| Revision as of 17:27, 21 January 2010 editMZMcBride (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users190,597 edits →A reasonable rate: +reply← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 05:06, 7 April 2021 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,295,546 editsm Archiving 73 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people/Phase I/Archive 2, Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people/Phase I/Archive 1, Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people/Phase I/Archive 3) (botTag: Replaced | ||
| (916 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| Let's try to keep it civil and succinct, eh? | |||
| | algo = old(7d) | |||
| | archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people/Phase I/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| == Alphabetize views == | |||
| | counter = 3 | |||
| | maxarchivesize = 150K | |||
| Would it make sense to alphabetize the views by username? I've never really liked the idea of chronological ordering, as I think it unfairly favors earlier views too much. --] (]) 16:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| | archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}} | |||
| | minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |||
| ==Collaborative views== | |||
| | minthreadsleft = 0 | |||
| Could we have a go at establishing some collaboratively edited views? I can see the volume of individual, partially overlapping, partially contradicting views spiralling into ] extremely quickly. Perhaps this could be in a separate section at the bottom. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| {{archives|bot=lowercase sigmabot III|age=7}} | |||
| == NOINDEX == | |||
| Unfortunately NOINDEX is disabled in article space. That can't be done without some fairly serious changes and risks. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :but everything in the ] is noindexed! yay! ] <sup>]</sup> 17:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == A reasonable rate == | |||
| I think prodding 100 unreferenced BLP articles per day would be reasonable. If there are a few thousand, that will remove the backlog within a few months. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Actually determining the number of unreferenced BLPs would be useful, but there might be no way to do that without going through them all (and along the way we'd obviously do the cleanup, making the count moot). Apparently there are over 50,000 so tagged, but undoubtedly a significant number of those are not actually unsourced (the tags were added incorrectly, or sources were later added and the tags not removed). Still, 100 a day would probably be a reasonable starting point, and if we were handling that load we could quickly ramp it up. Even while this general RFC runs I really think we should figure out a means to deal with the unreferenced bunch just as a starting point for tackling the overall problem. Coming to agreement about prodding unreferenced BLPs (or ], which is probably acceptable to more people), is something we need to do asap, particularly as ArbCom appears ready to validate a delete-on-sight approach. I don't have a problem with doing that if we can't come to another solution, but an organized effort that is logged centrally (as opposed to admins deleting at random without warning) is much preferred. Discussion should continue at ] (and at ] though I think the former is a better route) since it's already well on its way. --] <small>| ] | ]</small> 17:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::I've slowly started building a list of ]. --] (]) 17:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Change to PROD overall == | |||
| Note that all of these proposals generally discourage removal of the yet to be devised BLP PROD template. Of course, current PROD policy is that the template can be removed, by anyone, even the creator. Personally I've always had issue with this, as it's almost always inevitably removed, thus forcing it to AFD. Thus I wonder how the differences in BLP PROD and normal PRODS will be reconciled on the guidance article, so as to not add too much confusion? Is it time to consider making it so that PROD's generally shouldn't be removed by the article's creator, unless they do one of two things (or both): 1) edit the article to address at least one of the concerns noted in the PROD template; 2) note on the article's talk page why they removed the PROD template, either by addressing the concerns in the template, or why they think the template was added in error. I don't think it's too much to ask of the editor to either attempt to address the concerns, or at least make one edit on the talk page before allowing removal of the template. ] <small> ]]'''</small> 17:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 05:06, 7 April 2021
 Archives | |||
|
|||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |