UESPWiki:Archive/CP That's a Good Question!

This is an archive of past UESPWiki:Community Portal discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page, except for maintenance such as updating links.

That's A Good Question!

It does happen - we get good questions on the talk pages. I know all the site regulars try to answer as many as they can but all too often things disappear off the Recent Changes page without a good answer. So Template:Good Question; a template we can slap on a talk page to indicate that a particular question is ripe for further investigation. The reason I'm bringing it up here is that a) It's 2am right now so my colours probably make sane people sick, and b) it would involve a subtle change to the way we've handled talk pages. Obviously when a question is answered, the template needs to come off but that involves editing another user's talk page post - something that has been discouraged so far. Also, there ought to be a discussion about what constitutes a proper answer - is this going to create excess work for patrollers? This came to mind because of my suggestion on UESPWiki:Patrollers so I'd especially welcome feedback from our cadre of RecentChanges patrollers but everyone should feel free to comment. Oh - and remind me that I need to add the categories if it does go live. —Rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 21:09, 30 December 2007 (EST)

Having a similar template has crossed my mind a few times. It would make it much easier for non-patrollers to find questions that they might want to investigate and/or answer, would make it easier to find questions asked by patrollers/admins, and would make it easier to dig up questions that are more than a couple of days old. As for editing other editors' posts, I think it's well within the bounds of what is acceptable. It's not altering the meaning of the original post in any way, just making it easier at first to find the post (because I'm sure patrollers will need to add most of the tags, rather than leaving it up to the question-asker) and then afterwards signalling that the question has been answered.

I'd be in favour of implementing such a template. If we want to just move forward and see what happens, that works for me. Or if we want to plan ahead a bit more, a couple of issues that I'd expect we'll need to handle (in addition to rpeh's question about what constitutes an "answer") are:

• What types of questions need the tag? And who decides whether or not a question warrants a tag? For example, if an editor asks "Is Umbra the best sword ever?" (sorry I can't make myself add the inevitable typos and grammar flaws!) and includes the "good question" tag, would it be OK to remove the tag?
• Do tags stay on forever? Should there be a time limit after which questions expire and tags get deleted? Or should the category be sorted so that the most recent questions are at the top of the list (which would require tweaking the template somehow to record the date...)? The concern is how to make it possible for newer entries to stand out so that people who check the category periodically don't get overwhelmed by the questions that they've already scanned (and presumably decided they can't answer).

--Nephele^Talk 01:26, 31 December 2007 (EST)

I think it's a wonderful idea! I don't think we would have too much trouble with newbies adding the tag to inappropriate questions, so long as the tag isn't widely "advertised." Similarly to the {{huh}} tag, it would mostly be added by patrollers checking out a recent change and seeing that it needed more research/input to be considered resolved.

I'm all for just moving forward and implementing it... that's probably the best way to find out what else we need to figure out.

I would say that, yes, the tag should be removed from questions inappropriate for it. I'd also think that the tag should stay as long as the issue is unresolved. I guess it would make sense for the category to be sorted so that the tagged pages that have had the most recent edits would be on top. --GuildKnight^Talk2me 19:23, 31 December 2007 (EST)

I'd hope we can instill an aura of "bad taste" into flagging one's own questions, but if not then patrollers can soon remove inappropriate tags. Nephele's point about appropriate question should hopefully be addressed in the same way - patrollers will get into the swing of separating the good questions from the chaff. Perhaps also, instead of "question that needs to be answered", the template should say something like "topic that needs research", to indicate that we're looking for valuable information rather than personal opinion. As for the tags themselves, I'd incline towards keeping them on forever but adding the date. Perhaps a Wikipedia-like system of using a parameter may work? So we'd have {{Good Question|date=January 2008}}, for instance. That would use sub-categories rather than sorting but the idea is the same. Lastly, I'd like to start using the idea as soon as possible but I'd prefer we get things like this ironed out as much as we can first. —Rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 21:14, 31 December 2007 (EST)

I think it is a fairly good idea. However, I think most important questions should be moved to the Community Portal when it involves changing site policy. The tag should be used mostly on important questions about certain games or minor changes to the site. --Timmeh ^Talk 20:16, 1 January 2008 (EST)

Sure - this would be for questions relating to the game rather than the site. —Rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 08:36, 2 January 2008 (EST)

Yes, I have returned, sorry for all the fuss before. I believe that this concept has been brought up with good reason, but, as of now, it would create too much hassle. There are already enough templates to be used here and, while this is both functional and helpful, could break the site down into mindless micromanagement that results in little. I beleive that the best course of action here is probably to set up regulations to simplify the use of this template and/or designate a particular patroller to moniter the activity surrounding these templates. We should also distinguish between question types such as Lore, Gameplay, Glitches, Easter Eggs, Technical issues etc. Maybe a varying parameter could be included? --HMSVictory 11:42, 3 January 2008 (EST)

An extra parameter to sub-categorize questions is a nice idea - I'm not sure how well it's going to work in practice though. A question might fall into more than one category or there might be doubt as to which it should be in. Plus I don't want to give patrollers too much work to do and having to have them look up the categories before adding the template is a bit much. On the other hand it would mean people can check out the types of question that particularly interest them. I'd say the at first we try it without a type but that if a lot of questions get marked we look at adding it. —Rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 12:43, 3 January 2008 (EST)

After careless careful thought, I come to the conclusion that it might be a good idea to have a time limit for these "good questions". Maybe after 15 days or a week or some period of time that seems ample enough to do research and talk about a topic. After then it should be permitted to delete these tags (unless deleted by the user whose talk page it has been posted on, then anytime is good). Also, would these be restricted just to user-talk pages or all talk pages? I'd prefer both. --Timmeh ^Talk 18:15, 3 January 2008 (EST)

Often the "good questions" take far more than a couple of weeks to answer. I'd anticipate that easy-to-answer good questions will rarely get tagged, since often the patroller will be able to pull up the construction set and answer the question right away. But questions that require in-game testing, for example, can take a while before someone has the opportunity and patience to do the necessary followup (for example, what are the equations governing NPC skills and attributes, based on Morrowind talk:The point of NPC classes). So if there is a time limit, it would need to be longer than just one or two weeks. Personally, I prefer rpeh's suggestion of having month-by-month subcategories. So if you want to just see what new questions have arisen, you can just look at the current month; if you want to see everything that's available, you look at the full category.

I also agree with rpeh that sub-categories based on question type is likely to be tricky. It actually seems to me like that would promote the type of "mindless micromanagement" that HMSVictory wants to avoid. The page on which the question appears will by itself provide people with most of the type information: if it's on a Tamriel talk page, then it's likely to lore-related; if it's on an Oblivion quest's talk page, then it's likely to be gameplay related.

As for where the tags would be used, I'd recommend that they primarily be used on article talk pages, in part because that will make it much easier for question-answerers to identify the question topic. I'd even encourage "good questions" that are asked in other locations to first be moved to the appropriate article talk page. If the question is relevant to a specific article, then it's probably where the question belongs in the first place (even if it was first asked at UESPWiki:Reference Desk or on an editor's talk page).

That's also probably influenced by my feeling that the "good question" category should focus on article content. This should help to address some of the issues as to what questions warrant being identified as a good question. In other words, a "good question" has to be one that, once answered, will allow the associated article to be improved. If a question is one whose answer will never get incorporated into a UESP article, then it shouldn't be tagged. Also, questions that aren't relevant to a specific article (e.g., a community portal-type questions) wouldn't qualify. The top of the category page could easily point readers to a handful of other discussion pages that can be expected to always contain recent discussion of more general topics. --Nephele^Talk 00:10, 4 January 2008 (EST)

Categorizing articles wouldn't perse mean that only one category will apply to a question. If a question falls between two categories, just add it to both. But as there is already a good categorization for articles (NPCs, Quests, Overviews, Places etc.) there is hardly any need to add a seperate layer of categorization. However, it would be a good idea to use the page trail (which is practically present on every article) as guideline where a question belongs to. This would leave patrollers only to checking the main article to see what trail is present.

I think there should be no time-to-live for questions, mainly because of the reason Nephele just provided. If the questions are categorized by month some moderating is required to keep it clean. Some questions may become irrelevant or be solved by other means. This will leave the question what to do when two questions are very similar. I think adding a header to the questions for links to similar questions is the best solution. Merging such questions would mean that someone has to meddle in other people's comments, and only selecting (the best) one of the questions for "good question" tagging will require difficult judgement calls. --Timenn < talk > 08:20, 4 January 2008 (EST)

I think much of the problem would come from the definition of a "Good Question." What one user believes is a fantastic query maybe another user's idea of complete rubbish. This could cause problems, especially if people start hunting for questions which they then tag just for the sake of it, or to make other editors work for nothing. This *could* cause vandalism, although that assumption is probably unlikely to be realised. Also, instead of just posting a note on an article's talk page, users may tag their own questions to try and get them noticed. If a guideline was introduced to clarify what a good question is, then maybe this idea would shine a little brighter. --HMSVictory 12:13, 4 January 2008 (EST)

The quality of question is going to be something that patrollers will need to look at. Nephele has already given a good answer but it bears summarising: A "Good Question" is one that will benefit the site by being answered. If we eventually go ahead with this, the documentation page could have some examples on it that patrollers and others could use as a guide. If we find that a user is consistently abusing the template by posting on everything they ever ask, it can be dealt with like any other behavioral problem on the site - unofficial warnings, official warnings and then banning. —Rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 13:05, 4 January 2008 (EST)

After due deliberation, I have decided at how I believe this should be taken forward. A trial period, as mentioned before, would be an excellent way of testing how competent the idea is. If this is to go ahead, however, it should be made clear to all editors that this is available, so as to provide more accurate results from a wider range of participants. If we end up with a flood of "Good Questions," then maybe we should re-calibrate the process. If we are presented with sparsely placed and well-balanced judgments, then it is clear that this concept should be introduced fully. Personally, I have encountered interesting questions on talk pages asked months ago without reply, so I am certainly not against this proposal. --HMSVictory 07:04, 5 January 2008 (EST)

As I understand it, the {{Good Question}} template idea is to create a meta-editing tool, intended primarily for use by patrollers and admins to ensure that important points a) get noticed by experienced contributors, and b) prompt the "hmmm" reaction from casual visitors. It would implicitly be bad taste to flag one's own questions this way; but of course people will do this. There are also problems of persistence and usefulness over time. I do understand and embrace the basic concept, and agree that reasonable usage patterns should evolve through practice. However, this situation suggests to me that we are looking for a kind of editorial tool that doesn't currently exist. (This situation also applies to Wikipedia.) We don't have an easy way for patrollers, admins, and "serious" contributors (whatever that means) to flag content for special attention, other than the category system and normal talk page use. It's as if we want a new kind of talk page that is strictly for meta-editing – for flagging content, suggesting changes, etc. Failing that approach (which is obviously a non-starter), the right kind of template(s) could be helpful. They would need to be branded with a different set of usage guidelines – e.g. suggesting that insertion/deletion/modification of the template be permissible within talk page contents, but presumably only by some approved class of patrollers/admins. This is obviously an elitist non-Wiki concept, but if we're talking about guidelines rather than strict rules, or something based on the number of edits a given user has made, it could pass muster as a community consensus. Hmmm. Not sure if my point is coming through here. The template sounds like a good idea; but does this discussion suggest that there is a set of similar meta-editing tasks, performed by patrollers and admins, that might be better supported through tools that are orthogonal to the normal article editing and category mechanisms? I have no proposal other than to go ahead with the suggested template, but if there is a *right* solution it will have implications on every Wiki. Spinality 02:14, 6 January 2008 (EST)

Okay, since everybody seems to be saying "Good idea" to at least some extent, I've gone ahead and created the template. We now have the Good Question template and a couple new categories, plus the first marked question. Let's see how this works and tweak as required. —Rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 03:46, 6 January 2008 (EST)

One last thought - should the templates come off once the question is answered or instead, accept a second parameter that would change the appearance and add the page to a sub-category so we can keep track of which questions were answered? Or is that over-complicating things? –Rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 14:03, 8 January 2008 (EST)

At first thought, that does seem to be kind of overly complicated. I would think that the template would be removed when it is no longer one of the "questions needing answers." --GuildKnight^Talk2me 17:50, 8 January 2008 (EST)

I'm inclined to agree with GuildKnight. Keeping the templates around seems overly complicated, perhaps in part because I don't immediately see the benefit of keeping track of answered questions. For example, other "good" questions that could be answered right away (without ever getting tagged) aren't being tagged or kept track of. --Nephele^Talk 00:30, 9 January 2008 (EST)

Yeah I thought so. Always worth asking the question though! –Rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 01:49, 9 January 2008 (EST)