Forum:Origin of articles that need updating policy

The Sarah Jane Adventures have been on the BBC iplayer lately, and I've noticed that a lot of the articles for the episodes are stubs and in need of cleanups. A lot of them don't correctly place references, continuity and story notes in the correct sections, and the plots are very undetailed. I know that I've been criticised before for the length of my writing plots, but The Temptation of Sarah Jane Smith actually started with the plot half way through the episode, summing up the time before with a quick "which they discovered earlier".

These are in serious need of updating. I have a suggestion as to how to do this. Perhaps, as a weekly thing, we post a "community project" kind of thing on the main page, with the selected article being linked from there. Then, users will be invited to help out clean up and update each of these pages every time they visit the site.

But I'd like to hear others' opinions as well. The Thirteenth Doctor 20:41, July 26, 2010 (UTC)

"Community project" sounds great! But I'm afraid I can't help... You should really start that. You could even give limited edition "medals" at the end for user that partipated more than other and made great improvements. Even if it's just some golden circle with a date and a legend, I'm sure people would love to get them. :) --4me 22:31, July 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * I certainly like the idea of getting the community involved in a weekly community project.
 * I'm not sure it would be best to just base it around stories being accessible on the BBC iPlayer though, as many of our users can't actually get the BBC iPlayer.
 * I think it should be a group of pages rather than a single page, as anyone who's tried to edit a recently broadcast story (or in fact any highly edited page) will know you finish making an edit and find someone's edited the page while you've been changing things around and you end up with an edit conflict. --Tangerineduel 14:38, July 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * Good point. The Torchwood episodes could also do with cleanups as well. It was just while I was watching SJA that I had the idea, so brought that into it, but it would help. I see what you mean about edits. Perhaps we could do it a series of SJA at a time... that spreads it over six pages, then once SJA is finished, we can move on to Torchwood, half a series at a time. That would be three weeks for SJA, four weeks for 2 Torchwood series and then Children of Earth. That would be eight weeks, bringing us up to the beginning of October, if we start it soon. The we'd have another seven or eight before the Christmas special which we could use to cleanup the pages with cleanup tags, pages that need updating and such. Plus, it may also increase traffic to the website during the off season. --The Thirteenth Doctor 18:13, July 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree the pages need cleanup, but the edit conflicts will be a problem. The only was around it I see is we make and currently being edit template  which a User puts onto a page, save it - so people see the page is being edited - then the User make their edits and takes it of once they are finished. If the page does not have the edit template on it, User know they can edit it without conflict. If a User edits a page, and does not the edit template, this can be viewed as vandalism (if it happens often). If a User edits a page that deliberately edited when the edit tag on it, it will be viewed as vandalism. Mini-mitch 19:21, July 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * The thing is, if we spread it across the six pages, I don't think we'd need that. TW and SJA are less watched, so there will be less editors, even with the community project. We generally get on fine with DW pages, like the series 5 one without many problems. None of the pages need major overhalls, so it is unlikely that a person would take longer than a few minutes to add an edit. And isn't there already a template for that? I'm sure there is, cause I saw it on a page before, though it wasn't actually being edited at the time. --The Thirteenth Doctor 18:32, July 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yep, the template is the   template. --Tangerineduel 14:38, July 30, 2010 (UTC)