Talk:Wiki Refuel Initiative
Usefulness
I'm not sure how useful this page is. At first I would guess that this should be moved to Project:Wiki Refuel Initiative I would say: Go ahead, if you want to update and improve something. — xZise [talk] 09:34, 2 June 2013 (CDT)
I don't really see any point in this either. This is a wiki, so any articles that are especially outdated or poorly organized can be quickly updated. There is no reason for a "complete rewrite". Also I don't quite like how this was started just by one person creating an article without any sort of actual organization or agreement with anyone else. If this were indeed necessary, there should at least be some sort of discussion or announcement so the community can also decide about the necessity of such a project. --dgelessus (talk · logs) 10:08, 3 June 2013 (CDT)
After three days now, Dylloop has done nothing except writing this vague article. He did not address our concerns or critique in any way. In fact he did not contribute to the wiki at all except for creating this article and linking it on the frontpage. I think that this "initiative" doesn't do anything except telling us wiki contributors to do what we are already doing. So this page is superfluous. I therefor nominated it for deletion. I made some suggestions in the paragraph below how we could start a productive quality initiative. But currently, this one isn't useful at all. --Crush (talk) 16:31, 4 June 2013 (CDT)
What do you expect to happen?
When you really want people to improve the wiki, you should be a bit more specific.
- Set goals - what exactly do you want to accomplish? Make it measureable. "All outdated articles need to be updated" would not be a measureable goal, because it doesn't define what's an outdated and what's updated. "All articles not edited since 0.18 must be reviewed" would be measureable goal.
- Set priorities - what parts of the wiki need the most attention? Tutorials? Parts? Celestial Bodies? Game mechanics?
- Set guidelines - You said you want the wiki to be more "visually pleasing". What exactly does that mean? Do you want us to add cute cat GIFs to all articles, or only those which start with the letter A?
--Crush (talk) 06:12, 3 June 2013 (CDT)
- About the guidelines there is Project:Guidelines. At the moment there is only some stuff I added recently. — xZise [talk] 09:18, 3 June 2013 (CDT)
- If this is a personal project, it might be a good idea for Dyloop to move this page to a subpage of his user page, where it is a personal project. Maybe that should be added to the general project guidelines. User:Dyllop/Projects/Wiki Refuel Initiative would be a proper place for it. I will however leave it to Dyloop to request it. --Ruedii (talk) 17:13, 16 June 2013 (CDT)
- Dyllops last (and only) contribution to the wiki was creating this page and putting it on the frontpage. And that was two weeks ago. Maybe he does "admin stuff" I can't see, but I wonder if Dyloop is even active anymore. --Crush (talk) 10:26, 17 June 2013 (CDT)
- If this is a personal project, it might be a good idea for Dyloop to move this page to a subpage of his user page, where it is a personal project. Maybe that should be added to the general project guidelines. User:Dyllop/Projects/Wiki Refuel Initiative would be a proper place for it. I will however leave it to Dyloop to request it. --Ruedii (talk) 17:13, 16 June 2013 (CDT)
Forum discussion
I created a forum thread to plan a proper wiki quality initiative. --Crush (talk) 04:27, 6 June 2013 (CDT)
- We all know more admins means a better wiki. I would like to propose that this initiative be flushed out, or the author second the deletion request. The author may also want to move this "initiative" to a "personal mission statement" page, which as it is now it just needs a little rephrasing to meet the requirements of. (It could be better formatted as well.) --Ruedii (talk) 15:28, 29 July 2013 (CDT)
- Sorry, but I have to disagree with that "more admins means a better wiki" statement. It is good to have some fairly active admins making sure that everything is fine. There are however lots of active users that are not admins, who can do many things by themselves (reverting spam, fixing pages, expanding the wiki, helping new people). Obviously admins have some authority (sometimes) and are responsible for doing some of the stuff normal users can't do (moving and deleting pages, working on the site layout). These are however not the main part of the wiki, so I don't see how the promotion of more users would help the wiki.
- On topic: I don't really think this thing has any kind of future. First of all, it is still unnecessary in my opinion. Secondly, as you said, it is poorly planned and described. The author has never made any contributions again after writing this page and putting it on the news. That was two months ago and I don't expect that Dylloop will ever come back again, so I wouldn't wait for him to say something. --dgelessus (talk · contribs) 16:00, 29 July 2013 (CDT)
- I agree with Dgelessus about that page: You don't have to reboot this wiki as most pages are in a good shape. And most articles in Category:Stubs are stubs because, there is not that much to talk about. Apart from the missing activity of the creator, the main concept of a Wiki is: If you want to edit/fix/add something you can do that. So if there is awful page go ahead and make it a better one. I'm not sure what this “initiative” could accomplish. Actually this Wiki is lacking of (official) specific guidelines about different page types, like how to write a tutorial (okay Tutorial:Template may be enough) or how a part article should be structured. — xZise [talk] 16:30, 29 July 2013 (CDT)
