Big CRTs and Bad Pages - A Different Way

[Agnaa]

It seems like recently, we've approved the deletion of verses when they have outdated profiles which require massive CRTs to revise. In the past, we never did this, but we also never wrote rules about it.

I think there's a better way to deal with the concern of the profiles being a bad foundation to build on, and of many users not realising that; more liberal use of a better Outdated Template.

I think that could have its wording change to encourage a collaborative mindset towards such pages. If a verse has known bad pages, and has no-one working on them, I think it should just be deleted. So if a page gets this template, there should be someone working on a fix. And so, I think the wording should be changed to:

This article is outdated and has missing or incorrect information. A revision for it is underway. Please look to the verse's Discussion Thread if you want to contribute to this effort.

Such a template should be put onto all relevant pages for the verse, potentially including the verse page.

We should probably also codify this template's usage, and some general standards about when it or a deletion should be used for a particular verse, within our Discussion Rules. While I think our deletion standards for established verses should simply be "is the profile obviously bad & lacking, and is there no-one working on it", I'm not sure exactly where standards should land on the template's usage, so some discussion (on both points) would be welcome.

Similarly, I also think it's worth considering being a lot more liberal with discussion rules during this time, so verse supporters don't need to be distracted by half-baked revisions.

Why not just delete them?​

I think doing so holds some concerning risks. It prevents independent users from creating low-stakes but high-quality profiles that are disjointed enough to survive general revisions to the verse, it often makes it difficult for those who aren't in the clique to contribute, something which is exacerbated by drama on off-site groups such as Discord, which has already popped up for the Nasuverse revisers. On top of that, a remake and recreation makes it easier to force through changes that wouldn't ordinarily get accepted, as they're bundled with literally every single statistic, ability, and the entire existence of the verse itself.

Note: I'm not planning to undelete any profiles if this change passes, especially since I'm not familiar with all of the cases mentioned. And since I think there's room for this template, even if we agree that the rules should be written such that the recently-deleted verses would still be deleted.

 

[CloverDragon03]

Yeah, rather than deleting a verse, I'd prefer to kinda "lock it down" in a sense and put in something like this. I worry we've become a bit too trigger-happy with verse deletions lately

 

[Damage3245]

We should probably also codify this template's usage, and some general standards about when it or a deletion should be used for a particular verse, within our Discussion Rules. While I think our deletion standards for established verses should simply be "is the profile obviously bad & lacking, and is there no-one working on it", I'm not sure exactly where standards should land on the template's usage, so some discussion (on both points) would be welcome.

This is the part I'm concerned about, yeah - deciding when it is appropriate to apply the template to pages.

 

[Flashlight237]

I mean we did recently give @LegendariumOfLies 's Outdated Verse thread a sticky so we can try and help outdated verses out a bit. No reason to go gung-ho on verses, especially if said verses cannot be updated because their franchises have long since ended and there's no means of updating them.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I think this may be a better idea than nuking verses altogether.