RationalWiki talk:Articles for demotion

The page’s name
“Brain” when used as a verb means “smash someone’s skull in”. Christopher (talk) 18:06, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That's kind of the joke. We do need a good name for this; if this page works right, it will be included as part of the website itself a la Articles for Deletion.  19:20, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * How about "Articles for Brainstarring"? 19:38, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. "Articles for braining" just looks ****ing weird. Avida Dollarsher again 08:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's a dumb name. Suggest a good one.  13:43, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You know, the name "Articles for Demotion" has grown on me over the past 24 hours. It does go nicely with Articles for Deletion. And I still hope this could be a place where we could discuss stripping an article of its Bronze brainstar or moving it down a level. Spud (talk) 14:15, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we do have a lot of Bronze garbage. To change the requirements for BrainStars, we may need a community vote.  At the moment, again, we need to agree on the name of this...  14:47, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * All right then. I vote for the original title as suggested yesterday, Articles for Demotion.Spud (talk) 15:57, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Going to put a poll in the SB, non-binding but a quick gauge of what others think. 15:59, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, looks like "Articles for Demotion" is the most popular... 17:32, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Bronzing

 * (EC) Bronzing never used to have to be discussed. You could just do it if you thought the article met the criteria. debronzing was the same. I don't see why that has to change. If you thing a bronze article doesn't deserve the template, remove it. If in doubt, ask on the talk page. However bronze-to-silver or vice versa certainly did need to be discussed every time. Avida Dollarsher again 16:06, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Giving an article a Bronze was never an issue, but taking it away was, IIRC. I think it should be like deletion; send a message to article's creator, short vote on whether to de-Bronze an article.  We have a lot of garbage Bronze articles, which makes it tough to sift through when trying to find stuff to promote to Silver.  16:09, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If you don’t want loads of crap bronze articles, de-bronzing should be as easy as bronzing. Christopher (talk) 16:12, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Alright, where are the rules located? Let's see what they actually are...  16:13, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem there are rules for de-Bronzing. I guess it's a common sense "de-Bronze it, but let article creator know in their talk page"  16:36, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You'll probably find most of those article creators haven't edited for nigh on a decade. Spud (talk) 16:41, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that's also true of the AfD pages too. Anyway, going to de-Bronze some junk... 16:43, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Why let them know even if they were still around? They didn't go "I'm going to write a bronze-level article article". They most likely didn't even bronze it themselves. Avida Dollarsher again 18:04, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Silver level
I'd like to remind everyone (well, Cory, as he is the only one currently nominating these articles) that a silver level article should be so good and topical, that it would not be controversial to potentially upgrade it for a cover story/gold level. How is Jeb Bush (or even GWB) nearly significant enough to be worthy of cover story consideration. Rhetorical question, no need to answer. Just take this into consideration before submitting further articles for silver level demotion. 02:14, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * And fucking Joe Biden? He hasn't done anything nearly worthy of such a standard for a brainstar. 02:18, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Just in case anyone's wondering, I'm pulling the requirement from here. To quote:

Article topic is directly relevant to and worthy of RW's mission (i.e., potential upgrading to cover story would be uncontroversial). 02:27, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Important things left to decide
We still need some agreement on some things. 1) How long should a vote last before closing? 2) Do we need a simple majority or a 2/3rd majority? Remember, a Silver is only for articles that could potentially be a cover without real controversy, something that wouldn't be the case if a significant number of people disagree with the article even being Silver. 3) More minor things, but what should our template look like; do we need alterations? Etc.  02:25, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think (feel, really) that bonze-to-silver should be easier and less controversial than silver-to-gold. So basically silvering should be a simple majority, and a week of voting unless it's obviously close and still being debated after that time - and then it would be better to apply common sense and let it continue for a while. Avida Dollarsher again 07:41, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I couldn't agree more. She's right (as usual). Spud (talk) 07:45, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * lol Avida Dollarsher again 07:57, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Meh, already silvered some of the ones that had universal support (and left as-is one where everyone else wanted as-is) with only 48 hours. Not sure if I broke any rules, but whatever, common sense and all.  There were far too many articles in the log :P, cluttering it up.  03:20, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There are no rules to break yet. And, yes, common sense is the most important thing. If a lot of users support a change within an hour or so, then go ahead and make it. Spud (talk) 05:07, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Template needs fixing
Someone competent (which excludes me) needs to fix that template. Currently it's all kinds of messed up. 01:09, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it's just missing an opening noinclude tag, but I can't and don't know where to add one (my best guess is between the 6th and 7th lines). 68.56.144.8 (talk) 01:13, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's probably it. I could add it, but I'd rather someone who knows what they're doing does it instead. 01:19, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I just checked the revision history, and part of the most recent change was the removal of an opening noinclude. I'm with you, though, I wouldn't mess with it even if I could. 68.56.144.8 (talk) 01:23, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 68.56.144.8 (talk) 02:53, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I removed some noincludes that were breaking the template, but removed a necessary one at the same time by mistake. All fixed now. Christopher (talk) 08:55, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think there is still something wrong? If I go to, for instance, the alternative medicine page, it no longer has the big "create" box, but it still has instructions on how to list an article for demotion. Since it is a new thing, I can understand if this is meant to draw attention to the new opportunity, but the instructions the template adds to the page are not generic.  Steps 1 and 2 are for listing an arbitrary article for demotion, but step 3 says to add a template for the alternative medicine page specifically to the linked list, which I'm guessing is not intended. Serene (talk) 18:08, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I copied some code from afd (mainly to get the, the code itself is very simple, it just checks if a page exists and only outputs the instructions if it doesn’t) but didn’t swap “deletion” for demotion. I really should read through this sort of thing before clicking save, now it should work. Christopher (talk) 18:15, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

talk pages
I think we should add a link to the demotion discussion on the article's talk page. Avida Dollarsher again 11:30, 30 March 2021 (UTC)