User talk:Bluerfn

Line 386:

@Maggosh: Nobody wants "'''horrid'''" maintenance templates on an article.}}

{{KrytenKoro|Jeebus, please assume good faith. When I said "not a random anon", I meant that it was someone who was watching what was going on - maggosh was even one of the ones reverting the removal of fact templates, I believe. Maggosh didn't just happen by the article and say "Oh, hullo, there's a request for more citations here, let's dance!" He was invested in the events as they happened, (also I was chatting with him as we usually do), and he decided to just get the citing out of the way then to stop the removal of the section. It was not the template that did it, it was a reaction to your own edits in removing part of the page and adding the template.

(if I am interpreting you correctly, then) On a fundamental level, making the pages look ugly in order to force editors to complete a needed task, basically from revulsion, is a bad process. Very few pages will ever be "absolutely finished", and deciding to leave them in a horrible-looking state until their issues are addressed is basically saying "leave the wiki looking like a mess", and will likely drive new editors away, or give them a poor opinion of the wiki. Requests for maintenance should not be invisible, no, but they should also not be disruptive. Honestly, we should either move the maintenance templates to the talk pages, or make them much simpler, similar to the translation or section-stub templates. In some way, they need to be much smaller and to the point.

On an aside, if you do use a maintenance template like that, it needs to specify what exactly needs sourcing.

"Section: Keychains - Sora's Keyblade the Keyblade of World's Hearts?. " is kind of unclear, and I doubt that someone who wasn't already watching the edits would be able to add the correct cite. It should specify the line "Sora's Keyblade is known as the "Keyblade of Worlds' Hearts"", at the least.}}

== Moderator Rights ==

User talk:Bluerfn: Difference between revisions

Navigation menu

Page actions

Page actions

Personal tools

Navigation

Search

Community

Tools

@@ Line 386: / Line 386: @@
 @Maggosh: Nobody wants "'''horrid'''" maintenance templates on an article.}}
+{{KrytenKoro|Jeebus, please assume good faith. When I said "not a random anon", I meant that it was someone who was watching what was going on - maggosh was even one of the ones reverting the removal of fact templates, I believe. Maggosh didn't just happen by the article and say "Oh, hullo, there's a request for more citations here, let's dance!" He was invested in the events as they happened, (also I was chatting with him as we usually do), and he decided to just get the citing out of the way then to stop the removal of the section. It was not the template that did it, it was a reaction to your own edits in removing part of the page and adding the template.
+(if I am interpreting you correctly, then) On a fundamental level, making the pages look ugly in order to force editors to complete a needed task, basically from revulsion, is a bad process. Very few pages will ever be "absolutely finished", and deciding to leave them in a horrible-looking state until their issues are addressed is basically saying "leave the wiki looking like a mess", and will likely drive new editors away, or give them a poor opinion of the wiki. Requests for maintenance should not be invisible, no, but they should also not be disruptive. Honestly, we should either move the maintenance templates to the talk pages, or make them much simpler, similar to the translation or section-stub templates. In some way, they need to be much smaller and to the point.
+On an aside, if you do use a maintenance template like that, it needs to specify what exactly needs sourcing.
+"Section: Keychains - Sora's Keyblade the Keyblade of World's Hearts?. " is kind of unclear, and I doubt that someone who wasn't already watching the edits would be able to add the correct cite. It should specify the line "Sora's Keyblade is known as the "Keyblade of Worlds' Hearts"", at the least.}}
 == Moderator Rights ==