc? Maybe set it up so that a user has been at MA for X amount of days or edited Y amount of articles? This would get more people involved.


 * I also like the idea Cleanse had about Merges. Unless I'm missing something, the only list I could find for articles that need to be merged is clicking on the "What links here" on the Merge Template. There does need to be a centralized location for discussion on this.


 * I'll agree with Jaz that more and more people are "Policing" with the Recent Changes. I'm somewhat guilty of this. Right now, I do it at work because I don't have time to do more there. I will agree that this can be detrimental, because people will spend more time policing than contributing. But I will also say that this can help in copy-editing (spelling, grammar, etc).


 * I will also agree with Jaz on "Fear of incompleteness." Directly from the, I give you this: "Trek franchise articles. These articles are written from a "meta" or real life point of view, and are written about the Star Trek franchise. Subjects can include articles about the production of the episodes and movies themselves, as well as articles about novels, games, and other official materials, as well as pages about the actors and actresses. These pages are not covered by the canon policy." What I get from this is, if it relates to Trek and is official, it should be included here.


 * Maybe I've stepped on some toes, but hopefully it helps. Willie LLAP 23:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with a lot of what Jaz said about the administrative elitism a lot of arguments do involve admins a very notable example being at Talk:Deputy Director, where an admin used his blocking power to end an argument. I also agree with everything Cleanse said, especially the mergers.  I also agree with everything Willie said.


 * Smaller/obscure articles my issue I have is small obscure articles that get very little attention. I mean I'll come across one sometimes that hasn't been edited in over a year and that only to add something minor like a category.  There has got to be a way to get these articles more attention.


 * So there's my two-cents, hope it helps.--Long Live the United Earth 01:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey, guys, if this discussion is meant to be taken seriously and if you want to involve more of the community, perhaps you should move this discussion to a Ten Forward forum rather than as a subpage of an archivist's user page? That's where these things are supposed to go, after all. :/ --From Andoria with Love 04:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)