Wikipedia:Pages needing attention: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
* Reciprocal System of Theory -- an edit war seems to be breaking out
m Edited Military History
Line 11: Line 11:
* [[poets]] - not only are the page titles messed up, very possibly the page itself should be redirected to [[listing of poets]]
* [[poets]] - not only are the page titles messed up, very possibly the page itself should be redirected to [[listing of poets]]
* [[Black Sabbath]] - from the article: ''and someone else can write 1979 to date''
* [[Black Sabbath]] - from the article: ''and someone else can write 1979 to date''
* [[Military history]] - Working on organizing (Chris Mahan 05/23/2002)-- suggestions welcome.
* [[Military History]] - should probably be moved to Military history. Also this article is badly organized, but I don't know how to fix it.
* [[Asynchronous Transfer Mode]] - this article is nearly ready but needs final editing and checking
* [[Asynchronous Transfer Mode]] - this article is nearly ready but needs final editing and checking
* [[Wends]]- general re-write and information needs
* [[Wends]]- general re-write and information needs

Revision as of 15:26, 23 May 2002

Of course, every entry on Wikipedia deserves attention. But some entries deserve tender loving attention.

If you come across a page that you think needs a lot of work, but have no idea how to approach it, list it here so that others can find it.

This page is very similar to the other pages like: Requested articles, Current events. However it is more utilitarian than those pages, being intended for the editorial community alone.

Articles that have good information, but need work for some reason

Articles which appear to be highly contentious


Articles that seem to be nothing more than definitions

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and an article which simply defines a word is useless. Sometimes, those articles can turn into bona fide encyclopedic treatments of a topic; sometimes they should just be deleted.

See also Wikipedia utilities/find or fix a stub.

Articles containing outdated text

The following articles were drawn from out-of-date public domain texts, such as the 1911 Encyclopedia Anglicana, the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia, or the 1881 Household Cyclopedia. Or, they may contain large sections drawn from such texts. In any event, they require fact-checking, modernization, and deletion of anachronisms. (This may be the best way to deal with the flood of dubious material from 62.98. It's a lot more constructive than flame wars.)

Abgar -- Club

  • More articles by 62.98.xx.xx containg Household Cyclopedia material. Added to previously existing articles. Dog

Articles of dubious merit, accuracy and/or validity


The following articles are by an author who does not tend to follow the consensus NPOV - rather, he/she has their own concept of wikipedia:Natural point of view. All these articles, and other works by this author, need close attention and review to place them in an NPOV format.

I revealed that conception to spark a dialogue - it isn't what I apply in writing articles. Your characterization is entirely reasonable as your own opinion, but it belongs in a separate file. -24

Although they have not created a login, more pages by this author can be found at special:contributions&theuser=24.150.61.63.

The user has also been using the main page at meta.wikipedia.com to draw attention to his views and agenda. It is perfectly legitimate to air personal views about Wikipedia on meta - that is what it's there for. However, the main page is there chiefly as a contents page to the articles on meta, not to advertise particular ideas.

there are none of my "views" nor "agenda" there - simply governance concerns that dominate this project since Larry has been gone. There's a process there to assess the "status quo" of the project based on threats, visions, best cases, worst cases, perceived by others ... the simplest possible governance method. It's a completely values-neutral process. -24

Please review what 24.150.61.63 has written before you add a link here - this person on occassion writes decent material. However, if you see that 24 has written some worthless gibberish, then simply REVERT the page to its pre-24 state. ONLY post articles by 24 that are of dubious merit (i.e. semicoherent ramblings or surprising suppositions).

what I added to this article was one paragraph explaining the Marxist class war perception of the conflict, as part of the Arab point of view. I submit that most of what's here is very likely just here because I wrote it, if in fact I did. Some of this list is things that I have barely touched, or which other people consensed. That said, if you want to put more effort into my writing that that of others, go ahead, it can hardly hurt the project itself.

Blank articles

To be filled in or deleted

Why we have sexuality -- Al-Khwarizmi -- Party disapproval -- Reasonable method -- moral purchasing


See also Wikipedia utilities/Page titles to be deleted

Other Wikipedia Utilities


See also : Wikipedia utilities
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Pages_needing_attention&oldid=86693"