Wikinews:Water cooler/proposals/archives/2024/June

Staleness

I just thought I'd share my thoughts on this. Our normal route is to wait until four days have passed without edits (or talkpage discussion) and then tag an article with {{subst:aband}}. Then, if there are no edits for another two days, the article would be deleted. I have been thinking of suggesting we reduce this timeframe from 4+2 days to 3+1 days or even 2+1 days. I feel this might encourage people to not leave articles for too long. On the other hand I am often loathe to delete what might be otherwise decent articles, so alternatively we could extend the timeframe to perhaps 5+2 days? I am especially eager to build on the small changes we implemented last year when we increased the window of freshness from 2-3 days to 5-7 days and reduced the minimum length of an article to 100 words. What would you think of a change to the timeframe of the subst:aband route? [₂₄Cr][talk] 20:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

@Cromium, I'll follow sensus, sorry about before I get confused easily... BigKrow (talk) 21:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

It would be nice if it was more apparent how long an article has gone unedited, y'know? The article on the potential ceasefire in Ukraine was sitting around for a while, and I assumed it would just move forward, and it just kinda... didn't. I think this could be bystander effect, possibly? In this case, that articles don't get published because people (including me) assume the process will continue? Professor Penguino (talk) 03:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

How about 7+1 days. Afterwards for synthesis it's stale anyway and not going anywhere and for OR it's not reasonable to expect theyll continue in a reasonable timeframe after an 8 days break. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 21:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I have been using the following logic-flow for queue management that I found in an old conversation[1]:

{{abandoned}} ← {{stale}} ← {{develop}} → {{review}} → {{publish}} → {{archive}}

In that flow, an article starts in development and generally follows two routes; either review or stale. Once they go stale in the review queue, if they haven't been edited while in the queue (which is often the case) they now qualify as abandoned, which I disagree with. I think we should always go from the review queue to either published or stale and from stale we give a grace period for gatwicking without calling the article 'abandoned,' which when I see on my articles makes me cringe.

A better way to understand article flow may be the following:

{{abandoned}} ← {{develop}} → {{review}} → {{publish}} → {{archive}}
                     ↓             ↓
                {{stale}}     {{stale}}

How about we

1. Amend {{stale}} to incorporate a 2 day grace period before it is automatically marked for deletion (as proposed here: Template_talk:Stale#Stale_articles_may_still_be_valid). Note; I would also like to remove the first sentence of {{stale}}, as mentioned there.
2. Amend {{abandoned}} to a 2+2 (2 days w/o editing = abandoned, to be deleted 2 days after template application) for consistency and to incentivize activity.

With the shortened {{abandoned}}, we hopefully never, or at least rarely go from developed → stale. And I propose we never go from reviewed → abandoned (understanding abandonment as a reporter thing, not a reviewer thing).

Pinging @Heavy Water:, as he has proposed lengthening the time before an article is {{abandoned}} and is involved in the discussion at Template_talk:Stale#Stale_articles_may_still_be_valid. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 16:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Proposal for second page of the Main Page

There is a proposal for a second page of the Main Page. Please see the discussion for more details. Also look at the Main Page 2 that is the subject of this discussion. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 21:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC)