Classic WoW Wiki talk:AddOn pages

= Proposal to deprecate addon collection =

I've been browsing through Category:AddOns of late, to me it seems that the only sane thing to do is basically get rid of it.

It served a great purpose long ago when WoW was new and we didn't have lots of automated AddOn sites. This is no longer true. To me, it just brings badwill to WoWWiki - "Hey! Look! We have AddOn listings!" ... except they pages haven't been updated in over a year, and we only have a couple dozen of them.


 * Category:AddOns has 160 articles. Some of them are not AddOns at all. Let's call it 150.


 * curse-gaming.com has 3249 addons.


 * wowinterface.com has 1111 addons.


 * worldofwar.net has (arf, can't find it. lots anyway)

In addition to this (and please check this out if you don't believe me), the vast majority of addon pages have not been updated since mid-2005!. A lot of them even have "deprected, please see" or stub tags on them.

Proposal

 * Remove any and all addon pages that have not had subtantive content added or modified during 2006.


 * Remove any and all addon pages that have less than 10 sentences of actual information, or do not have at least one screen shot (where it would make sense to have a screenshot, of course. Some addons don't have UIs.).


 * Remove any and all addons that are found to be outdated, obsoleted, abandoned, or otherwise integrated into something else.


 * Remove any and all addon pages that can be demonstrated are several versions behind what is documented on other sites (where available).


 * Re-classify Category:AddOns as a place that AddOn developers can use as the main page for their AddOn, if they like, but that there's no point for WoWWiki, nor for its visitors, and neither for the Author himself that the WoWWiki page just be an outdated and lesser copy of what's available on addon sites. OR a page actively maintained by WoWWiki contributors for a mod that they find particularily useful and like to tell others about (objectively and usefully).

"Remove" above would be tagging the pages after this vote passes.

I'm not going to try and make this policy. Think of it as a big effin' delete vote. I myself don't particularily want anyone hunting down poor addon authors that post info about their addon here without intending to use it as their main (and hence updated!) page. I just want to clear out the crud that, frankly, does nothing but annoy new visitors that don't know better than to just ignore any addon pages listed on WoWWiki since all the info is outdated, like most of us that know the place actually do!

(And, yes, the idealist in me would love to have all of AddOndom on WoWWiki with lots of screenshots and extra info from our contributors. But, let's face it, it isn't happening. It stopped happening over a year ago. The big AddOn sites are where people go to look for info on AddOns.)


 * --Mikk 15:23, 21 June 2006 (EDT)

✅

Votes

 * Yes :


 * No :

Comments
Good idea. Rather than, I think there should be another tag that also says that we'll delete it, but to give a reason, and to make it at least separate from all the other pages in that category, if you know what I mean. I want the reason to be evident at least to me or someone like me who deletes it. I don't think I read everything completely, but I would like to point out that pages here on addons could be as useful as our pages on items. This way we can have basically an open FAQ on each mod (each one that has a page here). But all the old ones could certainly be deleted. Schmidt 15:54, 21 June 2006 (EDT)


 * Yep, that's precisely my intention. We should have stuff that's unique to the wiki, where our contributors can actually provide useful information. (Or where the author himself is the actual contributor, making it unique!). But just having a "please download here" or outdated stuff like we mostly do today is just .. wrong. I'll go fix another tag for this delete spree. --Mikk 15:57, 21 June 2006 (EDT)


 * Right. exists now. It doesn't add a category, so you'll have to find them via looking at which pages pull it in. Works for this little project I suppose. --Mikk 16:07, 21 June 2006 (EDT)


 * I would have preferred a different name for it like oldmod or something, basically saying "this is an old mod page, and may be deleted soon. if you disagree, state your explanation in the talk page, and make an effort to update the page." Something like that, but properly capitalized. I didn't care to, because I didn't want anyone to copy and paste. :P But I definitely think it shouldn't say that it'll be deleted until this thing officially goes through in accordance with policy. Schmidt 17:30, 21 June 2006 (EDT)


 * Good point there. I'm rephrasing it. (I did have the "please update, etc..." spiel in though) --Mikk 20:31, 21 June 2006 (EDT)

Yikes, fastest 5 votes in the history of WoWWiki. I'm going to be every so slightly bold and go through the pages and tag them as I see fit now, but I certainly don't expect anything to disappear until after the vote has closed. If anyone disagrees with a tag, you're of course welcome to change it to a standard delete vote. --Mikk 16:26, 21 June 2006 (EDT)


 * Right. 90 AddOns tagged. I've made sure (to my mind) that they're either:
 * Oneliners
 * Not updated since v1.6 and page is waaay old
 * Or have more+newer info on other addon sites or own web sites


 * There's currently 113 pages in Category:AddOns, not all of which are AddOns. There will be a slight echo :-P
 * I also managed to poke the Cosmos peeps into action; we've now cleanly separated cosmos-related mods from generic mods. No article lives in both "AddOns" and "Cosmos AddOns" any longer. (The latter is still a mess, but I'm not going to make it my mess =))
 * --Mikk 22:30, 21 June 2006 (EDT)


 * Slight change of plans. Some Cosmos addons will go back to living in AddOns also, but this time they'll be clearly marked with, or  so that we can tell them apart. The general agreement is that only pages that are sufficiently representative will be allowed in AddOns, otherwise they go back to only living in Cosmos AddOns. --Mikk 22:55, 22 June 2006 (EDT)

= New discussions =