Wikipedia talk:Requested articles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Requested articles (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within scope of WikiProject Requested articles because it is used for the administration of the Requested articles process. Please direct any queries to the discussion page.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the quality scale.
 
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

Ranking system for most demanded articles/lists?[edit]

After posting in the New contributors' help page/questions and following John of Reading's suggestion I'm adding this suggestion here as well.

I would like to suggest that some sort of ranking system be added to the lists and articles suggestion pages. In my case, I was browsing the suggestion lists to see where I could contribute (which takes some time already) and found some good suggestions I didn't feel capable of answering. When browsing through the list I wass missing a button to say "I like this suggestion" or "I add myself to this petition". If everyone did this, then the editors could find the most demanded articles and lists and focus their efforts there.

Kind regards, Musi3d — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musi3d (talkcontribs) 14:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

____
|_X_| I have just clicked on your suggestion because I think it is a good and simple idea. Kdammers (talk) 11:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

What category does foods go under?[edit]

What is the right section for foods? Can't find it. Wanted to suggest rauchfleisch. There is an article for it in German Wikipedia (de:rauchfleisch) but the term is used in English too, especially it seems in Jewish cuisine - see for example http://www.abeles-heymann.com/ 60.225.114.230 (talk) 09:24, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Food, drink, and nutrition. mabdul 21:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Request for "Dr. C.I.Jhala"[edit]

Requested by 71.224.196.74 here. --Z 01:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Request for "Goo Player"[edit]

Hi there, I'm using an Open Source Project Management Software called 'Feng Office Community Edition' and it uses a media player called 'Goo' .. I guess this is the open source alternative to MPlayer (whenever that was invented (?) ) and I would like a webpage constructed in wikicommons via en.wikipedia.org . Not much to ask , Please don't slash my request. Warmest regArds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.16.7.141 (talk) 08:24, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

RFC[edit]

The result of this discussion was creation of the WikiProject Requested articles, a WikiProject dedicated to the improvement of the Requested articles process. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 06:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

Something here needs a total overhaul. I don't think this is working.

  • Every page I've found so far has hundreds and hundreds of red links of dubious notability. No one seems to be weeding anything out to separate the wheat from the chaff.
  • Other pages have many entries struck out. Here's an idea — if you don't think they can be articles, WHY NOT JUST REMOVE THEM?!

My main concern is that there's little to no maintenance here. All of the pages have sloppy formatting by noobs who can't figure out how this wiki stuff works, dozens of strikeouts, and contextless redlinks that we will never be able to identify just what they're talking about. Nor does anyone seem to be chipping down the ginormous backlog — some of these redlinks have been here for years and years.

In short, the process here seems extremely broken and counterproductive. All anyone seems to do here is pile on redlink after redlink, with absolutely zero quality control. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 21:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I did chip in with creating some articles from here. But quality control would be good. Lets just semi-protect indef so that there's less bad requests and defer to WP:AfC, with content. An editnotice maybe? ~~Ebe123~~ → report 22:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Please not! The article wizard redirecting here for requesting an article - mostly unconfirmed users wo are simply overwhelmed. mabdul 23:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Even though this place may not appear to be function properly, it serves a valuable role as a partial shield against crap articles. I agree that it does need aggressive pruning, especially when we ramp up the exposure in the future. MER-C 13:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
What about a time limit (could be long, like a year) of some sort? Start grouping these like AfDs, by date first, and then tag the categories the way AfD-sorting works. Gigs (talk) 16:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
WP:SOFIXIT! Like everything on here, it takes effort. These are all in the Project Workspace, so there's no harm done to the main encyclopedia. For the band list, I'm sure something can be setup to stop people adding Facebook links to their mates' band. The Film Project has this list, which has been reasonbly well maintained. Lugnuts (talk) 19:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
So fix it? There are eight billion redlinks in this project. Pruning them one by one would be like trying to move the Great Lakes one water molecule at a time. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 20:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I personally think redlinks are helpful, pointing out stuff that needs to be done. All too often we hear boo-hoo-hooing about "everything has already been written" on Wikipedia — which is comical. Y'all want something to do, find a redlink, click it, and get busy. I'm not quite sure why this is a centralized RFC, there is no big, important proposal here, is there? Carrite (talk) 22:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I see the problem now — nobody is paying attention to the growing piles of requested articles, gotcha. Dunno, I guess some sort of mechanism could be perfected to direct them to the various projects, but there are only a handful of projects with truly active participation, so I don't know how effective that would be. Maybe requested articles could be vetted through the help desk, which seems to have more volunteers than actual questions; they could give a quick thumbs up or down on each suggestion, with the thumbs ups targeted to work groups. Carrite (talk) 22:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

We ask those submitting an item to take care, but there is nothing about warning the newcomer that he may be about to waste his time on a non-notable. A newcomer taking our advice in making the article, only to discover our speedy tag on it is unacceptable, and unfair, and could lead to that user leaving forever.

In lieu of immediate, drastic pruning of these lists, we should consider a disclaimer in large letters on each applicable page, warning potential creators that the items may not be notable. It's a quick, stopgap measure that's easy to do. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

  • While I agree that this project could use a revamp, it is fairly useful finding notable topics to write articles on. For example, the Newspaper vending machine didn't have an article. There are a huge number of non-notable articles on the list, and it takes a lot of sifting to find notable topics. I agree with Anna Frodesiak above, the best way to deal with this is by starting a backlog removal drive at Requested Articles, encouraging participants to remove non-notable topics and creating articles on notable subjects. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 19:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I have to agree with Ten Pound Hammer's comments above, that the process is broken and counterproductive. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that there is no real process. I went through some of the pages, finding appropriate links to match the red links, then marking those red links with strikeout. But I didn't know what to do with them after that, so there they sit. In my opinion, Requested Articles is not worth much as it stands now. •••Life of Riley (TC) 01:34, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
  • May be this can be merged into WP:AFC, so that we could have a central location for all the article creation process? Or at least the system of accept/decline resolutions so that we could match all the new request against the previously declined? Or may be this can be automatically archived to /dev/null if it is only used as spam filter? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I actually like the concept of RA, but I agree the lists could use pruning. - Jarry1250 [Deliberation needed] 12:55, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
    • I agree. But one thing I also wish to suggest is to require signing (~~~~) of article requests. That way, if an article request is approved or declined, the requester can be notified! 68.55.112.31 (talk) 08:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Fairly recently, I went through a few of the sections (Food, Arts) and culled items which were simply unsuitable candidates for articles. I admit that the current list is both overwhelming and rather useless although, as per Jarry above, I like the idea of RA. In the process of pruning, and reorganizing, I found and started some articles that are most certainly worthwhile suggestions (salad spinner for instance). I would like a way to prioritize these items which have a high potential for creation (such as Cotswold architecture, Floating village, Hurricane jar). I personally would be interested in a dedicated Wikiproject, which would fit with the kind of casual article creation I tend to do. As someone who frequently assists at AFC, I can't see how this could be incorporated there; AFC is constantly overwhelmed just trying to review articles, generally by SPA creators (ie unlikely candidates to create an article from an arbitrary list). France3470 (talk) 17:35, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I did a major revamp and reorganization of our WP:MED requested articles a while ago Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Applied_arts_and_sciences/Medicine. It is basically a place where new editors show up to request content and thus it is not surprising that most comments do not follow policy. It is an important place for long time editors to interact positively with potentially new one. The page of greater use IMO for those who have been here a while however is this one that lists all known diseases List_of_diseases_(A) for which there are still many red links. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I think there's been some great suggestions so far. I like the idea of requiring the suggestions signed (or autosigned, I guess) and I also like the idea of a time limit. I've only done a handful of requested articles, but I think I'd be more inclined to look at a smaller the suggestions that will disappear next week list and fix something than confront the... erm, sizable mass we have now. I'd also like to emphasize MER-C's point above that allowing users to request articles like this probably does act like a sink to ward off a lot of fluff articles getting half-written and deleted. I think we can/should fix this, but fixed or not, it does serve a purpose. Matt Deres (talk) 01:30, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  • How about archiving requests instead of deleting? If a request is reviewed and declined as non-notable, it could be moved into a "To Be Archived Soon" section of the page, and then after some fair waiting period, removed from the page entirely and moved to an /Archive subpage. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 18:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

How do you create a wiki project? Thepoodlechef (talk) 17:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

By turning the red link on Wikipedia:WikiProject Requested articles into blue! :) -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 17:19, 17 May 2012 (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.


split Businesses and organizations[edit]

Hi folks. I'm suggesting splitting the current /Businesses and organizations page into 2 pages: /Companies (for profit) and /Organizations (non-profit). Discussion here. Thanks. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 10:57, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Thoughts?[edit]

Hi, all!

I've had an idea cooking for a little while, and wanted to see what the community thought. So, here we go (deep breath).

What about if we made the process of requesting articles ... automated?

What I'm thinking is we add a web-based interface on Toolserver and a bot. The web-based interface would make it super-easy for users to request articles. Then, the bot puts them in the relevant sections (the form would allow the user to choose the best category).

I think this will have a couple benefits over the current system:

  • No more malformed entries! When the bot puts it in, it's fairly easy to have a consistant, universal format for all of the requests and doesn't break the page.
  • Less scaring off of new users. A new user doesn't have to learn wiki-markup in order to request an article.
  • Current article writers will be unaffected. The only users who would see a change are the users who are actually requesting an article to be written.
  • It's easy to fit into the current hierarchy (that is, this page and sub-pages that actually hold the requests. Is there a better word for this?).

A couple drawbacks:

  • If this system is implemented, it will force the hierarchy to be fixed. Changing the structure would involve changing the request form code.
  • This might prompt more entries, adding to the backlog that already exists.

I've already spend several hours setting up the framework. However, I'm farily sure it'll take me many more to actually implement the system fully. So, before I spend my time, I'd like to know everyone's thoughts on this.

Form mockups are available on request, they would have to be uploaded to Toolserver (they only exist on my local machine right now).

I've looked through the archives for this page and I can't find anywhere that this has been proposed. If it's already in place (I can't find it!) feel free to close this thread.

Thanks for the time. ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 22:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! :) benzband (talk) 09:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I think the idea is good; and worth the effort to reach implementation. 76Strat String da Broke da (talk) 16:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
OK, sounds good. Thanks for the input so far! ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 16:38, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Question about notability[edit]

Hey, everyone. Not sure if I'm asking this in the right place, but if an article is listed here, does that mean it's confirmed to fill notability requirements? There are a couple of plays and books with requested articles that I'd be interested in working on, but I'd rather not begin doing so if they're guaranteed to fail based on notability. Also, is there a way to see who made which requests/if there's a discussion page about the proposed article? Sorry if these are newb questions. RunnerOnIce (talk) 16:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, for clarification purposes, I have no connection to these works--they're just works that I've read, and feel comfortable researching/writing about. RunnerOnIce (talk) 16:46, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Greetings, RunnerOnIce. As it currently stands, any-one can put up a topic for an article, meaning there is no confirmation that an article would fill notability requirements. Actually, in the "frozen (pale blue) discussion" above some people are calling for some sort of system to vet topics -- but it has not be approved or implemented (yet). Kdammers (talk) 11:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi RunnerOnIce. If a book fulfills any one of the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (books), it should be OK (but read the footnotes there carefully), and although never brought to official guideline status, the notability criteria for plays at WikiProject Theatre/Draft guideline on Notability (plays) are quite sound. I'd suggest doing a bit of preliminary research to see if the work is likely to meet at least one the criteria and if there is sufficient sourcing available to verify it. Note that self-published books usually require a very high threshold of significant independent coverage in reliable sources and rarely make the grade. Hope that helps. Voceditenore (talk) 14:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Awesome, thanks so much! For what it's worth, none of the works in question were self-published, as far as I know, so that shouldn't be an issue. Will look into sources for them and see what I can find. RunnerOnIce (talk) 15:43, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Template:Req[edit]

FYI, one of your templates, {{req}} has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 06:35, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Requests (plz reply-!)[edit]

Hi,I just went on the Requested Articles page and I saw that MOST of the articles listed there don't have pages for them! I thought that maybe more people should look into those articles and make pages, especially if you are looking for new things to write about. So if people could post things on their talk page or get users to look at the request page, I think that this problem wouldn't be here! Also, as I was looking through the things that have been posted on this talk page, I noticed a couple requests on this page. So, if you read the box at the very top of the page, I think you should know better! This page isn't for requests! -Imabored1 (talk) 22:45, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Add as[edit]

Please add

[[as:ৱিকিপিডিয়া:Requested articles]]

178.239.50.146 (talk) 09:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Charlie Plumb[edit]

Realizing that this page is protected, if someone else could post this for me, I'd really appreciate it.

Charlie Plumb is a veteran of the war in Vietnam. In (I believe) 1967, during one of his last combat missions, he flew over North Vietnam and was shot down, being taken prisoner. He was released in 1973, after having gone through quite an ordeal of torture and waiting for the day he would return to the States. He subsequently wrote the book about his experiences, entitled, "I'm no Hero." I feel he deserves an article in recognition for his achievements for the United States of America, and for the democracy that we all enjoy today. --68.192.47.37 (talk) 03:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion[edit]

Hi I would like to suggest that we add wikipedia to it so that it is easer to request templates request articles on wikipedia and more please 86.173.149.162 (talk) 15:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I do not understand what you mean. Can you please elaborate? -- Kndimov (talk) 02:48, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Litter Green cat litter -- no mention in Wikipedia (or anywhere else I can find)[edit]

There used to be a commonly used cat litter sold everywhere called Litter Green in the 1970s. There is a commercial for it at the end of this youtube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rb1ggnMCjAs (called "1970-71 Commercials: Part 5 Perpetual to Litter Green" posted by Genius7277). I see no mention of if on Wikipedia or anywhere else on the Web. I wish there was an article about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exbellhead (talkcontribs) 00:51, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

@Exbellhead: Wikipedia's goal isn't to have an article about every possible topic; it's to have an article about every notable topic. The criteria for "notability" is here. In the case of Litter Green, if you can't find mention of this on the web, it's quite likely it's not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. (You might search in the archives of Google News; if you find articles there, then you do have a case for Wikipedia adding this.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

No Category[edit]

So, how does one request the creation of an article for which there doesn't appear to be an appropriate category available on the "requested articles" page?

Specifically, I would like to request an article about a post-impressionist composer who made certain unique contributions to music. But there is no category for "music history", and he's not a "classical composer" so I'm not really sure where to put him.

French Wiki has an article about him, but it's very brief, and completely unsourced. I created an article for English Wiki which was much more extensive, and included several sources, but for some reason English Wiki administrators found it wanting. I don't have a great deal of time to devote to this, so I thought I'd just request that someone else create an article -- but there doesn't seem to be any straightforward way to do that, either.

Does this "wiki" thing actually work? So far, you couldn't prove it by me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prdec Polemika (talkcontribs) 00:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Changes[edit]

Hi, I am attempting to re-invigorate the WikiProject, and, eventually, RA itself. I initiated a proposal at the Village pump, here. If you have any questions about my plans, please ask no my talk page. Thanks, Matty.007 11:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: I've moved the discussion from WP:VPR to here, since it has a huge impact on the way that RAs are handled. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Requested Articles needs to be cleaned. There are thousands of proposals in there, many of which are requests for unnotable companies. So, my proposal is to simply empty all of Requested Articles, but, when the requests start coming in again, the proposers will be required to write a short statement, and to give links to three reliable sources. I hope this is the right place to propose this, and hope that I will get some interesting answers. Thanks, Matty.007 11:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

If you want to discuss it here then you should post a link to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requested articles and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Requested articles. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi PrimeHunter, I am just attempting to re-invigorate the WikiProject, which I think was inactive. Similarly, the talk at RA seems inactive, but I will post here. I wanted people's opinions before I wiped everything. Thanks, Matty.007 11:38, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Pinkbeast suggested two methods to me: wiping everything older that one year; or, putting things older than one year in a separate page. Thoughts? Thanks, Matty.007 11:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I suggested a less drastic approach would be to throw away all proposals older than some time X, continuing to do that as an rolling process. New proposals would be required to be in User:Matty.007's format. This would be less drastic (avoiding the case where someone submits a proposal just before the flag day which immediately gets eaten) but would end up with the same result, all live proposals better justified. User:Matty.007 thinks I suggested archiving rather than deleting, but I think I inadvertently put the idea in their head. I agree, though - independently of anything else, archiving beats discarding. Pinkbeast (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
OK, thanks for clarifying Pinkbeast. I think I will use archives in the new layout. Do I need anyone's permission, or is it just 'be bold' (I will do it when I have finished reworking the WikiProject). Thanks, Matty.007 12:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1[edit]

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Are you planning to archive all requests made before the new standards ("required to write a short statement, and to give links to three reliable sources") are in place, because they don't meet the new standards? Or will you set up a rolling archive of all requests that have gone unanswered after a period of time?

If it's the latter, I don't see why old article requests should be archived or deleted just because they're old. Notability is not temporary, so anything that was notable still is, and the longer a topic exists, the more likely it is to become notable. If participation was higher, you could claim there's an implicit consensus of non-notability on any articles uncreated after a period of time, but with so little participation, many notable requests are likely going uncreated for no reason other than lack of interest. While it's fairly easy to gauge the notability of a company, a number of things (like animals and vegetables and minerals) are generally worthy of articles simply for existing, and shouldn't be forgotten simply because someone noticed long ago that we didn't have articles on them. Mysterious Whisper 12:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Mysterious Whisper: I was planning on having archives such as talk page archives, which can be easily accessed. Whilst I agree that many of the articles are notable, we want to be able to respond to requests withing a few days, saying if it is worth an article, and if the sources are sufficient. However, whilst there are requests needing WP articles, there are also lots of poor requests. The RA pages are completely filled, manually going through them will take years. Just because they are archived, the WikiProject won't ignore them, but they will be dealt with when we have time: we only have about 15 members, a very small number for such a big project. If you know where we can get more members, I will gladly address this issue more directly, but,until then, we can't clear out all of RA. Matty.007 13:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Remember, your original proposal was to "empty all of Requested Articles." I understood that participation is low and that the current backlog is insurmountable with the available workforce. My only concern with this 'clean-start' approach was that you'd throw out the baby with the bath water. As long as the old requests remain visible and accessible, I have no problem. Mysterious Whisper 13:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Mysterious Whisper: but then Pinkbeast suggested archiving, which seems to be the way forwards. Matty.007 14:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
@Matty.007: It's not clear that this is being considered: If someone goes to RA and sees the article he/she wants to request is already listed, he/she won't leave any trace. So the fact that an article was requested, say, five years ago, doesn't mean that lots of people aren't interested in seeing that article, today.
More generally, while I agree that RA is infeasible as it currently stands, may I suggest a different approach? I note that WP:RA dates back to 2001, while the concept of WikiProjects is considerably younger. So, a different approach: Get WikiProjects to manage WP:RA pages that are related to them. That would require a lot of work, talking to the hundreds of WikiProjects that are still active (far more are not), but it would get dozens, if not hundreds, more editors involved. You'd have to think about exactly what the process would be (for example, a "review date" at the top of each section, and perhaps credit to the editor who did the review), but I think there is a huge potential for cleanup - and even for getting editors at other WikiProjects a bit more interested in writing new articles. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
That sounds like an interesting idea, especially as the participation is currently quite low. I am speaking to Torchiest for ideas on how to get participation up, but I think speaking to the various WikiProjects sounds like a good idea. I will begin shortly... Matty.007 07:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

@Matty.007: Another thing to think about is the underlying philosophy of RA - that those wanting to request an article have to drill down to the correct sub-sub-...-sub-page, and that there are only two types of requests: posted and deleted (that is, if a request doesn't make sense, another editor may delete it).

Arbitrary break 2[edit]

Here's a different approach, more compatible with involving WikiProjects, one that treats those making a request somewhat differently from editors looking to create articles.

  • Requests are to be posted at fairly high-level page, rather than sub-sub-categories. WikiProject participants (including WikiProject RA participants) then (a) move the request to the right sub-sub-category; (b) move the request to a "No action recommended" archive page, or (c) contact the person who posted the request (maybe just registered editors) for more information (such as sources).
  • Sub-category pages become working areas where where WikiProject (and other) editors can add links, comments, and other pre-article-creation information, as well as archiving requests whre a decision has been made that no action should be taken (non-notable). -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea, but I think after the post in my talk page regarding my changes, that I will leave RA to someone else. Matty.007 21:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Changes are still needed. I had a trial of a higher page, where people put their requests, and WikiProject Requested Articles has 13 members, three inactive. If Spectral sequence is concerned about RA, that's great. Calling my edits disruptive on three different pages was completely unnecessary, though. I have changed the header back. However, certain things need to be agreed upon:
  1. RA is, if not entirely, at least partially, in disarray. For example; this advertising in Businesses. I propose, therefore, that sources, and a short statement, are needed for certain areas, such as Business and Biography.

Does anyone disagree with that? Matty.007 09:41, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

@Matty.007: I want to say again that I think it's great that you're rejuvenating this project. I've worked at the Help desk on-and-off for the past month or so, and seen a couple of posts expressing frustration with the RA process; and, of course, there is the huge backlog.
Here's some further elaboration on my posting, above (with changes, as I've thought more about this):
  • It would be much easier for people to post requests, and for WikiProject people to manage them, if they all were initially posted at the top-level page, each request in a new section. What I'm suggesting is to make RA similar to the Help desk, or a noticeboard, where more experienced editors help (asking submitters for more information; putting good requests onto subcategory pages; perhaps even doing some preliminary research and posting that, making it easier for other editors to actually create new articles).
  • I do agree that those posting requests should be strongly encouraged to provide sources/links/explanations. However, I think it would be a bad idea to summarily reject requests missing such information. It is enough, I think, to simply say that requests without such information are much more likely to be archived without any action.
  • If the top-level-only posting is implemented, then it could be very helpful to ask someone at WP:BOTREQ (I'll be happy to do this, if you want) to create a bot that will handle (a) archiving and (b) moving requests to subpages. Then a WikiProject RA editor would only have to add a bit of information to a request (yes/no; if yes, what subcategory page), and the bot would take care of the routine work (archiving, copying text, maybe even notifying the editor who posted the request, etc.)
Overall, restarting the RA process is going to depend on getting other WikiProjects involved. To me it seems like they'd obviously be interested, but as always at Wikipedia, it's hard to predict how other editors will react, and it can be challenging to make requests that are both clearly and diplomatically worded so as to maximize the likelihood of a positive response. I wish you success on that. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:47, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 3[edit]

OK, so here's my POA:
  1. Potentially improve Wikipedia:Requested lists, per below comment
  2. Advertise Wikipedia:Requested articles/Other better on the RA page
  3. Notify the relevant WikiProjects, mention awards for good articles
  4. Start a series of drives/blitzes on removing blue links and creating articles
Miscellaneous:
  • try and get something in the Signpost about our first drive
  • consider higher categories patrolled by editors, perhaps something similar to the new pages feed: a feed of requests, which can be accepted or declined, and, if accepted, are accepted into the relevant category
  • get participation up
  • stricter rules at unruly areas, such as businesses and people: references and reasoning?
Now, does anyone disagree with that (or have any suggestions)? Matty.007 17:58, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I think we should first sort out the Wikipedia:Requested lists. Lists (with a well defined criteria) always make room for creation of a branch of article. The Legend of Zorro 20:07, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I put it in the 'POA'. Matty.007 20:11, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
John Broughton:a bot would be handy, if that is the format RA takes after the proposals here. Matty.007 14:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Question: what do we do with RA which we decide aren't going to be created: do we simply remove the request, do we put it in a special RA page of declined submission, or do we put it in the page on which it is requested's archive? Matty.007 20:31, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
@Matty.007: My sense is that the "Wikipedia way" is to remove vandalism and spam, but otherwise to archive; that's what done at just about every other noticeboard. There are (at least) two options: (a) Archive everything (assuming that there is a initial/main/cachement page), whether accepted or declined, in the same archive (see, for example, how the Help desk archives work), or (b) have a "Declined" subpage for every page where requests can be posted; again, there would almost certainly need to be multiple such pages (probably one per month), so /Sports/Declined/2013-07, for example. Keep in mind that if there is a bot doing the "grunt" work, then exactly how the archiving is done is a matter of style/preference, as opposed to something done to minimize (manual) effort. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:41, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
I think that a declined archive would work, I will speak to some people about bots later. What do you think about having a wizard for requesting articles? Or (/and) having a feed of recently requested articles, similar to at the new pages feed, so that we can move requests to a lower page (on the theory of having a higher page, and moving them down). Matty.007 08:21, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
What do we do with successful requests? Shall we have a series of categories, 'Sport 2013-7 Successful', do we simply remove the requests, or do we move them to a general category, '2013-7 Successful requests'. I believe the current standard is to simply remove them, as they are unnecessary, but I feel that a universal 'Succesful Date Requests' would work better. What do you think? Matty.007 14:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 4[edit]

@Matty.007: I'm personally against a wizard, or anything else that puts a barrier in the way of people requesting an article. I realize that makes more work for editors, but everyone who adds a request is either an existing editor or a potential editor, and their time counts too.

I don't think the daily volume of requests justifies anything resembling a feed; a think a better analogy is the Help desk, where the volume is dozens of posts per day, not (as with new articles) over 1000. (And setting up a feed would be technically challenging, I think.)

What I'm visualizing is a main landing/posting page. Or, alternatively, one level down, perhaps ten landing pages (if,say, the WP:RA main categories are used] to thirty landing pages (if the WP:FA categories are used). Beyond that, requests would not allowed to be posted on sub-pages.

On whatever landing page there is, requests sound be grouped (put in sections) by date, again similar to WP:HD (or dozens of other similar pages). The advantage of following such a model, in addition to the familiarity, is that things like dating and archiving is easy to automate, since the code/bot already exists.

The easiest thing to do with requests is mark them as "accepted" or "declined". Accepted requests would be copied to a subpage that was (in most cases) associated with (via talkpage) a WikiProject, not removed from the posting page. All requests would be archived after a certain amount of inactivity. (Again, a bot; thus pages with requests would only have a week or so of them). The copying might be automated, or it might be done manually. The editor who "accepts" a request would be expected to post a couple of links, or otherwise improve the request (full citations would be ideal, of course), so that it's easier for an interested editor (whether at a WikiProject or not) to create the article. Also, when an accepted request is copied to a subpage, the editor should sign/date it.

Regarding categories, I'm not following you. Categories are assigned to pages, not to parts of pages. We could have monthly pages, such as "WP:RA/Sports/2013-07", rather than just a "WP:RA/Sports" page, but that kind of fragmentation would make it much more difficult for both requestors and reviewers to discover whether a request is a duplicate or not.

The approach I'm describing as the advantage of keeping the old requests (not archiving them); more recent (formally accepted) requests would be identifiable by the date/time stamp of the editor who handled the request.

In summary, I think a great RA system would be one where: (a) spam and other abuses - such as deletions - are minimized by having one or very few landing places (fewer means easier to monitor); (b) a group of editors does initial processing: research, decide to accept/reject, add some sources found while researching; copies to a sub-page; (c) sub-pages are aligned with WikiProjects; subpages are where editors should look for articles to create. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

John Broughton:sorry, I got mixed up. By categories, I meant archives. Matty.007 16:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
That sounds like a good idea. Shall we leave this a few days and see what response it gets (if any)? Thanks, Matty.007 16:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
@Matty.007: Sure, let's give this a couple of days, though talking to WikiProjects in the meantime probably wouldn't hurt. Then, I think, it would be good to write out the process, very detailed, on a page (say, Wikipedia:Requested articles/New process - August 2013), and ask for feedback at the usual places (feedback about the concept in general, as well as about the details). -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
OK, I will start summing up the things at that page. Matty.007 17:27, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I have summed up what I can here, but I would appreciate others adding to it. What do you think, John Broughton? Matty.007 17:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
No new posts recently on this, so I think we can go ahead with notifying Wikiprojects about their pages. Shall we have a group page to start with to put declined requests into, such as 'Declined September 2013' whilst we find our feet? Also, I cannot notify all the Wikiprojects on my own, and will need at least a few helpers. Please can all people willing to notify any Wikiprojects say so here? Thanks, Matty.007 13:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
So no-one wants to assist? Matty.007 15:59, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't see why we can't just remove a declined request. I'd rather have minimal bureaucracy in any changes. Wizardman 17:54, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Just for the sake of completeness, I think. It is not a necessity, though, and would slow things down. Matty.007 18:48, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

New requirements without consensus[edit]

Astonishingly, instead of discussing with the various projects as he proposed, User:Matty.007 has taken it on himself to edit a dozen or so RA pages and the template, imposing new "requirements" which he appears to have made up all by himself. There is no sign of any kind of consensus for his idea. This is beyond bold, it is disruptive. Spectral sequence (talk) 19:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC) Additional: I have reverted his changes to Template:Requested articles subpage header pending consensus at this page. Spectral sequence (talk) 20:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree, any editor needs consensus before imposing arbitrary requirements for RAs. Also not all RA lists have the same problems. The Math RA lists seems healthy to me. The large list of requests there are mostly on real and very likely notable math topics. The reason that some entries have been there a long time is simply for lack of domain experts motivated to create the articles. Tossing all requests and starting over, or imposing a time limit for implementation, is a bad idea. I personally find the RA math and physics lists useful and have been motivated to create some articles from them. --Mark viking (talk) 20:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
After the post on my talk page, I will leave RA alone. I will leave you to improve it. Matty.007 21:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Personally, I'm completely in support of Matty's improvements, and am rather pissed off that they were cast aside so quickly. Wizardman 21:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Then make your case for the changes here, involve the dozen or so projects likely to be affected and if you gain consensus, proceed. Spectral sequence (talk) 21:39, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
The various projects aren't yet involved, it is something I am working on. At present, this is managed by WikiProject Requested Articles. (And please don't be rude, it was not beyond bold: it has not disrupted anyone. The consensus was against the changes, so I removed them.) Matty.007 08:52, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Bold edits, reversion, and discussion are a standard part of the Wikipedia editing cycle, per WP:BRD. While Matty.007's edits were bold, they were in good faith and not disruptive. I'm sorry I didn't say this earlier, and apologize for the unintentional rudeness. Similarly, Spectral sequence's reversion was in good faith, too. The root of this is probably a lack of communication between the overall RA editors on this page and the individual wikiproject RA editors on their respective pages. Personally, I can believe Ten pound hammer's assertions of dubious entries in the music RA pages, but my opinion is that the math and physics RA pages are in pretty good shape. It may be best to propose extensive changes first for those RA pages that most need it. --Mark viking (talk) 19:42, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Mark viking: sorry, I was a little annoyed yesterday. I have proposed some more changes above, and am soon going to start the momentous task of notifying relevant WikiProjects. Please feel free to do the same... Thanks for any help, Matty.007 19:51, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
And I proposed that new standards be taken up in specific places now, instead of all over RA. Matty.007 19:52, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
I think it's a great idea to work with some WikiProjects, and to make changes in specific places, to get a good sense of what is best for the RA pages overall. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:43, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Social_sciences/Linguistics#Idioms[edit]

Someone with more knowledge of language than me should take a look at these; just skimming it, it's fairly obvious that most of them are things people made up with their friends but I don't dare be bold and remove them myself in this case. --TKK! bark with me if you're my dog! 20:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

@Tikuko: I've posted a request at WT:WikiProject Linguistics for someone there to take a look. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 September 2013[edit]

EbB!-- Begin request -->author of book: "Elements of style" Shrunk,JR. E.B.White

76.109.114.54 (talk) 17:47, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. If you wish to request the creation of an article, please follow the steps at the top of WP:Requested articles. Dana boomer (talk) 18:57, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Needed Article[edit]

Subdivided Lands Law vs. Subdivision Map Act (California) need a page made for this See: http://www.dre.ca.gov/files/pdf/refbook/ref17.pdf http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/row/landsurveys/Study_material/Laws_Surveyors/Subdivision_Map_Act_and_Division_3.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:8301:600:D998:49FB:E56F:5120 (talk) 11:31, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Linny Boyette[edit]

A mamber of the today show, I think it would do a lot of good — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakesyl (talkcontribs) 19:56, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Automating article requests[edit]

Hello, everyone!

About a year ago, I solicited feedback about the possibility of automating the article request system (see this section). After a whole bunch of programming, I believe it's about time for us to begin planning for the launch of this new tool. However, there are several things I feel need to be changed for this tool to work.

First of all, you can view a developmental version of the tool at toollabs:articlerequest-dev. The live version will eventually be deployed to toollabs:articlerequest (but that's not functioning right now.) Please note that this is not the final version and it is not backed by the bot. I'm still working on the bot's programming - and it will need to go through WP:BRFA. Requests submitted are not saved - the database is ready just not deployed. But the page itself should function relatively close to how it will function in production.

The main change I would like to propose is the idea of placing each category of requests on its own subpage. What I mean by that - right now, the request page for Architecture (Wikipedia:Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Architecture) is a cluster-mess. What I'm proposing is each sub-category of architecture have its own subpage: eg Architects, firms, organizations be located at Wikipedia:Requested Articles/Applied arts and sciences/Architecture/Architects, firms, organizations. This will allow my bot to find the pages a whole lot easier - and save me many hours of development time. Does that make sense? If not, I can set up an example.

Second of all, I would like to place templates in the request pages - they would be special flags for the bot to find where to place requests. This would allow me to be flexible enough to handle large request pages without having to read through the entire contents of the page - which could be a huge time-saver. The templates would be invisible to the end user - but they will be visible if someone decides to edit the page. I understand I could be BOLD and do it myself, but I didn't want to freak anybody out by adding a whole bunch of templates in one go.

Thanks much! ~ Matthewrbowker Make a comment! 16:03, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

A quick glance at the development version looked like a brilliant bit of work; but if it got implemented, I think that the categories would need group sorting out from the WP community, to get rid of the rubbish. Thanks, Matty.007 16:16, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you Face-smile.svg I agree that the category system is rubbish... I was planning on running an RFC with a revised category system once I got this project a little closer to completion. I have kind of an idea of how it will look. The concern is - once I code the category system into the tool, only a dev can really change it. I would also think we should move-protect the pages related to requests, so we don't have any wonky page moves that break the tool. ~ Matthewrbowker Make a comment! 16:58, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Sounds good. You may want to let the people involved in the discussion a few posts up know about the changes. When are you estimating implementing this? Thanks, Matty.007 17:27, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Can do. I'm looking at deploying this script within six months - depending on real life, of course. ~ Matthewrbowker Make a comment! 18:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. If there's any non-technical work that needs doing, I may be able to help... Thanks, Matty.007 18:39, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
@Matty.007: Thank you, I may take you up on that. ~ Matthewrbowker Make a comment! 17:34, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

@Matthewrbowker: Thanks for the invitation to make suggestions. I agree that this is an immensely promising start to what is now a problematical system. I too would be happy to help with documentation or other non-technical work. For example, it looks like the proposal is to split up existing RA pages; that's something Matty.007 and I could do.

Now, for suggestions and comments (with apologies if I'm trying to read too much into the test version:

  • I think that a page for each sub-category, or, where they exist, sub-sub-category, is an excellent idea. We should be moving to a system where WikiProjects monitor "their" pages, and obviously that is facilitated by *not* consolidating requests pertaining to multiple WikiProjects on a single page.
  • I think there should always be an "Other" option, be that for the main category, or any subcategory, or any sub-sub-category. Even if it's possible to put every single possible article within a set of categories, or sub-categories, or sub-sub-categories, it's not possible to explain to requestors exactly which category/sub/etc. applies to them. So give them an "Other" option, always, and let the experts move the RA entry to the right place.
  • I suggest put the script (or its trigger) on the top page (WP:RA, and a note (via a template) on each RA page except the main one that says "DO NOT POST HERE". Post at WP:RA. That way, we can put the instructions on the main RA page. We can also let WikiProjects manage their subpages - for example, some might use "Pending", "Accepted", and "Rejected" pages, or sections of pages, for RA requests.
  • Regarding "I would like to place templates in the request pages - they would be special flags for the bot to find where to place requests", I think an (invisible) anchor would be better: <span id="***** New postings by the bot go directly below this *****"/>, for example, with comments (also invisible to readers) on either side, to help prevent inadvertent deletion.
  • For the input form, suggestions:
    • "Subject (topic) of the article" as a label, rather than "Article subject"
    • Add some way to solicit sources. Right now the RA pages ask for "sourced [URL] and [URL]". Personally, I think these should be required - if someone can't provide (say) at least two sources ("URL, ISBN, journal article title, etc"), there seems to me much less reason to take the request seriously. (Say, two sources required, three more optional.)
    • "Description/Comments": It would be good if this box were considerably larger, so that if one types in a lot of text, all or most of it is visible.
    • "Your on-wiki username (if applicable)" - If the script is intended for wikis other than Wikipedia, then just "username" seems appropriate to me. If the script is intended only for Wikipedia (or will be tailored, if used elsewhere, then "on-wiki" should be "Wikipedia", because a *lot* of people don't like using the word wiki in place of Wikipedia.
    • For the closing item:
      • I think the asterisk should be to the left of the box, not to the right (for consistency).
      • More importantly, for the first sentence, I suggest simply "The subject of this request is important enough for its own article, per Wikipedia's requirements." (If there are other policies or guidelines that apply, there should be similar wording and a link.)
      • Regarding the second sentence, "I've checked the request list and I'm not submitting a duplicate", I recommend this be changed to "This is not a duplicate of a prior request I have made." I recommend this change for two reasons. First, it's not necessarily easy to check the request list, particularly if the person doesn't correctly categorize the request (that is, identify the correct sub-sub-category). Second, IF we ask the person to add sources, particularly if (say) two sources are required, then a duplicate request can actually adds value, if the sources are at all useful, or even if just the description helps clarify things. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:58, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
@John Broughton: Thank you sir for being willing to provide feedback! I'm grateful for the time you spent giving me suggestions.
I agree there always should be an "other" option. Therefore, I will include it next time I push the code. In fact, I'm working on a system where it can read the category system off of Wikipedia itself - this will make my life a million times easier.
I'm not totally clear how you mean by "the script or it's trigger." The page itself should be linked from the edit form, and from the pages themselves (probably via a heading template). "[[toollabs:articlerequest |Submit your request here!]]" This would be put in a heading for every page. I was also (somewhat selfishly) thinking of semi-protecting all of the WP:RA pages so IPs would have to use the form... however, that is impractical.
OK, the idea of a span is a good idea. I was thinking templates because I could supply arguments. E.G. {{User:Matthewrbot/template/loc|A-D}} would go in an A-D section, and it would probably include the span you mention. Again, I can be somewhat flexible here, this system hasn't yet been totally coded. And it would definitely have a comment before it.
I will make the changes you requested to the wording (I think all of them are good!) - you will see it hopefully here soon, I need to put it on the server.
Thank you again for your thoughts! ~ Matthewrbowker Make a comment! 17:34, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
@Matthewrbowker: Glad to be of help; thanks again for your work on this. Two clarifications:
  • It's possible that templates (with an argument) are better than spans; it depends what your bot needs. If you do want to use page sections, such as A-D, it's not clear that you couldn't include those as part of the span, since the "name" of the span (anchor) is totally made-up in the case of RA pages. (Span/anchor names are important only when they are actually used for links to them from other pages.)
  • I think you're planning this: All pages -> form. I'm visualing this: All pages -> Top RA page -> form.
  • If the form is outside of Wikipedia (say, at the labs site), the I think there are advantages to my approach: (1) There can be supplemental instructions, below the form, which any editor can modify at any time to address confusion or errors; and (2) the WT:RA talk page becomes clearly the right place to discuss the form. On the other hand, if the form is on some Wikipedia page (where?), that's good. (What I'm trying to avoid is "the form is some remote place where it's difficult to discuss", and/or supplemental information about the form has to be put on the RA/category pages, rather than having them be relatively clean lists of requests.
  • Even if the form is on a bot page within Wikipedia, there may still be advantages to transcluding it onto the WP:RA page, so that its botness (and non-RA page name) are invisible to users. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:11, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
@John Broughton: Thank you for the clarification!
I understand. See, there's still some stuff we need to work out. Is there a problem if i put a placeholder (template, span?) eventually? I can think it through some more, I'm just trying to be flexible as page needs change. The bot is still being programmed, which means I can really go either way.
I understand your concerns, however; in speaking with a tool labs admin I would basically need to hack a page to display a form. I'd really rather not do this, for a whole host of reasons. So how about this? I store the text of all of the messages on-wiki. That way, messages can be modified on the fly (except I would prefer they be semi-protected - for obvious reasons), while the actual form is stored on tool labs. Does this make sense?
Thank you so much, again! ~ Matthewrbowker Make a comment! 22:11, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
@Matthewrbowker: I think it's a great idea to store text of messages separately from the core application itself. As for semi-protection, it's sometimes difficult to get that in advance, but the moment there is any vandalism, it's much easier.
You might also think of storing labels (such as "Subject of the article") outside of the core application, if that's not too difficult, even if only a separate page at the labs site. That way, other language Wikipedias can implement your tool/bot fairly easily - just change the labels and messages. (Your idea for the bot to get its categories from reading page titles is also very compatible with porting the bot to other language Wikipedias.)
Overall, my suggestion at this point is that you go ahead and start setting up the bot/application, including such things as putting spans on (a few) pages, so that you can demonstrate it when it's functional. I think that at some point - which I think we're reached - the best way to move forward is with a pilot/beta/demo version of software; that way, suggestions for changes are specific, not abstract, and there is a lot less potential for confusion or misunderstanding. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:52, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
@John Broughton: Apologies about the delay. I have updated the system to use on-wiki labels (see toollabs:articlerequest-dev. Thank you for the suggestions, and I will post again when I have a functional prototype of the bot. ~ Matthewrbowker Make a comment! 00:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Excellent idea. It would be great to make the request form a popup from a choice on the Page menu. Lfstevens (talk) 22:35, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

@Lfstevens: Thank you. Could you please clarify what you mean by your second sentence? ~ Matthewrbowker Make a comment! 00:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
@Matthewrbowker: [dreaming] I highlight some text in an article. I open my page menu and there is a request article choice. I click it. I get a popup with my selected text in a field labeled "Context". The cursor would be in a field labeled "Subject". I enter a subject and click OK. The request goes in the right place with a date/time and my handle. Get someone to thank me for making my request and if someone picks it up, let me know with another message. When the author is "done", give her a way to let me know so I can edit/review. While I'm dreaming, why not allow a widget for other pages like the Facebook and Twitter icons that would allow me to make such a request. Lfstevens (talk) 04:13, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

If you can in fact get a bot to do all this, then it sounds like a great idea. Looking forward to seeing it in action. Wizardman 21:57, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I am glad that sources are required, I tried to implement this, as can be seen above, with poor results. Is six months still a reasonable estimate time wise; or is it possible for it to be deployed sooner? Thanks, Matty.007 18:59, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
(Also, will the bot make the edit to request the article, or the IP/editor?} Matty.007 19:00, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
@Wizardman: Heh, that's my goal! Thank you for your kind words.
@Matty.007: Six months is still reasonable time-wise. Unfortunately, I am a full-time student who somehow found himself with a girlfriend last week... long story... but six months is my goal. I hope to get it done faster Face-smile.svg Also, the bot will actually handle the on-wiki edit, basically; the requester just needs to fill out the web-based form. ~ Matthewrbowker Make a comment! 00:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Congratulations on finding a girlfriend, and thanks for the quick reply. Matty.007 15:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Question for everyone: should we start cleaning RA, as in, going through and seeing what could actually be written and what is made up/non-notable? If so, should we do it in the manner suggested in this section (this bit specifically); it will obviously take a lot of time to go through/notify wikiprojects, and we need more manpower if that is what we decide to do. (Sorry for the pings, but better than TB: Matthewrbowker, John Broughton, Lfstevens, and Wizardman, and anyone else who wants to help.) Thanks, Matty.007 09:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
@Matty.007: Apologies, dealing with some crap on OTRS made me take a break here... Of course I'm willing to help, just let me know! ~ Matthewrbowker Make a comment! 00:19, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
That's good, but we will still need more than two people. I may have to initiate a RfC in a few days if no-one else replies. Thanks, Matty.007 17:07, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
I'll clean what I can; there are some sections that are just a slew of redlinks without context, those are easy to deal with at least. Wizardman 23:04, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I think we still need to decide what to do: do we go through, notify relevant WikiProjects, and move all things we think don't need pages to a separate page? Or specific pages, e.g. 'Agriculture declined 2013', which would need a bit more organising

I'd say just remove them and be done with it. No reason to make this any more complicated than it's already going to be. Wizardman 18:11, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
And just keep the ones that could be made? I will start notifying WikiProjects in a few days, anyone who wants to help please go ahead. Thanks, Matty.007 18:49, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
See #Next steps for continuation of discussion. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 03:37, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Dead link[edit]

The Biology link is a dead link for me. Blackbombchu (talk) 00:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Horizontal TOCs[edit]

Hi. I've added a TOC limit option to the {{Horizontal TOC}} template and put it to use on Wikipedia:Requested articles/Sports. The basic thinking was that editors would almost certainly arrive at that page wanting to skip to a particular section and this presentation was much more user-friendly that the previous incarnation. Would this template be of use on any of the other pages? Does anyone see any issues with this new table of contents? SFB 13:05, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

@Sillyfolkboy: The horizontal TOC looks great, and if you have a chance to add it to the other pages, that would be super. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 03:39, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

German articles[edit]

Hi. I recently created the List of German painters from all the data in the parent category from the German wiki. All the blue links are in the main article space and I've put all the red links on the talk page. Is there a relevant sub-page of this project that this info could be posted in too? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:04, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Next steps[edit]

Matthewrbowker, Matty.007, Lfstevens, and Wizardman,

I suggest that we all start by working on Wikipedia:Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences (RA/AA&S), particularly because it already has a separate daughter page (Medicine). That way, we can get everything "right" on one page before we start making changes en masse.

My understanding of what we're going to do is:

1. Create a new page, for a topic (for example, Wikipedia:Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Library sciences)

2. Evaluate all requested articles in (continuing this example) the "Library sciences" section of the RA/AA&S, determining whether to keep or discard (delete), including adding redirects where a topic already exists, but under a different name. (During this process, if we encounter reliable sources that are online, we should at least add a url, for topics we're keeping.)

3. Move the non-deleted items (and supporting info, if any) to the new page (see #1).

4. Create a companion talk page for the new page, and add a WikiProject template if relevant (in this case, it would be for Wikipedia:WikiProject Libraries).

5. Post a note on the talk page of the relevant WikiProject (in this case, WT:WikiProject Libraries, inviting them to participate in the cleanup, and in future activities related to the new page.

If that's the plan, I do have concerns.

  • First, it seems to me that we should see if we can get the WikiProjects to do step 2 [that assumes that (a) we can identify one that is related, and (b) that it is still active]. If we can, then what is now step 2 becomes step 6, and step 3 is simply to move *everything* except blue links to the new, more specific pages.
  • Second, if we start inviting WikiProjects to participate, we should have a page with specific (recommended) process steps, possibly for the initial cleanup, and certainly for what we invite them to do on an ongoing basis. Perhaps we put that page at WT:Requested articles/WikiProject involvement? In any case, we should have such a page *before* we contact WikiProjects, not *after*.
(I fixed a link, hope you don't mind.) Seems good. Should we be brutal in pruning the requests, i.e. err on the side of removing, or err on the side of caution? Also, 5 should ideally be 2, so we notify them so that the people over there can have a good hand in what we are doing. Thanks, Matty.007 19:30, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
@Matty.007: My prior belief was that we should have separate pages, in a given area (say, Library Sciences), for "Pending", "Approved", and "Declined" requests. But I'm having second thoughts. If we have a single page, then it's easy to move items to the "Declined" section, as opposed to deleting them (bad) or moving them to another page (more work, unless we can get a bot to do this).
I'm personally inclined in the direction of rejecting marginal cases, simply because we have so many topics that do deserve an article but don't have one, and I'd prefer to have editors focus on those, without the marginal cases mixed in. Also, declining what appears to be a marginal case might spur someone to offer additional cites as a case of why the topic should be approved, while keeping it in the approved section won't provide such an incentive.
Finally, I think we should go ahead and start a page, so that you and I (and other interested editors) can start playing around with the format, wording, etc. If you want to pick a topic to start, please do so, and let me know when the page exists. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:07, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, just to clarify, we are going to move declineds into a sub-page (which will take longer)? Thanks, Matty.007 18:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
John Broughton, sorry, would you mind responding to the above so that I can get going? Thanks, Matty.007 18:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
OK, I will start from the top and simply remove pages which will not be created. Thanks, Matty.007 18:45, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Searchability[edit]

You'd think that searches for articles already requested would match the RA page, but they don't. That should be fixed. 68.99.90.127 (talk) 17:43, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi! This is something that I would be more than happy to implement in the future, as a Labs tool. Meanwhile, it might be a good idea to use the built-in-search to get a crude search working - I'm personally not a fan though. Either way, we'll get it done, thanks for your suggestion! ~ Matthewrbowker Make a comment! 20:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Needed article about angevin dialect or language[edit]

It is needed and right to disambiguate between angevin (a dialect or language of the langues d'oïl) and Angevins (a dynasty). But because there is no article about angevin dialect (wikipedia in english) it is needed to created one. In the langues d'oïl article the link goes to the Angevin dynasty and correctly it should go to an article about that dialect.Bird Vision (talk) 23:04, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Update on the new system[edit]

@John Broughton:, @Matty.007:, @Lfstevens:, @Wizardman: (Pinging anyone interested)

Hi, everyone! A quick update on the Article Request tool I'm working on.

I pushed version 0.1devel2 (my second development snapshot) to the staging site yesterday. It's still not finished, but I've done a whole bunch of updates and new things, including:

  • Pulling configuration from the wiki - At the request of John, I've moved all of the interface configuration on-wiki. Eventually, I'd like it to live at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Config and subpages, but right now it's in my bot's userspace.
    • That includes the category structure, by the way. I assume sometime soon we can have consensus on a final category structure?
    • And the interface, which can be updated on-wiki and the tool will reflect that.
  • Upgraded to Bootstrap 3 - OK, that's a geeky thing that probably doesn't matter. But it has a new look.

In regards to Matthewrbot:

  • It's mostly now up and running. I've built it on the Peachy framework, and my thanks to Cyberpower678.
  • The test bed is located at User:Matthewrbot/testbed1. I'm planning on all of the request pages looking like that, is that possible?
  • I've also created a template {{User:Matthewrbot/Requests}}. The bot looks for this template when placing requests. If the template is malformed, the bot will place the request at the end and add a category. I was thinking something like this:
<!--This template is used by the bot to place new requests.  Please do not change or remove it. -->
{{User:Matthewrbot/Requests}}
  • The requests are currently being placed with the {{Article request}} template. Is it OK if we could convert all of the requests to use this?

I've also gotten a Bugzilla project started. If anyone is interested in a feature, you can file a bug here

Thanks everyone for your patience. I'm really excited about this, I hope it helps out. ~ Matthewrbowker Poke me 14:38, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid most of this is over my head, but the gist of it seems to be that it is a great tool! Do we have an accurate timescale yet Matthewrbowker? Thanks, Matty.007 14:43, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I had kind of a geek out moment. My goal is still about six months, which puts it at April. I'm hoping to push it sooner, but the big hold-up soon is going to be the BRFA for Matthewrbot, since it's somewhat unconventional. ~ Matthewrbowker Poke me 14:46, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
OK, thanks. With the current articles, would it be possible for some kind of bot to notify relevant WikiProjects that they are responsible for their relevant section? Thanks, Matty.007 14:55, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
I could possibly do that, it shouldn't be too hard. However, that's another BRFA... Or, we could send it to another message delivery bot. ~ Matthewrbowker Poke me 15:08, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm afraid that my technical knowledge is poor at best. Thanks, Matty.007 15:12, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
@Matty.007: I'm sorry... let's put it this way, I'd need to ask permission for my bot to deliver messages... which may or may not be a problem depending on what the community thinks. I may get a "Use another bot" type response. ~ Matthewrbowker Poke me 16:54, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
OK, thanks for explaining it. Matty.007 17:20, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

question[edit]

I've been mainly working with AfCs , which has certain similarities, in needing to tell if an article could possibly be written. Looking at the list, it's clear that some of these are really hopeless. I've seen the discussion about more complicated ways to deal with it properly, but there's obviously a good deal of work to be done. The simplest things I can think of for now is either to remove the line altogether , or to strike it out with a word or two of explanation. Will anyone be bothered if I go ahead and do a few to experiment? DGG ( talk ) 05:19, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I've been removing blatantly non-notable stuff for years. If more are willing to do that then maybe this batch of articles has a chance at survival. Wizardman 17:28, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree. Some of the articles requested are so irrelevant and should probably be deleted. That being said, I don't know if we can do that or not, so I just swallow my objections and scroll past them. -- Kndimov (talk) 21:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
I would say be bold if you are reasonably sure that the topic is non-notable; deleting a request doesn't have the same gravitas as deleting an article or draft. For marginal cases, I leave the entry with a note saying that the topic looks non-notable. This lets others take it up if I missed something. --Mark viking (talk) 22:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Requested articles should be unsorted[edit]

I think it is very annoying to find the topic of the article.117.79.232.182 (talk) 04:03, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

A massive list would be horrendous, this way people can request things and look for things in the relevant places. Thanks, Matty.007 10:48, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Roovet Article Request[edit]

I will like someone to write an Article for meta search engine Roovet it seems every time the article is written its wrongfully deleted so with that being said I guess only admins can write articles on here and not be deleted--Thewolf12 (talk) 07:12, 29 June 2014 (UTC) Requested at {{{Roovet}}}

Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2014[edit]

Pleaswe give me an advertisement on any monument




117.212.69.222 (talk) 10:22, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. NiciVampireHeart 11:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

The gallery of images[edit]

An editor removed it in good faith. I restored it. I was the one who started the gallery and the child page Wikipedia:Requested articles/Images, so to check whether or not I'm having ownership issues, I thought I'd post here. If others feel the gallery is not appropriate, please say. I personally think that it is an asset and leads to article creation. I also think that it gives editors, new and old, the idea that being inspired to start an article by encountering an image without an article is a rewarding way to build the encyclopedia. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Mass deletion of requests[edit]

Is this arbitrary emptying of a request page in any way acceptable? People deserve a visible response to their requests, however useless their suggestion was, even if it is only a simple template saying "no usable references provided" or "no evidence subject is notable" or whatever. Simply deleting en masse without explanation is utterly rude. Why did we ask people to make suggestions if we don't intend to give them any consideration? How should respond to questions like this one on the help desk asking what has happened to their request? Apparently, the answer was oh we deleted it because we couldn't be bothered. SpinningSpark 15:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I doubt that much in there is notable, but I think perhaps an archive of requests before starting afresh may be a better option. I think Wizardman removed them as he felt the page would be easier to vet if we did each nomination as it was given. Thanks, Matty.007 15:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
So I ask you again, what are you going to say to people who turn up at the help desk asking what has happened to their suggestion? The rudeness of it is just astonishing, and it is against the spirit of this site's core principles like WP:Five pillars, if not it's core policies like WP:AGF. I was at least expecting that you would point to a community discussion that decided to do this. Was there one? SpinningSpark 17:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
I think you're jumping the gun a little, I was explaining what I thought Wizardman's rationale was. There's been considerable discussion on this page regarding what to do with RA, at the minute there is a lot of stuff underserving of an article. Removing all past requests was one of the ideas brought up, but I can't see which section it was right now (it may be on the WikiProject talk). Out of interest, do you feel that there was a better option to simply removing them all? I am not attempting to defend either 'side', but just trying to explain what I think Wizardman's reasoning is. I suggest you take it up with him rather than asking (aggressive) questions of me. Thanks, Matty.007 17:34, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
I haven't read all the discussion, but the consensus as far as I can see was some kind of archiving. If we don't want to do anything with requested articles, then we should stop asking people to suggest them. I don't doubt that most of them are trash, but having them simply disappear is not acceptable, that is entirely out of process. There needs to be some kind of recorded response to the suggestion. The person making the suggestion is entitled to that and we need to be able to answer the questions of those that do come back. Are we going to let the backlog build up for another couple of years and then mass delete them all again? That just makes this whole project pointless and yet another piece of bureaucracy to drive away new editors. At the moment, I am inclined to reinstate the suggestions but I will hold off for a bit longer. SpinningSpark 18:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
I think archiving would be best personally. It's not that we don't want anything to do with them, it's that 1000s of things which people want to know if they are notable is not feasable, especially when lots date from when we had lower notability requirements. When the bot is ready (which should be in the next few months) I think it will be easier to manage, there will be a request to add sources with the request, and we will be more able to vet the requests as they are given. The WikiProject has 20 participants, hardly enough to even attempt to manage thousands of requests. I would wait for Wizardman to give his view before restoring. Thanks, Matty.007 18:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
I'd rather just mark is historical than restore it. If you actually want to vet every single thing and restore the valid entries, go right ahead. Archiving is completely pointless, as it would just be even more bureaucratic, which you're seemingly trying to avoid. Would you rather the page bloat up to 10,000 requests instead? The companies page especially was full of COI edits and advertising, and if you seriously think the page was better before, then let's just close down requested articles now. Wizardman 20:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
You cannot make it a condition of restoring that I have to vet them. That is not going to happen and it is beside the point who, if anyone, does the vetting. The point is the principle of whether they should be deleted. Deleting removes the "audit trail" of what happened to them. It's not even as if they are all historical as you claim, the case complained about was a recent submission, with refs good enough to at least warrant a look. It is not acceptable to throw out potentially good suggestions because you personally don't want to sort through them. That is the whole reason for existence of this project. The editor is currently being advised at the help desk to just resubmit it. Are we going to advise all the thousands who made a request to resubmit? That just gets you back to square one, but probably minus the potentially decent editors who will walk away in disgust. SpinningSpark 22:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Seeing as how the number of editors who actually use this grouping of pages to make articles I could count on with one hand and have fingers left over, we should just shut the damn thing down then. If it's as notable as you claim, the user is more than welcome to just write the article. At least then it won't sit for six years in a back alley of the site which outlived its usefulness many years ago. Just mark this historical and be done with it. Wizardman 00:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
I might very well support that, but while the project is live it should be administered properly and that does not include mass blind deletions for which there is no consensus. Part of the function here is to divert COI editors from going ahead and creating articles, not encouraging them to do so. Who knows whether the user is willing or capable or writing an article anyway, and by the way, I did not claim it was a notable subject, only that it deserved a look. SpinningSpark 00:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Then I have no intention of ever helping out at RA again if disruption is going to be king and if it is going to be, literally, a crap disposal. Wizardman 01:01, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Update on the requested articles tool[edit]

Hi, all!

Apologies about the summer of silence. My summer job happens to be out in the middle of nowhere, with shoddy internet, so I haven't had much of a chance to update on the tool I'm writing.

At this point, it's about 85% done for the first version. The bot is almost done itself, with one minor tweak that needs to be done for testing.

The reason it's taking so long? I'm rewriting the category selector and writing in a system to specifically request sources. When it's finished, it will make it a hundred times easier for new users to add sources they think support their article.

I believe it's now time to begin implementing the systems that will allow this to work successfully. There are a couple on-wiki changes that need to happen. The first is the conversion of all requests to use the {{Article request}} template. Now, I wrote this template with minimal knowledge of the template syntax, so I hope it works. I will begin doing that here in a little while. Now, this will involve mass changes to existing pages, so if anyone objects, please speak up now.

The second change is the current category system. Quite frankly, I think our current category system is very shoddy. So, what do we want to do about it?

So, we're about ready to go... thanks for the patience again! ~ Matthewrbowker Poke me 23:25, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Sounds great. Please can you give an example edit of what it needs? Thanks, Matty.007 07:10, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Just commenting here to express my appreciation for all the hard work that has gone into what looks like an excellent workflow and finished project - great job guys! Acather96 (click here to contact me) 16:00, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
@Matty.007: What would you like an example edit of? The template in use? The changes I want to make to the pages?
@Acather96: Thank you very much :) ~ Matthewrbowker Poke me 20:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
@Matty.007: This is what it is supposed to look like: Wikipedia:Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Architecture/Architects, firms, organizations ~ Matthewrbowker Poke me 19:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC) Edit: Spelling fix... ~ Matthewrbowker Poke me 01:57, 6 August 2014 (UTC)