Halopedia talk:Projects/Improvement: Difference between revisions

From Halopedia, the Halo wiki

(→‎Suggestion: new section)
No edit summary
Line 6: Line 6:


I am not sure if this is the proper place to add this, so please feel free to remove this if I am wrong. Anyway, I have a possibly useful suggestion. After an article is considered complete, or improved, we can "check" it off in some form. This will let other users know what articles are done, and possibly lead them to ensure that the article is, in fact, improved. - [[User:NightHammer|NightHammer]] ([[User talk:NightHammer|talk]]) 16:37, 14 May 2014 (EDT)
I am not sure if this is the proper place to add this, so please feel free to remove this if I am wrong. Anyway, I have a possibly useful suggestion. After an article is considered complete, or improved, we can "check" it off in some form. This will let other users know what articles are done, and possibly lead them to ensure that the article is, in fact, improved. - [[User:NightHammer|NightHammer]] ([[User talk:NightHammer|talk]]) 16:37, 14 May 2014 (EDT)
:This was part of my original idea, but I thought it would add an extra layer of work to the project that could instead be spent improving articles. I also thought it might discourage editors from making an article ''even better'' even if the basic standards have technically been met. Still, I can see the benefit of it in terms of informativeness and motivation. Could try it on the next round. --[[User:Jugus|<font color="MidnightBlue"><b>Jugus</b></font>]] <small>([[User talk:Jugus|<font color="Gray">Talk</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Jugus|<font color="Gray">Contribs</font>]])</small> 00:03, 15 May 2014 (EDT)

Revision as of 23:03, May 14, 2014

General note: While users may nominate any article for the project, it is useful to first consider the significance of the article in question. As a general rule, it should be noted that canonically significant subjects with potentially higher page traffic should take precedence over lesser ones, e.g. supporting characters. Articles about recently-released media are also often in need of updating. Pages that require more drastic improvement should take priority over ones with less problems; a good rule would be that if an article can be fixed by a single user in a few minutes, it does not belong on the list.


Suggestion

I am not sure if this is the proper place to add this, so please feel free to remove this if I am wrong. Anyway, I have a possibly useful suggestion. After an article is considered complete, or improved, we can "check" it off in some form. This will let other users know what articles are done, and possibly lead them to ensure that the article is, in fact, improved. - NightHammer (talk) 16:37, 14 May 2014 (EDT)

This was part of my original idea, but I thought it would add an extra layer of work to the project that could instead be spent improving articles. I also thought it might discourage editors from making an article even better even if the basic standards have technically been met. Still, I can see the benefit of it in terms of informativeness and motivation. Could try it on the next round. --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 00:03, 15 May 2014 (EDT)