Wikipedia talk:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/Archive 1

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1

"Drama areas" vs. actual drama

So-called "drama areas" such as ANI and AN3 are sometimes actually used for productive problem-solving and whatnot; likewise, some areas that this page classifies as "non-drama" (such as article talkpages) can still be loci of drama. Wouldn't it make more sense, and be more in keeping with the spirit of your proposal (and not to mention less silly) for people to pledge to avoid drama itself for 5 days, rather than just avoiding certain noticeboards?

(I guess that, then, just raises the question of why people should pledge to avoid drama for 5 days rather than do their best to avoid it forever.) rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 04:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, lets put the title aside for a second. The whole point is to leave the non-article areas of Wikipedia alone for 5 days, and instead just edit articles. The title is just a catchy slogan designed to get your attention. What this proposal is really about is simply a sneaky "article improvement drive" designed to get people who have lost touch with editing articles the impetus to get back in it for a few days. Ignore the title and embrace the spirit! Since I anticipate participation to be fairly low, I don't think ANI will miss the participants all that much. Wikipedia will carry on just fine without the participants comments at various project pages for a week or so. But I think the net benefit to the project in terms of returning experienced editors to actual article work is a big positive. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 04:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Doesnt this actually contribute to this drama you speak of

Doesn't recognizing drama and bringing attention to it actually get the oppisite affect of what was intended?

Ivtv (talk) 05:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. Everyone knows drama exists, it's not like it was a secret before.
Granted, I think this is a somewhat silly proposal (although many would disagree) and I don't plan on participating, but that doesn't mean I think it's going to "contribute to drama". rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 05:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I appriciate your response however I was not aware there was a huge amount of drama in WP. I got caught up with edit wars, but with people blatently destroying content. I think this is a good idea but just drags more attention to something people want to get rid of in the first place :)Ivtv (talk) 22:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Ivtv. Just look at the title: The Great Wikipedia Dramaout. It's very dramatic. You should rename it to: The Meek Wikipedia Dramaout. Noloop (talk) 16:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Accomplishments

While I don't plan on participating in this, maybe it would be nice to add a section to the page for detailing what things participants get done during their 5 days. For example, a list of GAs passed (or GAs worked on this time but passed later, since there's such a backlog), articles with cleanup tags addressed, etc. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 16:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

My original suggestion in ANI was for 5 days of article writing and up to 5 months of assessment. In reality, it won't take 5 months.
My idea also makes sense. Here, I'm writing in projectspace, not an article. In fact, today, the vast majority of my edits were not in articles. During the study period, this will change! User F203 (talk) 19:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Emphasis is a bit different

I am the creator of the original concept. However, this new concept, coined by Jayron32, has a slightly different emphasis. While my original concept had the subtle intent of possibly reducing drama, the primary emphasis was to encourage article writing. Many of the ANI participants used to be good writers but stopped.

This dramaout concept attacks the drama issue more directly. My personal approach would have focused less on the drama aspect. Maybe call it the 2009 Wikipedia Re-dedication to Article Building. However, WP is a compromise so count me in for the dramaout. User F203 (talk) 16:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if you read the introduction, and the comments above, this has very little to do with reducing drama. It is simply an article creation and improvement drive masquerading under a clever marketing term. It is pretty much EXACTLY the concept you proposed. It just has a catchier title. Let's face it, if you wander into ANI and announce "Lets all just spend a few days writing articles" you get no buzz at all. If you give it a provocative title, and ask people to sign pledges and give catchy userboxes and barnstars, then you get better participation. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 19:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

More promotion needed

If this thing is expected to make any kind of impact a lot more promotion is needed to expose this to as wide an audience as possible. The more people see this the more will participate and the better overall improvement of the encyclopedia. Starting tomorrow I will beginning adding links to this page to various relevant and related pages. -- Ϫ 23:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Please do. As the creator of the page, I always feel leary about promoting my own projects. But if you would like to promote this at various places (village pump, centralized discussion, other places) that would be cool. I just didn't want it to appear that I was canvasing or anything. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 00:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Looks like my promotion is working, hooray :) -- œ™ 23:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

GAC/FAC

Are these drama? I say yes, in the context of a five day period of article writing. Stars and ribbons can come later. First, the writing. --Gimme danger (talk) 20:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't disagree more. Some of the best improvements to articles I work on come during the GA and FA processes. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 20:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Indeed many articles are radically improved by the GAN & FAC process. These should be exempt. Unfortunately, I think that the people who need to observe this probably won't notice and the drama queens will carry on as before. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not participating in this, but I assume reviewing articles for FAC, GAC, FLC, PR could be considered article improvement? In many cases, I basically make the fixes for the nominating editors, although they make the actual edits. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Begin date

Why are we starting this on Saturday, three days away? I think it would make better sense to begin the period on Monday, since it is the start of the week. This would also give interested users more time to be notified and sign up. --William S. Saturn (talk) 04:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The date was basically chosen to be one week after I created the page. Start any time you wish; but I don't think its ever too early to work on some articles, n'est ce pas? --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 05:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Why ignore requests for unblock?

I'm not clear why that should be ignored. Dougweller (talk) 18:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

They take away from article editing. The idea is to spend the 5 days doing article editing and nothing else. There will be plenty of people who aren't participating who can handle cat:unb and all of the other stuff. Wikipedia will not fall down if those participating here don't deal with unblocks for a few days. But hopefully the net benefit to better articles would be a much greater thing than the unblock request that goes an extra thirty minutes before someone answers it. SO, in short, if it ain't editing an article, don't do it. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 18:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

ANI may have a prayer

In the event that ANI lacks participants (not likely), I hope that those participating make very liberal use of redirecting users to appropriate venue. One thing about ANI drama is that half of it doesn't belong there. Maybe instead of feeding the fire, ANI regulars will see this as an opportunity to send people to article talk pages, mediation, dispute resolution, and perhaps even user talk pages. Law type! snype? 19:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

what about teh gnomes?

so, uh, there are a few editors who Just Do This all the time. Day in, day out, they just tweak the grammar, fix the spelling, add refs, create articles. So I'd like to think the 50 or so editors who self nom (PRIMA FACetc) tot his list will perhaps search out a few of the gnomes and say thanks for their work. 87.113.86.207 (talk) 19:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I do thank you for your work. I know it goes under appreciated. Please do not take this as a slight against the wonderful work you do; it is merely an effort to get people who HAVE lost their purpose to rededicate themselves to doing good work! --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 19:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
It's a nice thought, and I wish you very best luck. THIS page made me look at a back-log. I found an excellent page that is missing just one reference. I can't fix it, I lack knowledge and reference books, but I did ask a project if they'd look at it. So, uh, if anyone wants to add a ref to a history article (and thus take it to be probably ready for FAR) Ælfric_Puttoc but I don't know why it's in a cat for articles needing a photo 87.113.86.207 (talk) 21:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

why reference desks?

I understand you've exempted helpdesks (helping newbies create articles) but you have specifically inempted reference desks. I know these don't create content, but they do help people use the created content. Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't that a good thing? Aren't they usually drama free? 87.113.86.207 (talk) 21:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

See above. They will survive the 5 days if people participating in this campaign don't comment there. This is mainly about directly editing articles and not looking for excuses to avoid them. Personally, I am not going to do a SINGLE EDIT to anything except an article page or talk page; unless it is a request to another user to help out with article editing. That includes avoiding otherwise beneficial stuff, such as the help desks and ref desks. But so be it. This is 5 days; which represents only 1.4% of the year. I think we can sacrifice the other stuff for 5 solid days of article editing. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 23:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. Reference desks are all about content. There is no point having content if no-one can find it. Also, the reference desk does help with creating content (albeit for a minority of questions). This is nominally about avoiding drama - there isn't generally much drama on the ref desks. Drama happens when Wikipedians talk to other Wikipedians, Wikipedians taking to the general public is generally not a problem. --Tango (talk) 22:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Reference desk is where some of us burned out ex-editors go to get away from drama of mainspace editing. It is really a lot friendlier and crap-free than mainspace. Try it sometime. 67.117.147.249 (talk) 08:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand how this is supposed to work

Well, I do to some extent. This seems to be an experiment with results that would be impossible to evaluate. Further, activities that don't contribute to wikipedia shouldn't be ignored for 5 days, they should be actively avoided - so no reference desk, no noticeboards, no village pumps. Clearly these have a purpose besides the generation of drama. Do reference desks even generate drama? Two ideas that seem immediately better than what roughly amounts to "only edit articles":

  1. Commit to taking a 24 hour break before a) replying to another editor on talk, and b) reverting another editor (fixing their edits without reverting is fine, though). This 24 hour period would begin from when you saw the message/revision, not from when it was made.
  2. Have a 5-day DRAMAIN, where all editors brainstorm ways to improve our often-crappy policies, procedures, and guidelines without working on articles at all. A universal dramaout might increase our productivity by, what, 50% for 5 days - fixing the way we do things in the first place would likely permanently improve things.

So, I don't think this will have much effect, aside from shifting the (often needlessly heavy) maintenance burden to non-participants, nor will it have much lasting effect. Correct me if I'm wrong, though.    M   22:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Uh, I really think you're taking this as rather a more serious endeavour than it is intended. It's an encouragement to those who personally feel they're spending too much time digging around in the admin side of the project to get back to what we should be here for; and see how it goes. The participation is a truly trivial proportion of our active editor base and as such will have marginal effect on the operation of any processes; but on a personal level is probably good for those who wish to participate. ~ mazca talk 22:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
If it were phrased as 'I pledge to not involve myself with drama', then fine, but the activities described are more often necessary and valuable than useless and time-consuming. I still think that the two things I listed would be substantially more effective than this. But ok.    M   23:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I think everybody's over-analyzing this. It's not meant to have a lasting effect or to completely eliminate drama. It's just a reminder of sorts for people who have lost sight of the project's ultimate goals. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Postponing it until 1 April next year would have made it easier to understand. Recognizance (talk) 23:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Here's how it is supposed to work. Its not complicated. Follow all of these steps and you will do it right.
Step 1) Find an article that needs fixing
Step 2) Fix it
Step 3) Return to step one and do it all over again
Keep repeating the three steps, and don't take time out to do anything else at Wikipedia for those 5 days. I hope that clears things up for you. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 23:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Er, sorry, perhaps I'm dense, but I don't see the step where we incessantly bitch about every problem under the sun. I'm confused. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
That's the step where you put the little smiley face after your post so we know you're J/k... ;) --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 16:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
See, there's another great idea: have five days where editors must end all posts with a smiley face. It too would substantially reduce conflict and drama. ;)    M   19:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

time limits

Are you proposing to extend the time limits of all ongoing XfDs and RfDs by 5 days during this period? DGG (talk) 01:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Nope. There are thousands of editors who are not choosing to particpate in this endeavor. They can comment on XFD all they want. There are hundreds of admins who are not participating, they will have time to close the discussions. If you feel like personally taking 5 days off and only editing articles isn't something you are interested in, then feel free to bow out. No one will think less of you. However, for people who want to take the challenge to restrict onself to improving articles, this campaign is freely open to them. It does involve some level of personal sacrifice, but I still think that this small sabatical from non-article-improvement areas of Wikipedia is a good idea. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 02:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:EAR

I think you should add the above as those seeking help won't have heard of this. I only came across this by chance. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

It's been posted in a few places (WP:AN, WP:VPR, etc.). If you want to add a notice to other message boards around Wikipedia, be our guest. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 02:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
You misunderstand, I meant that WP:EAR should be added to the exempt list. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
The problem with WP:EAR is that its basically WP:ANI-lite. It attracts the same sort of drama. Furthermore, if the idea is to edit articles to make them better, the stuff that we do, even the really good stuff that we do, that isn't article editing, can wait for five days. Also, the 50-100 people that participate in this will not significantly hinder anything. There's gonna be lots of people availible to deal with issues just about anywhere. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 02:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
It's probably a little late for this now, but in light of messages like this and your response to my first comment on this talk page, I really think this drive should be given a different title. It's not really about avoiding drama, it's about improving content. If it were about avoiding drama, then it would be better (as I said in my first post) to have users actually pledge not to participate in drama, rather than just pledging to avoid drama-prone areas; it's possible to do constructive work at ANI, and likewise it's possible to engage in drama at article talkpages. If WikiDrama were an alcohol addiction, a proposal like the current one is saying "I pledge not to go to bars", whereas a real anti-drama proposal would be more like "I pledge not to drink, regardless of where I am".
But of course, as you have said several times, the real goal of this drive is not to avoid drama, it's to motivate users to improve content. So it really should be the "great wikipedia article build" or something, rather than drama-out. I understand that dramaout is a catchy title, and that so many people have looked at it by now that it doesn't make a difference, and yada yada.... whatevs. In the grand scheme of things, it doesn't really matter, and the Wiki won't die because of one tiny-bit misleading title here (and arguing over the title is certainly not the best way to avoid drama); just thought I'd throw that out there anyway. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 02:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, the goal IS to avoid drama, by avoiding drama-magnet areas of Wikipedia altogether. Still, its mostly a marketing lie. But since when did a little marketing hurt anybody? ;) --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 02:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Well I think Jayron32's dismissal of WP:EAR and the useful work that goes on there is exceedingly lite. Of course it attracts drama queens, but they usually get pretty short shrift. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh, no, let me state this unambiguosly then. WP:EAR is a very important part of Wikipedia. I am not denying that there are vital parts of Wikipedia in the non-article space. All I am saying is that this campaign gives people who have left article editing, and feel that their lives have been consumed by all of the non-article stuff a chance to return to article editing. This is not a demand of all Wikipedians, nor is it a slight to those areas such as WP:EAR. This is a way for Wikipedians to dedicate themselves to voluntarily leave all of the stuff that has taken them away from article editing behind for a few days and return to article editing. If either A) you're life has not been all consumed by these areas of Wikipedia or B) you aren't really interested in abandoning them for 5 days, then feel free to opt out. This isn't supposed to be unpleasant for anyone, and I am not asking anyone to do anything they don't want to do. If restricting yourself to editing articles for 5 days isn't something that interests you, no one will think badly of you.
Let me put it all another way. This is not a condemnation of WP:ANI, WP:EAR, the ref desks, policy discussions, or anything else. That is not the focus. The focus is merely on giving an incentive for individual Wikipedians, who feel that they are "addicted" to these areas, and who also feel that their own article editing has been hurt by this addiction, an opportunity to return to article editing exclusively for a few days. If this feeling does not apply to you, then no biggie. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 02:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
OK, as I shall be carrying on my normal process of working on articles and contributing to WP:EAR, I shall withdraw my name from the participants list. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
No problem. Thank you for your interest though! I really do appreciate the work you do at WP:EAR. Responding to concerns there can be a thankless job, but I want you to know that it is appreciated, at least by me. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 03:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Not at all thankless, I get a lot of thanks, even a barnstar! and i get personal satisfaction from pointing people in the right direction. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Begging off

I'd really love to sign up, but I'm involved in some pressing drama at the moment. :) Enigmamsg 04:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Wait, I just realized it starts tomorrow night. I failed to realize that it's the beginning of 7/17, not 7/18. Maybe I'm in, after all. Anyway, good idea, and I hope everyone who signs up sticks to their pledge! Enigmamsg 04:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Images?

I would like to vectorize some graphics for the Dramaout. Since the File name space is not the article name space, it appears to be forbidden by the Dramaout. If not, please clarify, and if so, can it be an exception to the rule? —harej (talk) (cool!) 06:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

There aren't really "rules", and you don't need "permission". If you're doing work that involves building content and not project maintenance, then obviously you're doing something within the scope of the "dramaout". rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 10:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
If the images are freely licensed, they should be getting uploaded to Commons anyway, so you wouldn't be working in the File namespace on Wikipedia. Problem solved! ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Uploading images is a GREAT idea. See the section on "suggested ideas". Since image are direct article improvements, that is certainly within the letter and spirit of this campaign. PLEASE do so; we need more people who work on creating good graphics for articles! --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 16:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I love this idea, but...

I just wanted to state here that I think the idea is a good one, but I will not be taking part myself. There are not many new image patrollers, and that is something that would count here as "drama". I hate the noticeboards as much as (more than?) many here, but I feel that some maintenance tasks still need all available hands. I do, however, strongly support projects such as this one and the WikiCup, and, in the spirit of the Dramaout, I promise to write some articles! J Milburn (talk) 12:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious. Why does new image patrolling result in drama? Is it because of the need for rationales on non-free images? Does the drama happen often? Could you give a few examples? John Vandenberg (chat) 14:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
It results in drama because many users (especially new users) uploading images don't understand Wikipedia's image use policy, and instead of bothering to learn it they will accuse you of censorship or trying to suppress information. This is an instance where drama comes to you and you can't really avoid it (unless, of course, you're willing to stand by while Wikipedia gets filled up with junk and copyvio), so I fully understand J Milburn's rationale. (User:Rjanag posting while logged out) 129.79.235.30 (talk) 15:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
The reference desks don't result in 'drama' either - here drama refers to administrative/support tasks. ;)    M   19:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk pages

Can we add some talk pages to the drama lists? I can think of a few that quality. :D Ottava Rima (talk) 14:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

If qualified as "except for constructive discussion of changes to the associated article", sure. I often use talk pages when the rationale of a change to an article doesn't fit in the edit summary; as long as no quarrel starts, I don't consider that as drama. --A. di M. – 2009 Great Wikipedia Dramaout 14:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking of some more specific names. Or, we could add responses to some specific editors. ^__^ Ottava Rima (talk) 14:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Doing the latter would itself be drama, though... :-) --A. di M. – 2009 Great Wikipedia Dramaout 14:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Thats the plan. Haha! Ottava Rima (talk) 16:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
(Already says "# Talk page chatter, except for article collaboration", think that's ok. --A. di M. – 2009 Great Wikipedia Dramaout 14:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC))

"Counter-Protest"?

What exactly is this? I am confused in that I don't understand the editor's logic or why it should be here. a little insignificant 16:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

So... ask them. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Sustainable solution?

I understand this is just meant as a publicity stunt, but what about a sustainable solution? Anyone interested in thinking about how to improve the signal-to-noise ratio in places like AN/I? I'm not sure I see any useful purpose to the stunt, but I could sure see some benefit from an actual, long-term improvement. Friday (talk) 17:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that's possible. The problem isn't the way things work, the problem is people. Some people like going around looking for a fight, and that's never going to change. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 17:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Sure. Let's look for ways to get the sensible members of the community to stop engaging with the fight-seekers. Let's find ways to aggressively trim out off-topic nonsense from places like AN/I. Perhaps we could even find some consensus for way of topic banning repeat offenders. Friday (talk) 18:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I had an idea, above, very much like what you're getting at. It was for a Dramain, where all editors cease article-space edits for 5 days and brainstorm long-term solutions to our drama problems, or list frequent problems that could use some better guidance, make general policy changes, cutting useless crap out from our 1000 policies, making them easier to find and use, and so on. This would, of course, seriously violate WP:IAR, but we could always just ignore that rule. ;)    M   19:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Good luck

Kudos to you all...For those of us who spend nearly all of our time working on articles...(gasp), and who are extremely uncomfortable participating and engaging in the 'drahma', this comes as a great shock, and a surprise and a revelation. Good luck to all :)...Modernist (talk) 18:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure

Is there a difference between necessary drama and unnecessary drama?Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 18:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Necessarily, yes. All off this might make more sense if we called it WP:WIKIPACIFISM - try to settle all disputes without engaging in anything that even remotely resembles drama. So only the politest 1-sentence responses on all talk pages, otherwise just let it be. That sort of thing. Maybe. There's also that "don't engage in support activities" aspect. So I'm not sure either. ;)    M   19:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
It depends entirely on your point of view. What is necessary drama to one person is unnecessary drama to someone else. EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

Oh noz, if you don't participate in these, some actually useful articles might get deleted! Epic fail. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 23:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

eh? –Juliancolton | Talk 01:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
He brings up a good point considering some AfD deletion discussions only go 5 days, the length of this event. -- Ϫ 02:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Only a small fraction of active editors have actually signed up here, so I doubt anything will be significantly affected. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

It has begun

Can I look at ANI though? I mean, it's part of my daily routine. Law type! snype? 00:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

LAW! You must release yourself from these dark temptations binding you to drama! You can still be saved, but first you must resist, resist and succeed! a little insignificant 01:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
...though you have to sin before your sins can be forgiven. EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 01:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
OK OK. Sorry guys. I feel like I disappointed you. However, I'm feeling the Spirit that you have in me instilled. I almost blocked a user at UAA, and then I realized that my time is best spent here and not dealing with silly usernames, that may or may not be offensive. It reminds me of a story that my Grandfather once told me. He said "Law," (yes, even though this doesn't make sense chronologically, go with it) "Law, I always carry a bullet in my shirt pocket. One day I was walking down Main Street and a lady hurled a Bible at me from an upstairs apartment. Somehow, some way, that Bible struck the bullet and I was unharmed. If it wasn't for that bullet, the Bible would have gone straight to my heart." You, my friends, are that bullet. Law type! snype? 01:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
You didn't dissapoint me, sometimes I just like saying yes.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 03:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
You haven't disappointed me either, I just always wanted to deliver a sermon about nothing. :D a little insignificant 11:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

admin requests

For editors wanting admin assistance without bugging a specific admin, and without running off to ANI, I have created {{admin request}}, which works roughly like {{editrequested}}. Support local consensus! John Vandenberg (chat) 02:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks good, but I'm not entirely sure what its purpose is. I can't think of anything that isn't already covered by existing venues (CSD, RFPP, etc.) –Juliancolton | Talk 02:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
The intention is that it is a simple catch all rather than expecting the editor to find the right template. Request might be as simple as "why was the previous copy of this page deleted", but it could also be used to ask for a block, or request protection, unprotection, etc. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Official Unofficial logo and message and such.

This was a sort of collaborative effort. Actually Berean Hunter pretty much jacked my image, which I jacked, and then he made this awesome template. Have a look Law type! snype? 02:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll be checking contribution histories!

It'll be interesting to see just how many of those that signed up actually worked on article editing. :) -- œ™ 03:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I've already created one! –Juliancolton | Talk 03:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I have a question about how this works ...

... but I know that everyone who has the ANSWER is currently engaged in The Great Wikipedia Dramaout, so I won't bother asking.  :( Agradman talk/contribs 07:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

TSK TSK

The fruits of your labour.

I'm not going to out anyone, but WT:RFA? REALLY? For shame. You might as well block an admin, delete a featured article, and start stalking Jimbo's talk page. Every post you make to a contentious area means you have to leave the house and take a picture for Commons. And no, Flickr and pictures from windows of basements and lofts do not count. Grab your tripod and Nikon 570x zoom lens that is under your bed, next to the pictures of your 65 year-old neighbor, sunbathing near her above-ground pool, and get me something I can use. You know who you are and you know we need more Rule 34. Law type! snype? 10:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Damn it. I posted to Wales talk page, ignoring my own advice. He is all about [1] the greatest holiday of all time. Haha. Law type! snype? 13:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I added a photo to this section as proof that Law is hard at work. That alone is enough to forgive any transgressions. It truly is in the wiki spirit that there is a bloc of signatures of people opposed to the measure and, of course, a neutral one. Thanks for giving me a good laugh. Recognizance (talk) 17:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Multi-tasking

If you people would only learn to multi-task, you'd soon find out that really good WPedians can write articles, clean up articles, bash vandals, drink a beer and engage in drama all without missing a beat. I could even provide you with several names of those good WPedians, if it weren't considered original research or a BLP vio. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 17:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Allstarecho, these people are self admitted drama addicts. They will never learn to be able do so something so simple as multi-task, that is simply too mainstream. I say let them have their therapy week without confusing them too much, its going well so far, the only issue for wiki is actually how the people who aren't addicts have responded to this initiative by pompously presuming to know what the addicts do or do not want posted on their talk pages. I personaly think a better solution would have been ritual mass-retirement, if it is true that none of them are of any benefit to the project for the other 51 weeks in the year. MickMacNee (talk) 00:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

suggestion for how to maximize productivity - read this, even if you can't respond  :)

Hi,
A few weeks ago, Drilnoth and I collaborated to create Template:Refideas.

  • This template goes on talk pages and features links to "public domain or freely licensed material that may be incorporated into this article".
  • It also displays a wikilink which takes you to a list of all articles thusly labeled as linking to free content -- i.e., Category:Articles which could have free content incorporated from elsewhere.
  • Most of the 142 pages that I've placed in this category feature CRS Reports -- i.e., government research reports written in an encyclopedic tone.

Thus, even if you didn't know a bloody thing about the Military-industrial_complex, you can rather liberally copy-and-cite content from Congressional Research Service: The US Defense Industrial Base: Trends and Current Issues.

In the long run, with the help of this category, I expect that some of the most transformative edits to articles like Coalworker's pneumoconiosis will be made by middle-school students who have no knowledge of the topic whatsoever  :)

cheers,

Agradman talk/contribs 18:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

However, remember that just copying and pasting public domain material (even if cited) is plagiarism, an unethical practice and not something we should be encouraging. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Excluding this from Dramamaout?

What about adoption areas? Would that be excluded?Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 19:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

If you subscribe to the view that the "dramaout" is mainly about improving article content, then no, these would not be excluded since they're not directly about article-building (although they are indirectly, if you are optimistic that an adoptee will become a good content contributor).
Really, though, does it matter? The "dramaout" is not anyone's mom, and we don't need a complete and all-inclusive list of what is exempted and what is not. People can make decisions for themselves on what areas are worth working in and what aren't.
For what it's worth, I believe that if you really care about reducing drama you should be worrying about drama itself, and not "areas". If you can participate in an adoption page or whatever other page without being dramatic about it, then by all means go for it. But I don't think that's the view of this page's main contributors or the underlying purpose of this initiative; it's just my view. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 19:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for clearing that up.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 19:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

More drama here

And stay off WP:WEA! IRC drama freaks. ;P

Arbitrators

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Discussion is going nowhere anymore (except in circles); everyone has said there piece. I don't see anything coming out of continuing it; besides, all of you guys signed up to participate in the "drama-out", and this is not part of it! rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 04:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of causing drama on the Dramaout page: Apparently some Arbs are participating (I haven't checked the list, but an Arb has said so on the Bishonen/Jimbo RfAr (which I have refrained from editing - I am allowed to read it, right?)) - I think that is a bad idea. Most non-content jobs can be done by plenty of people so a few of us doing this does no real harm. There are only a few arbs, so they can't really be spared. --Tango (talk) 01:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Meh, it's only 5 days. As far as I know (and granted, I know very little about behind-the-scenes WP), most ArbCom business is stuff that has been causing problems for months, so if it waits a couple extra days it's probably nobody's loss. (Not to mention that participation in the dramaout doesn't apply to arbs' off-wiki activities, AFAIK.) rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 02:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
ArbCom cases take long enough as it is (although I think there have been improvements there), 5 days added delay probably isn't worth the extra articles they will write. --Tango (talk) 02:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Talk to the Arbs. Tell them to get back to their unpaid/voluntary positions if you like. But since you started this section, you realize that we don't control the Arbs and this is the most dramatic thing I have written during the Dramaout so you owe us an article or at least a picture upload. Law type! snype? 02:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Do I have to go back to arb work? :( Wizardman 02:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I think it would be better if people here decided to advise Arbs to go back to their elected roles (just because it is unpaid and voluntary doesn't remove the obligation that comes from it being elected), rather than me unilaterally going to them with that advice. --Tango (talk) 02:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I think it would be worse. This page is in part humorous in the fact that it is resulting in enormous amounts of work, especially from people who would be spending their time doing other things. Jimbo considers it the greatest wiki-holiday of all time, and I agree. Yes they are elected, but that does not entail an obligation - they are two different things. If Jimbo can concentrate on his article work, which he has been doing, I'd implore more Arbs to do the same. Nothing is more important than article creation, because there is not an encyclopedia without them. However, without Arbs, vandal-fighters, and admins - we would continue to exist, as long as we have articles that define us as an encyclopedia. Now, as far as how well we function - that's a different subject. The Arbs exist because of Wikipedia, not the other way around. Law type! snype? 03:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. When you stand for election you make an implicit promise to do the job if elected - that is an obligation. Jimbo doesn't have any important jobs on site that aren't intermittent, so the comparison is meaningless. It would be great if Arbs wrote more articles, but they shouldn't do so at the expense of the task they have promised to do. (Incidentally, I wouldn't call this a holiday - the idea is to encourage people to do the real work of writing articles - this is the greatest wiki-!holiday of all time!) --Tango (talk) 03:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I will trust that the Arbs have effectively mastered the art of walking and chewing gum. Law type! snype? 03:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The arbs have just as much of a right to take a five day break from drama as anyone else. In fact, they could probably use it more than most. The project isn't going to collapse from a five day break from drama. Trust me. Also, to say losing a few days of arbitration isn't worth the content the arbs create in these days is not only laughable, but it illustrates a serious misunderstanding of the purpose of Wikipedia. Lara 03:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
ArbCom exists because it facilitates the creation of articles. If ignoring cases and writing articles was a better use of Arb's time, they would do it 365 days a year. The work they aren't doing there now isn't going to go away, so unless they intend to work twice as hard for the next 5 days, the project will be harmed by that work not being done. --Tango (talk) 03:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
You place too much emphasis on bureaucracy. Arbs only facilitate the 'creation of articles' because that is the role they have been given. This is not a chicken or egg discussion. However, this is all a moot point as we can't, nor should not, tell others what to do around here. Law type! snype? 04:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Of course they do it because it is the role they have been given, what is your point? My point is that the role is a necessary once, which is why it exists. We have no way to enforce any commands upon Arbs, but we can still advise them. --Tango (talk) 04:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the Dramaout isn't really binding. :P EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec with EV - how rude!) It exists because it is necessary? O. That's not going to get very far with me. However, my point, as you so graciously asked, is that this Dramaout is not a collective. If you want to remind Wizardman and the rest to 'get back to arbiting,' have at it. Law type! snype? 04:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
So you are actually arguing that we should disband ArbCom? That is a separate argument and should be dealt with elsewhere (I look forward to discussing it with you at Wikipedia:Governance review once the dramaout is over). I clearly meant your first point, not your second. I've never suggesting "reminding" anyone about anything, no-one has forgotten what they should be doing, there is simple disagreement over what they should be doing. --Tango (talk) 04:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Rudeness isn't covered by the Dramaout, Law. :P EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
God. I can't wait until next month when the big CratOut begins. Law type! snype? 04:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
...crap. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
@Tango. Did I say that AC should be disbanded? No way. I said that if you want Arbs to be Arbs, tell the Arbs on the Arb page so the Arbs can listen to you opinion and Arb about it. Law type! snype? 04:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Wow. That has surely got to be the biggest scarecrow I have ever seen. Lara 04:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ref Desks

I think including the Ref Desks in this was a bad mistake. Otherwise, I quite like the idea. --Dweller (talk) 10:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Maintenance Categories?

Since I spend most of my time on Wikipedia trying to bail out the swamp known as Category:Biography articles without listas parameter I did not know that this was coming. Could the various maintenance categories get a bit of assistance? Note that of all the items in the backlog only two, Category:Biography articles without listas parameter and Category:Biography articles without living parameter, do not require any research. There should be ample evidence in that article to determine the proper sort order of the article and if the subject is living or not.

Along the way one has an opportunity to verify automatically generated assessments, re-order categories and make other little improvements to the general scheme of things. There is even an occasional opportunity for a copy edit.

JimCubb (talk) 20:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Done?

Are we done? What now? ≈ Chamal talk +Under house arrest!+ 00:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Well.. now that we got the ball rolling.. I say Keep Going! -- Ϫ 01:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, please keep working on articles; also don't forget to make any status changes (such as GA, FA, or DYK status) on the log page! --Jayron32 03:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking forward

Perhaps this should be an annual event? –Juliancolton | Talk 02:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Full support on that one -- Ϫ 02:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Agree, but would recommend extending to 7 days. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 03:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely Will definitely keep it in mind for next year. I think this was an unqualified success. Also, could someone buzz WP:SIGNPOST and let them know about this. This may be something worth reporting to the community... --Jayron32 03:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 Done –Juliancolton | Talk 03:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • This one should be annual. But I propose an extension of the idea.

    Let's do a "NODRAMA" week annually, and an "article work" week in six months, repeating annually (it'd be like "NODRAMA" except that its focus is on sourcing, expanding, and removing tags from existing articles, with users refraining from creating new articles during that week).—S Marshall Talk/Cont 11:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

    • I second that. Count me in. This past week has been more fun than I've had on Wikipedia in a long time. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 15:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Thirded! It was very fun, and I learned alot about editing. It's also a nice break from vandals. (mostly)Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 15:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
        • Looks like I'm not the only one who thought this is a good idea. Let's extend from 5 days to 7. OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support to the general idea of an annual event. It makes better sense to extend the length to 1 week, though. And since "I accidentally stumbled upon this" was a common complaint, some tasteful advertising should be planned in advance next time, such as the Signpost mentioned above. All in all, I'd say this was a successful endeavor, and deserves to be repeated. :-) JamieS93 18:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Annual! Wtf! Once a year 5 days for people to create content instead of backstage bitchfests??? Perhaps I dare to dream of a place where content is created many times throughout the year and policy-feuding is rejected by the majority. --Moni3 (talk) 18:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, let's not get ahead of ourselves; one week per year is quite enough... –Juliancolton | Talk 18:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I very much support this being an annual event. --Tango (talk) 19:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
This was definitely very awesome, I look forward to the next one. Cerebellum (talk) 22:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking bi-annual. -- Ϫ 03:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Archiving

After some time has elapsed, perhaps in a week or two, we should plan to archive most of the current page to a /2009 sub-page, if we intend to continue the Dramaout next year (or semi-annually). The Log page would also be moved to /2009/Log, and participants could still keep it updated on the GA/FA-type goals that are eventually reached. Also, I've made a sketch template for the project here. And if anybody wants to create a future project subpage like "/Ideas", I could add that link to the navigation template, too. JamieS93 20:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think we should archive it until we begin to plan next years event. Some of these articles are still in process, and lets give them a few months to get through FA/GA. There is no impending need to clear this page out UNTIL the 2010 event is upon us anyways. --Jayron32 21:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
We can always start the sign up for next year's OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
A year in advance? This sort of stuff would lose its momentum that far out. I was thinking more like starting to advertise it a month out. Not a whole year! --Jayron32 05:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Jayron: I would understand leaving it up for a little while. I know at DYK, however, we start planning for the next annual April Fools' Day within 3 weeks after the event, which is why we archive pretty soon after April 1 (in this case, we shouldn't advertise multiple months before the Dramaout, though). Like any other repeating event on WP, the main project page should be the generic area that defines the idea and process itself, linking to specific past events. IMO, if the Dramaout will be an annual/semi-annual endeavor, the front page should look like it, not cluttered with old signatures for months. Like I said, people could still edit the log and keep it updated in the following weeks. So this is more of a categorization than "archiving". Best, JamieS93 18:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Hey, I'm all for making this a quarterly event. Once every 3 months, everybody just stop fussing and feuding and work on building. Just a thought. — Ched :  ?  23:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Once every 3 months is too frequent. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
      • In an ideal world, people would focus on article-building or helpful maintenance all the time, forsaking petty fights and rubbernecking at ANI. It would be neat if we could do this more often. However, the reality is, if this event is too frequent it will lose its interest with editors. Semi-annually might be a decent compromise; maybe every 4 months. JamieS93 13:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
        • In an even idealer world, maintenance would barely be required, and artificial attempts at "reducing drama" wouldn't be needed, since people would be able to distinguish drama from legitimate concerns. Also, I'd like a pony. Dendlai (talk) 14:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Missed this

i missed this, and would have liked to participate. was it easy for me to miss? where do i need to look (or watch) to catch this again? this may be a key to my not getting drawn into talk pages, even if they appear constructive. oops, here i am. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

This project kind of started as a grass-roots effort, and never really got publicized formally: others learned through the grapevine. So unfortunately, it's not really surprising that you couldn't find it; most people stumbled onto this page by means of coincidence (perhaps seeing it advertised in somebody's signature, etc.). Next time this project is scheduled, it will probably receive better publicity ahead of time, such as the Signpost (see the section just above). We're not sure how often the Dramaout will occur in the future, but hopefully at least semi-annually. Best, JamieS93 22:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Counter protest and neutral? - pu-lease

Archive those and force them to create their own pages next time around; what a pile of steamy drama. If they want to make a point then make them create a page to do it and link it here. I note people are still signing up, perhaps that should be addressed in some fashion as well. -- Banjeboi 20:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Might be time ...

... to fire this project up again! — Ched :  ?  15:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I second that. I'm finding myself wasting too much time arguing and too little time actually contributing to articles. --___A. di M. 20:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to repeat this

As can be read further up on this page, those who participated in this last time agreed that we should repeat this after a few months. Considering that the level of WikiDrama has been increasing recently I suggest that we try this again once the ArbCom elections are over. Anyone else willing to try this again? Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 16:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I've mostly quit drama (pointless discussions on the Internet while one is writing a BSc thesis are a no-no), but a few days without any drama whatsoever on Wikipedia would be a good idea. (And, considering that my thesis is done now, I might return to my previous levels of drama by when the new arbitrators are elected — but I hope not.) --___A. di M. 17:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
You made a typo there - pointless discussions on the internet while one is writing a BSc thesis are essential. --Tango (talk) 17:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Of course I meant that. Thanks. :-) --___A. di M. 19:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

2010 Dramaout?

Apparently, there are people who think it's time for another Dramaout. OTOH, due to Christmas holidays and all that, some people might be unable to collaborate to articles for five days. What about starting on 18 January? That's exactly six months since the first Dramaout. So, if there are other people supporting this, I would:

  • create a page WP:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/1st, and move sections "Participating Wikipedians", "Counter-protest" and "Neutral" there; similarly, move WP:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/Log to WP:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/1st/Log;
  • fix the tense of the first section:
    The Great Wikipedia Dramaout, similar to the Great American Smokeout, is a five-day period in which editors are asked to engage of abstinence from drama at Wikipedia, the most addictive and yet cancerous aspect of our community. During this five-day drama blackout, regular contributors to the non-article-space areas of Wikipedia cease working in those areas for the length of the Dramaout and instead work on article content. With the exception of areas deemed essential to improving articles directly, all participating editors voluntarily abstain from non-article edits.
    The latest edition, the 1st Great Wikipedia Dramaout, took place from July 18 to July 22, 2009; its article-improvement log is located at Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/1st/Log. The upcoming edition, the 2nd Great Wikipedia Dramaout, is scheduled to begin on 00:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC) and to end on 23:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC).
  • advertise it to the Village Pumps, in signatures, etc.

I'm pointing this thread to people who said they were interested to a new Dramaout in threads above, as well as to some of the earliest people who signed up the 1st Dramaout. --___A. di M. 12:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

  • I am so in... --Jayron32 13:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Me too. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 14:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I look forward to getting back to WP after the holidays, count me in for this. — Ched :  ?  15:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Sure. Please note that I tend to whack down the encyclopedia instead of adding new stuff, i.e., 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. JamieS93 16:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Alas! my exams start on the 18th and go for exactly five days. At least I can guarantee I won't be getting into any WP drama :) As far as article writing goes, however, I am not in the best position to be on WP at all. But don't reschedule the whole thing just because of me. Wish I could take part in it, though... ALI nom nom 17:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
    • On the other hand, I'm not sure that doing it only on weekdays is a very good idea. We could extend it to seven days (Monday the 18th to Sunday the 24th) so that it includes a weekend, or if seven days is too long it could be from the 16th to the 20th (Saturday to Wednesday, as it was on July). What do you think? --___A. di M. 19:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Also in. OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Here we go! Sign in at WP:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/2nd if you will. --___A. di M. 21:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Official exemption sought

"Areas of Wikipedia exempted"—I apply to be listed as exempt. May I add my username? Tony (talk) 02:46, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

There's no "exemption" needed; the Dramaout isn't mandatory. Just... don't participate. Voila, problem solved. EVula // talk // ☯ // 07:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Now let me get this right: FAC is exempt (no drama there, of course); but the Manuals of Style that are so important to writing high-quality, consistent articles are not on the exemption list. Tony (talk) 16:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Now let me get this right: Your complaint is that not enough people will show up on your talk page to fuel whatever drama is happening there. And you consider that a bad thing? As for the MoS, why don't you just add it yourself? Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 16:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
In my view, that's not so much a matter of places as one of purposes. A short post on WT:MOS asking clarifications about a point of style you encountered in one of the articles you're improving would be fine — although if it is something which the MOS doesn't explain clearly and which you can't figure out yourself, it is likely that it is something so minor that focusing on content would be more in the spirit of the Dramaout. OTOH, the umpteenth 100-kilobyte discussion about fine points of the wording of the instruction about whether to put SI or Imperial units first for a particular measurement which isn't going to affect more that one article throughout Wikipedia, seasoned with near-personal attacks, would be clearly out. Likewise, nominating an article you've been working on for FAC and hanging around there in order to address people's comments is OK, opposing FACs of articles you had never read before for trivial issues (where "trivial" means "which would take longer to point out than to fix", e.g. a spaced en dash is used, though all other sentence-punctuating dashes are unspaced em dashes) is clearly out. ― A._di_M.2nd Dramaout (formerly Army1987) 20:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Now let me get this right: you can't distinguish between project-level pages and an individual editor (namely, yourself)? Apples and oranges there... EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Look, the whole point of this entirely voluntary program is to give people an excuse to band together for a week and work on articles. No one is asking that anyone participate who does not want to. Anyone who isn't interested in participating just doesn't have to participate. If the idea of working on articles only for the 5 days straight isn't interesting to you, don't do it. The whole point of this drive, however, is to do just that. The exemptions exist solely for places where one may need to access the non-article space for direct article improvement, such as nominating an article you work on during the drive for FA or asking for a review, or seeking some clarification, or something like that. If it isn't related to article editing, don't do it. However, if you don't want to participate, don't. Since some of us will be abandoning the non-article spaces of Wikipedia, your increased work at those areas will be much appreciated! --Jayron32 05:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't Category:Requests for unblock be exempted?

Category:Requests for unblock I think should be exempted from the dramaout, as admins are expected to reasonably reply to such requests for unblock that come up. –MuZemike 03:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

No. The idea is someone else can deal with it for 5 days. The whole point is, if you are participating, that you edit articles ONLY for the week, and any exceptions are made solely for parts of the non-article space used to directly improve articles, such as nominating an article you are working on for FA, or stuff like that. The idea is to abandon all other parts of Wikipedia except working on articles. It isn't a set of criteria meant to be embraced by all users, many people don't need this, but for some of us, even something like CAT:UNB is like an alcoholic taking "one little drink." The point of this drive is to work on articles only, and if that's not something interesting to you, then don't participate. Its not a big deal. --Jayron32 04:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
There is no formal obligation to participate and as far as I know there is no judgment passed on who does or doesn't take part. There is no assessment made to determine to what extent those that do participate maintain complete compliance with the stated mission of the Dramaout. So people can use their own judgment on how and to what extent they want to participate. If someone see a backlog and wants to address it, I would think that's a choice that's up to them. It's possible that Wikipedia will fall apart if people focus solely on article work, but hopefully it can be put back together after the five days have passed. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:The_Great_Wikipedia_Dramaout/Archive_1"