Tolkien Gateway

Template talk:Claimed

(Difference between revisions)
(Maximum Claimed Time: Added reply)
Line 10: Line 10:
  
 
::The topic was kind of pointed in your direction :) Hm, I was thinking quite a bit less than 30 days. I try not to do any editing on an article if someone has it claimed, so the article is essentially locked from editing by anyone else. Especially since we have no limit on the number of articles someone can 'lock' at any one time. Rewriting a small article hopefully shouldn't take a month, and large articles are usually rewritten section by section. We certainly don't want someone claiming articles like [[Gandalf]] or [[Aragorn II]] for an entire month. I'd imagine a couple days is probably going to be normal, so maybe give the editor a week before the template is removed, and for popular articles we can make it less on a case-by-case basis. It also makes sense to limit, at least politely, the number of articles an editor can claim, if it takes them a month to rewrite a dozen articles, maybe they could just claim one for a couple days, finish it and remove the template, then move onto the next article, as they most likely aren't working on all the articles simultaneously. That's just my opinion though. Hopefully one of these days we can get an extension which shows if someone has clicked 'Edit' and has yet to save the article to prevent conflicts. --[[User:Hyarion|Hyarion]] 04:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 
::The topic was kind of pointed in your direction :) Hm, I was thinking quite a bit less than 30 days. I try not to do any editing on an article if someone has it claimed, so the article is essentially locked from editing by anyone else. Especially since we have no limit on the number of articles someone can 'lock' at any one time. Rewriting a small article hopefully shouldn't take a month, and large articles are usually rewritten section by section. We certainly don't want someone claiming articles like [[Gandalf]] or [[Aragorn II]] for an entire month. I'd imagine a couple days is probably going to be normal, so maybe give the editor a week before the template is removed, and for popular articles we can make it less on a case-by-case basis. It also makes sense to limit, at least politely, the number of articles an editor can claim, if it takes them a month to rewrite a dozen articles, maybe they could just claim one for a couple days, finish it and remove the template, then move onto the next article, as they most likely aren't working on all the articles simultaneously. That's just my opinion though. Hopefully one of these days we can get an extension which shows if someone has clicked 'Edit' and has yet to save the article to prevent conflicts. --[[User:Hyarion|Hyarion]] 04:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 +
 +
::: I'm with Hyarion on this one. To be honest i question the wisdom of 'claiming' articles in the first place. I think it creates far more of a sense of posession than is wise for a project such as this which ultimately is not meant to be carved up into the pet projects of individuals, each furnishing their little empire with their own biases. All this is a bit of an evocative way of saying that i would argue that the nature of this template be changed to 'ongoing work' or 'work in progress' and i would support Hyarion's suggestion of a time limit- a week should be long enough for even the biggest articles. I would perhaps even limit the number of articles one could be working on at any given time- 5 maximum. Unfortunately this is the fatal flaw of the wiki system: that a supreme act of altruism should be made in waiving all claims to posession of individual works and trusting to the survival of your particular edit not to the amount of time or effort you put into it but to the quality and suitability of the work you have done. [[User:Dr Death|Dr Death]] 06:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 06:42, 28 August 2008

Congrats, Ederchil. I had been thinking about doing just this kind of thing. Good job-- now we know who's doing the construction work.--Theoden1 11:36, 2 August 2008 (EDT)

Quidon asked for it, but I wanted to do it for some time too. -- Ederchil 12:35, 2 August 2008 (EDT)

Maximum Claimed Time

We seem to have quite a few articles which are claimed and have not been edited recently. As the claimed template may discourage other editors from contributing to the article I think it may be a good idea to say if the claimed editor hasn't made any edits to the article for X days, then we should release the article and remove the template. Otherwise I think, at least for myself, it would be easy to claim articles and forget about them. --Hyarion 21:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

As someone who has claimed a few, I think 30 days is about right.-- Theoden1  talk  contribs  edits  02:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
The topic was kind of pointed in your direction :) Hm, I was thinking quite a bit less than 30 days. I try not to do any editing on an article if someone has it claimed, so the article is essentially locked from editing by anyone else. Especially since we have no limit on the number of articles someone can 'lock' at any one time. Rewriting a small article hopefully shouldn't take a month, and large articles are usually rewritten section by section. We certainly don't want someone claiming articles like Gandalf or Aragorn II for an entire month. I'd imagine a couple days is probably going to be normal, so maybe give the editor a week before the template is removed, and for popular articles we can make it less on a case-by-case basis. It also makes sense to limit, at least politely, the number of articles an editor can claim, if it takes them a month to rewrite a dozen articles, maybe they could just claim one for a couple days, finish it and remove the template, then move onto the next article, as they most likely aren't working on all the articles simultaneously. That's just my opinion though. Hopefully one of these days we can get an extension which shows if someone has clicked 'Edit' and has yet to save the article to prevent conflicts. --Hyarion 04:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm with Hyarion on this one. To be honest i question the wisdom of 'claiming' articles in the first place. I think it creates far more of a sense of posession than is wise for a project such as this which ultimately is not meant to be carved up into the pet projects of individuals, each furnishing their little empire with their own biases. All this is a bit of an evocative way of saying that i would argue that the nature of this template be changed to 'ongoing work' or 'work in progress' and i would support Hyarion's suggestion of a time limit- a week should be long enough for even the biggest articles. I would perhaps even limit the number of articles one could be working on at any given time- 5 maximum. Unfortunately this is the fatal flaw of the wiki system: that a supreme act of altruism should be made in waiving all claims to posession of individual works and trusting to the survival of your particular edit not to the amount of time or effort you put into it but to the quality and suitability of the work you have done. Dr Death 06:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)