Refactor Me

The instructions for using this WikiTag vary depending on whom you ask.

In favor of the badge:

A big advantage of RefactorMe is that you can get a list of pages that need refactoring by clicking the title of this page. If someone happens to be in a mood to clean up Wiki, this would be a great place to start.
Some pages are too messy to be refactored in one go. You can start the refactoring, leave the badge, and then follow the backlink back to it later, when you have more time.
When you know you've not expressed yourself well, but do not yet know how to improve it, use it.
You suspect that you've not expressed yourself well or that you've misunderstood some other Wikizen's contribution. You are afraid that you will edit your own bias into a dissertation to which you are perhaps a trifle too close. You come back to it when someone else has done some editing and see if it is clearer to you.
Leaving a tag that recognizes the need for refactoring is valid on Wiki as well as in code.
A RefactorMe can overcome current paranoia about reduction, which has been confused with censoring. It sends a clear signal that you do not mind having your work reduced or refactored if someone is so inclined.

Against the badge:

If you're about to put RefactorMe on a page, ask yourself: "Why am I asking someone else to do all the work?" Just do it, don't ask others to do it for you.
Say that things are a mess in PlainEnglish, but leave out RefactorMe.
Anyone recognizing the need to refactor will do so. The need for refactoring is usually painfully evident, and does not need to be called out. Wait until you come up with a better way to say it before saying it.
Everyone should agree to use just one such badge - see GentlyReduceWikiBadges.

Just a note: We use OpenWiki internally for system documentation and I have established RefactorThis as a WikiBadge. The reason is I am running across a bunch of code in our system that needs to be refactored, but I may not have the time to refactor it right then, so I slap in this WikiBadge and come back to it later. For example, I just ran across an ASP class called HtmlUtils? that has no real use in our site. No callers reference it so I could just delete it, but I've looked at it twice and have the feeling I can perhaps salvage a few things from it (rather than re-write them later) but I don't have the time right now, so for the HtmlUtilsClass? entry I slap in a RefactorThis badge. Then I can come back later and look at the RefactorThis page and find all the entries that need refactoring. I am establishing the convention that an entry which uses this badge should at least make a note of what needs to be refactored, either the item discussed or the entry itself. We'll see how it works out. --DaveCantrell

Looking through the backlinks of this page, you can see a lot of pages that seem to link here because they're discussing the concept of RefactorMe rather than because they need to be refactored. Just an observation...

Valuable pages that merit a RefactorMe exercise

I have seen pages with valuable contributions (more so than the average) from many parties that can benefit from refactoring. However the person who recognise this need may not be suited for the task, due to lack of experience, expertise, etc.

a second obstacle is that not many of us can refactor a busy but valuable page quickly. It may even take more than one person to collaborate on the refactoring effort. And during that refactoring process the page content becomes unstable, and could even have "step backward" moments.

A third difficulty lies in the extra effort required in attempts to MakeRoomForAllViewpoints, or most of the viewpoints. And to make the call to exclude contributions with "marginal" value.

These are some of the pages I wish someone would come in and start refactoring:

XmlAndSoapAreGoodForWhat (rev 56 ~Jan12/05 baseline)

CategoryWikiTag