| Ten Forward → "Blank" articles (Reply | Watch) |
Ported from Project:Votes for deletion/Henry Janeway
...as a contributor for many of the blank comic articles and even some rewritten MA articles over the many months, I feel I must bring up some points. In August 2006, I added the bulk of the Gold Key and DC TOS comic releases, but at the time nobody mentioned that I shouldn't create these articles if all I was going to do was added a template. There were no questions or queries about the additions so I carried on happilly.
Now in those days there was little or no administrator coverage so we had to look out for each other, and moderate each others articles. Again no-one questioned the addition of numerous rewritten Memory Alpha articles, and there wasn't even any policies in those days, just a single line that "Information from canon sources should be used in context", which was a rule that was broken long before I became a contributor here. I think it is excellent that the wiki has improved immensely in the last few months, but please don't blame contributors for mistakes from the past, when they weren't made aware they were making mistakes. --The Doctor 03:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- Nobody's slamming any contributors here, Doc. Simply making an observation that, as of now, it is harder than it should be to tell which articles are still needed. --TimPendragon 03:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- I realise that, and like I say you must excuse my flu-filled paranoia, I apologise. But I just wanted to get across how the situation occured and the climate that was present on the wiki at the time. While I do understand your observations, although I know agree that redlinks are preferred, all of our stub articles need expanding or need working on, as well as the redlinks. --The Doctor 04:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- What's wrong with creating blank pages for comics, sure it would be better they were full but I'd rather have a page for every source with minimum info on than no page at all. -- 8of5 03:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- When I see a redlink for an article that I have knowledge about, I'm inclined to contribute. When I see a standard link like Valiant for instance, I assume it's a (relatively) complete article, and probably won't click on it, unless I'm specifically looking for info from that episode. As it is now, when I click on that link, I get a pretty "blank" page, with just a basic episode page template, and (were I looking for info), I'd feel frustrated. If it was a redlink, I'd either not click on the link, or at least begin a real article if I were so inclined. --TimPendragon 04:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- However it does provide you with some, if only minimal info, and in the cases of sources; books, comics and games, that minimal info should be enough for you to track down the source rather than it being a little meaningless red name in a citation. There are hundreds, maybe thousands of books and comics, I'd rather have a page that at least tells you what they are, when they were and what the cover is for each than big lists of red links on the pages that list them.
- Also once a blank page for a source is set up its much easier for a user to come in a fill in blanks not having to set it up themselves. -- 8of5 04:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- When I see a redlink for an article that I have knowledge about, I'm inclined to contribute. When I see a standard link like Valiant for instance, I assume it's a (relatively) complete article, and probably won't click on it, unless I'm specifically looking for info from that episode. As it is now, when I click on that link, I get a pretty "blank" page, with just a basic episode page template, and (were I looking for info), I'd feel frustrated. If it was a redlink, I'd either not click on the link, or at least begin a real article if I were so inclined. --TimPendragon 04:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Maybe we could use something akin to the stub template, that would flag a "blank" article as such and create a list for folks to reference. --Seventy 06:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- I have to agree with Tim Pendragon. "Skeleton" articles as I call them create an illusion that we have more info in our database than we really do. We're approaching 10000 articles, but how many of them are "skeletons"? I like Seventy's idea for an equivalent of a "stub" label for "skeletons".--Turtletrekker 07:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- Most of these "skeletons" are already marked as stubs... -- 8of5 07:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- In my experience, most of the episode/comic/whatever "skeletons" are not. --TimPendragon 07:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- Most of these "skeletons" are already marked as stubs... -- 8of5 07:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well I have created many novel, comic, episode and short story "skeletons" and I stub each and every one of them. -- 8of5 08:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)