| rdfs:comment
| - I've been trying to go through Category:Sourceless, but doing so has raised a few questions about the current article deletion system: if, after investigating the article (via Google, CUSWE, Star Wars RPG Index, etc) I am unable to find sources, what should be done? I know we aren't supposed to overuse , but I don't want to clog up VFD with a whole slew of articles. I was chatting with Darth Culator, and he agrees that we should consider some way of simplifying the current process for really minor articles. One idea that we came up with was to implement a sort of dynamic VFD system, similar to the current dynamic VIP process: if an article is determined sourceless, a tag (perhaps or something along those lines) could be placed on it and a note left on the author's talk page. The listing wo
|
| abstract
| - I've been trying to go through Category:Sourceless, but doing so has raised a few questions about the current article deletion system: if, after investigating the article (via Google, CUSWE, Star Wars RPG Index, etc) I am unable to find sources, what should be done? I know we aren't supposed to overuse , but I don't want to clog up VFD with a whole slew of articles. I was chatting with Darth Culator, and he agrees that we should consider some way of simplifying the current process for really minor articles. One idea that we came up with was to implement a sort of dynamic VFD system, similar to the current dynamic VIP process: if an article is determined sourceless, a tag (perhaps or something along those lines) could be placed on it and a note left on the author's talk page. The listing would be added automatically to a section of the VFD page (or perhaps a new one) where it stay for a certain amount of time (several weeks, perhaps) before being deleted. If any controversy came up, the listing could be either changed to a regular VFD or the discussion could take place on the relevant talk page. I know Sikon has some sort of tagging system in place, but that doesn't seem to work on articles already in the Sourceless category (I may be wrong, I'm not sure how that system works). Thoughts? RMF 22:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
* This is what happens when you let me make templates and categories...anyway, if I read correctly, I believe you said something about contacting the original author. I'm all for that, I don't think that that alone will fix things, but it may at least put a dent in it. If we did implement a time-limited deletion process, I would hope we could have a fairly long time. Better to find a source and keep the article then have it deleted only to have to re-write it when sources are found. Just my File:AurebeshSans-Serif credit.png2 Shadowtrooper talk 22:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
* I actually didn't have templates or cats in mind, I mainly meant the one- or two- sentence sourceless stubs that populate Category:Sourceless. And by contacting the author, I meant leave a note saying something like: "Your article X has been listed on Wookieepedia's Votes for Deletion page because it lacks sources. Please add sources to the article; or, alternatively, if you wish to leave comments regarding the deletion of this article, please do so on the relevant talk page. If the article remains sourceless, it will be deleted in three weeks." Sorry if I wasn't clear. RMF 22:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
* Well, no matter the idea, I would like to see more "enforcement" of the sources. It helps to provide valuable cross-referencing info that can be used to expand articles, and pehaps avert edit wars. Shadowtrooper talk 23:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
* If we add it to the WP:VFD, then it provides one last chance for others to check out the article and make sure they don't know of any sources for it. Just a thought. WhiteBoy 01:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)