Wikipedia talk:Requested articles

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Missing field subentries and Requesting an Article

• "press" and maybe some other keywords from this field should IMHO be added under where "media" is listed to facilitate searching.
• More generally: The respective field is also very broad and might stand a split.
• Very generally: The process of requesting an article also seems to be something that could be made easier in itself.

Rationale: Specifically, I started feeling slightly tripwired when after finding "flack attack" (sic!) used here [1] and obviously it's an important topic as to WP, but there's no article, hence, trying to request one, I found that to be a many-too-many-click procedure also requiring perceivable thought just for finding the right spot. Things seem to tend to be less-than-easy here. In particular, I had to resort to my browser's builtin page search in order to find "media" (no "press" there, nor "wiki" or "PR".) I feel that Requesting articles should be as easy as possible so as to avoid too many auxiliary article creations. If in doubt about the justification of this rationale, just do the steps as though you were me having this problem and I think you'll understand.

WP'ians and Admins, Thanks a lot for considering this.

217.229.16.46 (talk) 03:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

When to delete fulfilled requests?

What's the standard for deciding when to delete requests that have been fulfilled? Looking at Social Sciences, there are at least a hundred articles turned from red to blue. The majority of them aren't dated, so there's no easy way to tell if the request was filled today or last month, and in many cases the hotlink was turned blue via redirect anyway. For articles of unknown date of request, is there any reason we shouldn't just go through and delete them all from the list, since whoever requested them can just type the same words into the Search box? Please advise. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I too would like an answer to this question - the page says "Please do not remove legitimate articles which have already been created", so how do things ever leave the list? Olaf Davis | Talk 19:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

All bluelinks should be deleted. That sentence that Olaf notes above is, quite bluntly, ridiculous. I'm surprised no one ever caught that, that explains why no one's been removing them. Wizardman 19:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't think it made sense - unless there was some byzantine procedure for their being removed. Thanks Wizardman. Olaf Davis | Talk 21:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bot_requests#.22oldrequestbot.22_for_Articles_requested_for_more_than_...

I posted a bot request here to see whether a bot can be created to perform the sorting updates for that page. Bebestbe (talk) 17:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

In implementing this bot request, β^{_{command 2}} requires that new posts to WP:AR1 and WP:AR2 be in a particular format ("we would need to impliment a method for timestamping these request, and maintaining constant formating of the pages. we would need a template {{requested article|John jane doe}} and a HTML comment for each line with a timestamp <!-17:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)-> if we can do this then creating a bot to maintain those pages will be no big deal. it will be able to maintain old lists and remove the pages that get created.") If you object, please post here. Otherwise, we'll go forward with the time stamp and other changes. The format changes may affect Bebestbe (talk) 15:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

See my response, but the tool that I am adding should make this easier. it will go through the page history and find when it was added and add a timestamp for that result. a early version is User:Betacommand/Sandbox. Once this is done we can be a lot more flexible with indexing these request and working with future request. any suggestions would be welcome. β^_command 02:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The format changes may affect Wikipedia:Requested articles, so I copied info from here to this talk page. Bebestbe (talk) 03:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

what is your opinion with User:Betacommand/Sandbox? Im going through and finding when things where added and adding a timestamp to make them easier to work with, along with the usage of {{req}}. β^_command 18:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Where to request a redirect?

see above - 24.68.61.163 (talk) 13:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

You can request it at WP:AFC. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 17:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Start using {{la}} when listing articles

{{la}} would be extremely helpful to see if an article should be created.

Example

Example article (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It produces a lot of links to click including a link to Whatlinkshere, which shows just how linked the article already is, and Log to see if the article had been created before but then deleted. This would be nice to have so that people checking these things don't have to make extra clicks. - LA (T) 17:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Olympic truce

I'd love an NPOV article on the concept of the Olympic truce -- whether or not there is evidence of it in the ancient world, if it's a more modern invention where it came from, etc. Our very brief coverage of it in the ancient Olympic games article is not sufficient, in my mind--it certainly suggests that the concept is not at all discussed today, whereas I'd argue it's even more well-known (although certainly not observed) in the modern era. I looked at some info on the net, but am worried that if I try to start it I'll make a hash of it. Two problems: first of all, can I request an article that is currently a redirect? I'm worried the blue link will make the request look filled. Second problem: where to list it....sports? Social sciences? Which subtopic? I'm hoping someone will have an idea of where they think it ought to go. Thanks! User:Jwrosenzweig editing as 71.112.40.194 (talk) 07:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Transcluding a section of the list

I wish to transclude a section of this list, the food, drink and cooking section, to the WP Food page here. Ho would I do that with out adding the whole list?

--Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 01:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

How useful is this project really?

How useful is this page and its subpages really?

I came to one of the subpages by what can be considered accident. I saw a red link somewhere else, and to assess if I should create a redirect for it, I checked out it's "what links here" page. The only other link was from one of this project's subpages. When I checked it out, all I saw was a very brief mention, which does not even tell me enough to assess if whoever posted that had the same in mind (and was just not aware of the naming difference), or if the poster was aware of it and wanted a different topic altogether. The page layout is obviously not meant for discussing such questions, and since it doesn't even provide user signatures or any other clues, I couldn't even ask the poster. So it was just a waste of time for me.

Not only does this page and its subpages comes at cost for us other editors, it even actively tries to get more of our attention. It has a huge backlog (which itself is not a good sign for its effectiveness) and, above all is recruiting our best people per the message: "This page has a backlog that requires the attention of experienced editors." (That's the first thing you see on this page.)

Now, this could all be justified if it were for the best of Wikipedia. But Wikipedia already has much better ways to create new articles: First and foremost, of course, what made us as a website so successful: The simple wiki way of requesting an article by adding a red link to a pertinent article. And for those who want to bundle these efforts, there are plenty of WikiProjects, which have proven track records of creating good articles. At 2 million articles, I don't think we need a way to create articles by no other criteria than that someone put a red link here. In conclusion, I see no evidence that this project can justify pulling away experienced editors from our tried and proven ways of collaboration. — Sebastian 21:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello - anybody here? Maybe we should just point people who come here to the other projects I mentioned, as well as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation. — Sebastian 06:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Or maybe Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles - if they're still active. — Sebastian 02:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Not only that but this project is very confusing to new users who just want to request an article and not start one. — Sonic the Hedgehog 11:34, 18 December 2008 (GMT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.232.109 (talk)

I've written a good 20-some articles just based off this list, and redirected many more that were alternate terms for an article already existing. I don't really see the harm of this section, and think it does indeed serve some purpose. The whole point is that it's for people to request an article, not start one. They throw out a term, and if a writer knows about, or is interested by, the subject they can write the article. There are plenty of suggestions which caused me to say "Hey, there should be an article for that!" so I dig up some info and start one. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, finally, a reply. It's good to hear that something good came from this. You've indeed created some nice articles. But I am concerned that this page is growing much faster than it is being worked off. Let's look at the numbers: There are about 16,000 articles (estimate, based on the fact that there are 1,664 redlinks in the science topic area, and there are 10 topic areas in the project). I saw 15 new articles that you created in half a year, let's say 16, in case I overlooked one. Let's assume you're not alone, but that you are a group of 10 similarly active editors. That means, this list gets worked off at a rate of 320 article per year. If there were no new articles added, then it would take 50 years to work off the list. But in fact, new articles get added. Since the list is 7 years old, the average number of articles added per year was over 2000. This means that this list is growing at a much faster rate than it is being worked off.

Would it be possible for you to get your inspiration from other pages and projects? In addition to the links I mentioned above, there also used to exist Special:WantedPages, which seemed less work to maintain to me. It still exists in other language wikis, where I used it sometimes. Unfortunately, that page doesn't say why it's been taken out of service, but if that is something you might consider, then I could investigate this and see if I can lobby for it. — Sebastian 08:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Your calculations is wrong. There is articles requested for more than a year list, and it is relatively short. Plus there was list of articles requested for more then two years. It was almost empty last few times I checked it. And now I could not find it alltogether. It could be possible that it was deleted because we don't need it anymore. TestPilot^{talk to me!} 13:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Please explain what you believe is wrong about my calculation. Pointing to another page is a red herring: It does not disprove my calculation, and it is based on assumptions about that other page, which would only complicate the discussion here. You would first have to prove that that list it is complete and up to date. — Sebastian 16:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

No - you are the one who are using assumption here. "let's assume", "I saw" (that is anecdotal evidence) etc. is your wordings. And there is an actual page with all articles that are one year old - articles requested for more than a year. It is short. And if some articles did not made there yet - then that mean someone will fix that page eventually. TestPilottalk to me! 02:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

PS. Sorry - I don't have to prove anything to anyone. If you prefer some strange "back of the envelope" calculation - that is fine with me. But anyone can actually go that page and see how many and what articles were requested but still pending creation, without need for calculations based on "let's assume". TestPilot^{talk to me!} 02:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course you don't have to do anything here. You are, like all of us, a volunteer, and we are thankful for your contributions. But when someone writes "Your calculations is wrong", I believe it is normal that he or she would be asked to point out where the wrong step is. You hint at my count of 15 created articles by MatthewVanitas and my assumption that there are about 10 editors who create that many per year. If you have better estimates for these numbers, please provide them. — Sebastian 20:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I've been using this page to start articles too. Hell of a long list though! Tommfuller (talk) 12:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Why do you prefer this page over the pages and projects I mentioned above? — Sebastian 16:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Sebastian is onto something. For one month this summer, I did nothing but create dozens of "requested [law] articles". I gave up when I realized that (as a rough estimate) 75% of these were orphans, and 10% were variant spellings of existing articles.
• I would find this page much more useful if I could skim it for certain information (# of "what links here", date posted, variant spellings, casually-written context/definition), and in a table format so I could reorder it by #links & date posted.
• Here is a proposed series of changes that would accomplish these goals:

1. Each "requested articles" page will be a giant table with five columns (name, # of "what links here", date posted, variant spellings, casually-written context/definition)
2. The information in the "# of "what links here"" column will be input by a bot, and updated perhaps weekly. Other information will be input manually.
3. For articles already listed, this information will be input directly into the cells. However, future article requests will be made via a form at the top of the page, containing fields for variant spellings & a casually written context/definition.
4. A bot will survey the page weekly, and if one of the variant spellings is created, it will turn the other variant spellings into a redirect to that page.
5. "Find sources: google, news, books, scholar" (see {{rescue}}) might appear in a sixth column, and perform a search for all of the variant spellings, or something.

Agradman ^talk/_contribs 20:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Links for first-time article writers

Shouldn't the following links be in a box at the top of this page?

• Editing Tutorial
• Writing Your First Article
• List of Wikipedia policies

Simesa (talk) 12:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Xanthomona page lacking

Several bacterial forms of Xanthomona are proposed but they should all be collected into one new "Xanthomona" page.DenisBloud (talk) 16:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

This page is not for discussing suggestions about particular articles. It is for discussing improvements to the article request process itself. There are currrently no articles on Wikipedia:Requested articles/Natural sciences/Biology for the various forms of Xanthomona. I'd suggest discussing your proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Microbiology. Voceditenore (talk) 13:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

redirecting biography article requests on this page

since the "request an article" directs you to this page, shouldnt there be a big notice about where biography requests should go, so people dont mistakenly place them with the subject the person is noted for? Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

what links here

I'd like to propose the creation of a bot that automatically inserts a "what links here?" hyperlink directly to the right of any item that appears in a "requested articles" list. That way, people who are interested in creating new articles off the list will be encouraged to check to see which articles are in the highest demand. Agradman ^talk/_contribs 17:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• PS I'm copying this proposal to Village pump (proposals) Agradman ^talk/_contribs 17:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Updating this page

Is there is any project or group of people who regularly watch and maintain this page? It was full of article requests (despite the warning box at the top of the page), blatant advertising, off-topic rants, social networking etc. - some of which have been here for over a year. I've been bold and archived all of these as well as updating the warning box at the top of the page. Allowing this page to be cluttered with that kind of stuff hinders proper discussion of the "requested articles" process, which is what this page is for. Voceditenore (talk) 08:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.

case study

Case Study Questions 1. How can P2P file-sharing networks make money if they do not sell music? 2. Into which category or categories of e-commerce do P2P file-sharing networks fall? 3. What social issues do P2P file-sharing networks such as Grokster and Kazaa raise? Is the record industry justified in attempting to shut them down? Why or why not? 4. Will the Supreme Court’s decision inhibit the development of P2P technology or the Internet itself, as proponents of P2P services have claimed? 5. Will illegal downloading sites disappear altogether over time? Why or why not —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.218.200.145 (talk) 09:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Requested articles broken link

Could someone please change the link for requested articles on Fantasy Sports so that it links to there, and not fencing? 92.4.36.57 (talk) 18:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Poplar Banks School

You are unable to link because you have spelled it wrong. It is Poplar Bank School. SS#1 East Gwillimbury Union School with King 1885.

Let's add more red links on the RA page and its sub-pages

There're still plenty of notable topics (such as persons who were awarded, persons mentioned in lists or embedded lists) not having independent articles, hope Wikipedians join the task to add them (I've added some figures and incidents yesterday, such as David Lusted and some riots during Red Summer)!--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Mer-Ka-Ba Meditation is a subject mentioned in a book titled "Living in the Heart" essentially a somewhat mystical study by Drunvalo Melchizadek who experimented with a machine called "R2" said to eliminate polution in many places, one experiment in Phoenix Arizonna was uncerimoniously ignored by all officials from Governor down. But Drunvalo claims the US Air Force found merit in the work, he also claims NASA was involved in a more negative way and so on. I respectfully suggest, someone in the know, read the book, FOC on internet reference page below and perhaps attempt to discuss this with people of such wisdom.

See http://issuu.com/ericm814/docs/drunvalo_melchizedek_-_living_in_the_heart/9?mode=a_p

Please email me robcartervn@yahoo.com to remind me to follow-up, your discussion input.--203.99.250.156 (talk) 02:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Myth or truth? Have people kept Chihuahuas from growing by giving them tequila or some other form of alchol to drink.

I have heard it many times but would like to know if it has ever been done or is it just a myth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.183.61.175 (talk) 00:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Wrong place to ask, try Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science. -- œ^™ 11:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

how many maddie stamper's in the world?

there are 3000,000 madie stamper's in the world.um... I'M 7 YEARS OLD! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.101.175.77 (talk) 00:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

caves arches and stacks

lines of weakness in a headland, such as joints or fauls are articuarly vunerable to erosion. the energy of the waves gores out the rock along a line of weakness to form a cave over time erosion may lead to two backto back caves breaking through a healand to form a arch gradually the arch is enlarged by erosion at the base and sides and by weatheing processes ttacking the rof. the foof colapses eventually to form a iscolated pillar called a stack —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.169.7 (talk) 13:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Requested articles template pages for watching individual subjects

I'm not sure if this has been asked before, but would it be possible to convert the lowest level sections into included templates. That way those of us with a particular interest in certain subjects can just keep a watch on that template, rather than having to watch the entire page? Thanks.—RJH (talk) 18:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

S&S

Would you guys make a page about the girls Sabrina and Samantha Banks of the band S&S (used to be megatastic) because we are fans of them and we want more info about the relationship of NickJonas And SabrinaBanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.212.137.75 (talk) 13:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

See the notice at the top of this page.—RJH (talk) 17:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Instructions

Have clarified the instructions to hopefully help reduce simple errors.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Request For Assistance: Ethics Of Entry Creation

My brother is a noted Macintosh programming author, and there are upwards of a quarter-million of his "how-to" books floating around the globe. There are any number of Macintosh applications that, to one extent or another, owe their existence to my brother's efforts. You get my point. My issue is this: He doesn't have a Wikipedia entry, and standard ethics preclude me from submitting an article. What's my next move? Is it unethical of me to initiate this process in any way? For example, I could contact his publisher and bring up the lack of an article, hoping that the publisher will move forward on a researched submission. But is that ethical? Is my only ethical option, as his brother, to sit back and hope that an independent party submits an article? Obviously I want to do this thing, as I truly believe that my brother is a significant part of the history of the Macintosh, but I value ethics above all else, so I ask you, dear reader, for guidance. Thank you. Stumark (talk) 17:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd say give it a try and see what happens. As long as it's neutral and sourced with reliable, published sources I think issues of WP:COI can be overlooked. In any case, this is the incorrect page to ask this. You may want to try asking at WP:Help desk or the Conflict of interest noticeboard. -- œ^™ 13:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

hacked by alsfaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa7 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.142.237 (talk) 12:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

cincinnati hip hop

CINCINNATI is was unknown back then around the time hip hop started CINCINNATI didn't have rappers back in the 80's or the 90's like the west coast,eastcoast , and south did CINCINNATI didn't have rappers that rapped about dope,crack,and drugs like other hip hop industrys did.