when to remove tagEdit
My feeling for removing Attention tags is that we do it when the request made on the article's talk page has been addressed to our satisfaction, correct?
I don't think we should be removing them just to get the article out of this category, citing "nobody knows right now" as a reason. For exmaple, how will necomers ever know that I'm looking for more information on Big Bird Meets the Orchestra or Muppet High? I had the former in Active Talk for a while, but "nobody knows right now" was also the reason for removing it from there. So, how do I brig attention to such articles?
If they can't stay here, I propose another Attention category to be designated for "Attention Level 2," those articles which can't be dealt with right away, but require information that may not spring up until the long term. Otherwise, Big Bird Meets the Orchestra and Muppet High fall through the cracks of the wiki and become lost amongst the almost 10,000 article count. -- Scott (talk) 17:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm glad you brought this up. I'm not sure that a category is the best way to handle those kinds of things. I don't know if you've looked at what I've done with the attention explanations just now, but I'm trying to make them more accessible to new people. I think the attention category should be first and foremost a way of helping new contributors find stuff to do.
- Big Bird Meets the Orchestra and Muppet High are both pages where some very obscure research needs to be done. Basically, I think the way that we'll end up resolving those questions is by stumbling across the answers at some point in the future. I'll buy a lot of Sesame books on Ebay in a year or so, and BB Meets the Orchestra will be in there, and then I'll be able to add info. But it doesn't seem like the kind of thing that a contributor is going to go and find.
- In those two instances, I think you're using talk/attention boxes to basically flag stuff for yourself. Your post on Talk:Muppet High says: "I know there's more information out there on this, I just can't remember where I read it." That's really more of a note for yourself, and I think it would work just as well if it were on the To Do List on your user page. -- Danny (talk) 17:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- I half agree. The Attention category is great for new users (even if I'm still trying to find a better phrase to use as the navigation bar link). And I'm all good with adding those pages to my To Do list. But it also takes the articles out of the attention of seasoned users who might know the answer to my question. I might not stumble upon the info I'm looking for about Muppet High for another year. It would serve the wiki better if those were beig brought attention to. -- Scott (talk) 17:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- The question is, who would give it the attention? None of the regulars seem to know at present. The information was added from a publishers database, not from the contributor's personal knowledge. I understand your point, I've been going through that on Shivers the Penguin, but is an indefinite attention box, or an indefinite talkbox even, the best way? We came up with the attention tag because a lot of the pages that needed attention weren't stubs as much as cases where anonymous users dumped a lot of junk, major re-formatting or rewriting was needed, or something like Bert where the information is out there but hasn't been added. Shivers and Big Bird's Orchestra are more pure stubs, in the sense that they include absolutely everything that's known about them at the present time. I'm half wondering if a "We know nothing!" tag is in order on those, but that's probably not an improvement. Actually, the more I think about it, what do you guys think of a seperate list, maybe linked from Category:Attention, of these semi-permanent "we don't know any more" stubs, setting them apart from the "I'm too tired and busy to anaylyze Buster the Horse's character/fix an anonymous format mess, but maybe someone else will" types? We still need to finish Cecil the List and all that, but to be honest, it seems to me from observation that list pages like Images Wanted or with discussion like Name That Puppet get more of an overall response, even if gaps still remain, while in contrast Category:Unnamed Characters and Category:Unknown Performer, while useful to set those pages apart, aren't necessarily likely to catch people's eyes for improvement if even possible, except in the more casual, gradual course of things. Andrew Leal (talk) 17:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Right, that's what I'm saying. The Attention category as currently defined, is basically a bucket into which we feel like dropping articles into when we don't feel like working on them ourselves. More accurately, the category should be called "I'm too lazy; here, let a newbie play with it so they feel useful."
- What I'm proposing is a category of articles that legitimately need attention because we know there is more information out there, but the 10 active contributors here don't know where to find it right away. Limiting ourselves to just our inside circle seems counter-productive to me and I think we're underestimating the potential of other seasoned new people who come to the wiki. -- Scott (talk) 18:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why we need to draw attention to those pages. I think if that's all the info that we have on Shivers, that'll do for now. I think your point about the casual, gradual course of things is exactly what pages like that need. Maybe more information will come up at some point about that stuff. Maybe it won't. While we're waiting, why do we need to point out that some of our pages aren't very big? -- Danny (talk) 18:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Well, how is that different from practically every other page on the wiki? I could hit random page ten times, and on nine out of ten, I could point out information that could be on the wiki and hasn't been added yet. I think the reason why you want attention paid to Big Bird Meets the Orchestra as opposed to the other thousand Sesame Street book pages is because you have a particular interest in the Sesame Classical stuff. I don't think we need a special list or category for stuff that, at the moment, only one person is particularly interested in.
- By the way, I think you're also really dismissing the value of having new people helping out with pages. Those aren't just pages that will make newbies feel useful; those are places where newbies can actually be useful. And the newbie who feels useful today is the seasoned contributor who's going to be super-useful next week. The newbie who feels lost and useless today will never help at all. -- Danny (talk) 18:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Certainly personal interest plays a part in it, but I still think a list could be useful, even if its just for ourselves. Danny, what's the point of that Sesame episode list recently created? To chart what episodes have been reformatted and as a reminder of which ones still need to be done, even if it's mostly just you and Guillermo who are currently able to do it. That's a good thing. Name That Puppet is a list of questions people have, that interest them at the moment, about who so and so is. Somwe get answered instantly, some never, some sit around for a bit and then unexpectedly and pleasantly, an authoritative source is found and it goes off the list.
- I agree Attention can be great for new users and I should point out I was simplifying. In general, I don't think we are using the category as a bucket, for I know nothing about Dark Crystal but plenty of people do and we know it, so adding a tag to The Valley of the Mystics, where all it takes is rewatching a readily available DVD, is useful both to the Wiki and for that contributor. And when anonymous users make more work for ourselves, and I haven't seen the episode and all I know is its an unholy mess of a Sesame page, I don't consider it laziness as much as forced necessity, the other option being to just delete the junk. However, a list of longterm questions for serious Wiki addicts/research buffs/people with massive collections wouldn't hurt. The "Jump the Shark" website has a "Still Stumping" section. I don't think it would hurt, as a reminder for ourselves, to have a similar page, a sort of public to do list, fully aware that some items may take months or even years to be answered if ever, but there to remind ourselves that they need work. It would work better than a tag on the page even. One of the things I've been working on is a lot of pages where, within the text, there's question marks or "Somebody answer, if they know for sure" or "I'm going from memory" and such. That's fine on a talk page but amateurish on the article itself, and I've generally been either removing those sections entirely, or occasionally adding something to the effect of "Though now obscure, it is known that" or whatnot. I think that's partially why Danny doesn't want the attention tags used as a permanent, public reminder of our weaknesses, but a list keeping track of those pages, and maybe other more obscure tasks, as well as easy ones ("check credits for spelling," etc.), couldn't hurt. Andrew Leal (talk) 18:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- That's a good point; I think a "Still Stumping" list is a good idea. Scott, you shouldn't secede/accede/birdseed from discussions just when we're about to figure out a compromise! Silly rabbit. I think easy tasks like "check credits for spelling" are good for attention tags, but the more obscure stuff would actually make a nice list, now that you say it that way. That would make it readable even for people who don't know the answers -- putting it in a "Still Stumping" list makes it clear that the current "best minds" of Muppet Wiki haven't found this stuff out yet.
- One thing that could be done for the attention category could be a two-week rule, where if an attention tag is put on an article and nobody helps out with the article in two weeks, it could be removed. --Minor muppetz 19:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- We already have that rule, actually a week, for talk tags, and hardly anybody follows it. Besides, if the point of attention is to encourage newcomers to help out, a flat two week deadline for all pages doesn't help, though in general, I don't think we want most pages to sit over a month, and so far few have. It all depends on the type of "attention" needed. It makes more sense, as discussed, to wait and pick out the pages where it's clear no casual newcomer could easily improve it and which in general would likely sit there simply because nobody knows. Andrew Leal (talk) 20:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)