Thread:Wagnike2/@comment-14250-20130621131255

When those are done is it really necessary to block people from editing their own talk page or from e-mailing? I thought those were usually only done if people were abusing the feature to insult others or spam them. I get how edit-prevention can be done during review periods so that what you want to check doesn't get built up but I don't understand why some intermittent talk editing would interfere with that.

When you mention the low-quality pages, is this about the promotion categories? I just noticed that our structure is really spread out and wanted to take advantage of the established category for it, as well as consolidate many cases where we had both a 'current roster' and 'alumni' category already in existence. There were also several PPV categories which were floating in browse which I put under their appropriate brand-based PPV category with others.

If this is about something like w:c:wwe:Millie Stafford or w:c:wwe:Mary Jane Mull, they didn't have Wikipedia articles so there weren't any obvious pictures or history for them to import. I tag-stubbed them with an intent to return and do more as I learned more. I just thought it was important to help get them started and that if champion categories helped to round up and draw attention to these important historical figures that it would stimulate more research and information-gathering efforts on them.

Back in April Farine got a week ban for 'half created' pages, but I really do see those as being a benefit to our community. The vast majority of our wrestler articles are out of date, I don't think they see the attention that Wikipedia does, so even if something was perfectly up to date upon creation, unless we're talking about someone dead (and many of the dead older wrestlers have nothing at all and risk being forgotten or never getting articles from lack of attention) they'll get out of date anyway, so I think the real thing of value is to attract and build an attentive user base who want to keep coming back, monitoring, building over time. I think in the long run this would be of greater benefit than deleting less descriptive pages or blocking less descriptive users.

I utterly agree with punishment for removing information, but for adding correct information, just not as much as you'd hoped? The amount of stuff can be overwhelming and often times, we can reach blocks in research, or think "I will probably learn more about this person in the course of building other articles, and will come back". We find info in bits and pieces a lot of the time so getting the ball rolling is really valuable. I'm frustrated by how little is known, how little is told (even for the more established and better-monitored articles of more popular and accomplished wrestlers) but I don't think the solution is to push people away. I really want to help organize and build information. 