RationalWiki talk:Articles for demotion

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Archives for this talk page: , (new)

Silver level[edit]

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. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 02:14, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

And fucking Joe Biden? He hasn't done anything nearly worthy of such a standard for a brainstar. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 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).

Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 02:27, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Important things left to decide[edit]

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. CorruptUser 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. CorruptUser 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[edit]

Someone competent (which excludes me) needs to fix that {{afdem}} template. Currently it's all kinds of messed up. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 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). (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. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 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. (talk) 01:23, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
@Christopher (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)
@Christopher 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[edit]

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)

Help, please...[edit]

I tried to add a 'articles for demotion' to George Orwell (reason; the Bronze was awarded for an article which I basically destroyed with a rebuild, and feel it should be re-awarded) but it's all too much and I can't do it right. Could someone help me (ie do it for me)? KarmaPolice (talk) 18:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I got you covered. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 23:07, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks! KarmaPolice (talk) 14:29, 11 April 2024 (UTC)