Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Only 1 notable film remaining[edit]

There is only 1 notable film remaining without an article: Death of a Salesman (1951 film). Who wants to claim the glory? Kaldari (talk) 20:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean to be mean and rub this in, but apparently there are 7 movies titles Death of a Salesman: [[1]], 5 of which have no article. I know for a fact that the play is very notable, not sure about each of the individual films though.
Good job on trimming down the list though. I would have been tempted to give the article writing a whirl, but as you might guess from my contributions, I am only on Wikipedia for basic research and small amounts of procrastination (aka, what I am doing right now hehe!). Cheers!Calaka (talk) 07:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Only the 1951 film is considered notable enough to have an encyclopedia article. The others were all rubbish :) Kaldari (talk) 18:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I have made the article. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 23:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Turn of the century biographical encyclopedias[edit]

If anyone is looking for something to do, it turns out that there are tons of illustrated public domain regional biographical encyclopedias on Google Books - for example:

Cheers! bd2412 T 04:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It is well worth listing such things here; we will get around to turning each of them into projects sometime soon. Any more effort you want to put into finding them will not go wasted. Note, however, that Google has a really poor habit of making the PDF of books available to US users but not to the rest of the world. So, for instance, the American Women book is inaccessible to me :(. There's not much you can do about this, though, and doubtless we can use wikisource to hold a copy of a PD document should needsbe. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

New "Monthly focus." Any suggestions?[edit]

So it seems like the current monthly focus will come to a satisfying end with most of the notable articles at OBI created! Good job to all those who contributed! Now I in no way want to sound like the boss/manager of this whole operation (just someone that is taking a 5 minute break from regular real life studies!) but does anyone have any suggestions of what the new monthly focus should be? I will suggest List of notable albums but only because that list only contains 16 articles left to create! Shouldn't take very long to knock that list of and put a strike through it! But if anyone has any other suggestions, feel free to suggest some over the next month or so (since the OBI list isn’t finish just yet)! Cheers and once again good job! Someone give these workers some barnstars I say! Calaka (talk) 04:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Well the OBI list is now done (three cheers for a job well done!) and I have decided to be a little bit bold and changed the new monthly focus to the List of Albums. Hopefully that can be done in a month or 4! :) If there are any other preferences though, feel free to change it. I just picked a project at random that happened to be near complete. Calaka (talk) 08:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I probably should suggest that people keep in mind another "monthly focus" since the list of albums will become complete anytime soon now. I will make a suggestion (again at random) at a future date. Calaka (talk) 03:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Maybe Wikipedia:Aircraft encyclopedia topics for the month of June. Only 152 remaining. Acebulf (talk) 19:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good! I am not sure if the albums will be done by then, but if they wont, I will just add a "previous month" or something to let them get a bit more attention just for the sake of them finishing off. I mean, I assume that the lists on this little table get the most attention/views.Calaka (talk) 08:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Australian tv missing topics list[edit]

I have a missing topics list based on AustralianTelevision.net and left a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian television but the talk page doesn't seem too active. Would this sort of list of interest to either project ? 71.184.60.175 (talk) 19:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't see why not. Feel free to place the list on a subpage or something (maybe register an account and place the subpage on your username) then we can post the link here for others to see. Calaka (talk) 08:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of Life[edit]

So does anyone here have any interest in starting up a "List of missing Encyclopedia of Life articles" on here? Would it be possible to just copy/paste the articles here assuming the licenses are compatible? If not, surely a list of all the articles that they have and wikipedia does not have would be useful (i.e. incentive to create articles we are missing!). I would have been tempted to start the list myself but a). I have no idea how to start such a list (i.e. by using a bot or what?) and b). I wanted to see what others in the missing encyclopedia articles project think first.

See this for background: [2] and [3].

Cheers!Calaka (talk) 04:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you propose it here? Common procedure involves getting approval. Also-- the proposal will go further if you call it a task force instead of a project. Bob the Wikipedian (talkcontribs) 17:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Also, according to http://eol.org/files/pdfs/docs/EOL_Licensing_Policy.pdf the licenses on certain material may not allow for copy/paste. We'd need to specify that the material came from the EOL or whatever source if we copied and pasted, and that can be done with boilerplate messages or hatnotes (not sure what the preferred manner is these days). Bob the Wikipedian (talkcontribs) 17:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for the triple-post...according to my findings in comparing licensing from Wikipedia and EOL, any material from EOL with a license OTHER THAN CC-BY, CC-BY-SA, or public domain would be ineligible for copy/paste and would have to be reworded. Bob the Wikipedian (talkcontribs) 17:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Ah but just to clarify: I don't mean to turn this into a full fledged project (since it will require too much effort/administration to get the template up and going. I mean to just have a list and place it within the scope of the Missing encyclopedia articles wikiproject (e.g. pretty much everything on this list here is done in such a format: [4])
Re: Your other comments about copy/pasting: I know that the Citizendium allowed the copy/pasting (following a number of guidelines) and if the EOL article has the same license as in Citizendium then it shouldn't be a problem (so long as people give acknowledgment and paste that footer thingy that you mentioned above). Furthermore for those where a stricter license is given it would be good to have the list available to then be able to create the articles (and make sure no COPY/PASTE is undertaken). Would anyone know of any way to automatically collect the articles (use of some bot I would imagine... but I am no expert in this...). Cheers!Calaka (talk) 08:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't think I'd recommend a bot to go out and locate articles like this. This should be done by humans, since there is so much room for error. Often, I cannot find the creature I am looking for in Wikipedia until I perform a search on Yahoo! and find an alternate name. Limitations such as this would produce a much longer list than expected. I'd be happy to help out with the list, though. I'm currently wrapped up in an off-wiki project, but it has no degree of urgency, and it would be a nice change in flavor to alternate projects each day or even every few hours. I can go ahead and set up these lists in my userspace, and if we decide the project simply isn't worth it, there's no harm done. I'll be working at User:Bob the Wikipedian/Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedia articles/Encyclopedia of Life. Feel free to move it into your userspace. It was your idea, after all, so why should I take credit? Bob the Wikipedian (talkcontribs) 17:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Upon delving into the project, I'm realizing how unwilling I would be to actually continue that project...it's amazingly unrewarding. I did discover that there are two types of articles in EOL-- blue links have text, gray links are empty. So a large portion of EOL is simply bulky blankness. Also, a spreadsheet application like Excel would be far better for managing the list as opposed to wikimarkup. It is amazingly simpler. I'm doing a very similar project currently cataloging prehistoric species for a group who is trying to make every single fossil species, and that list is much easier to manage in a binary XLS file. Bob the Wikipedian (talkcontribs) 18:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm, so I had a look at EOL and maybe I am just new to the website but at present, it is a bit horrible to navigate through (maybe it is just me?). I think I would rather a bot get all the articles that are not on wikipedia and then remove any of the errors present myself. The bot can surely be tweaked around so as to ensure that it finds the articles on wikipedia no matter what (i.e. via using Google or Yahoo etc.). Furthermore, I would be willing to create redirects for all the multiple named organisms. This would enrich the encyclopedia itself. Also as you showed, it might get a bit tiring making up the lists manually (considering the thousands upon thousands of articles that would be missing). But I admit, I am not very good with the technical aspects of a computer so I would not know where to begin with the bot formation (i.e. who would be able to make such a bot to do what we are after?). Cheers! Calaka (talk) 13:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I know how to program parsers, but I don't know how to automate them or how to parse over a network. I also don't know how to program them to work as bots for Wikipedia. Since the EOL recently adopted an all-Latin tree (which I am eternally grateful for), parsing the cyc and searching the wiki would be that much simpler. Thankfully, most species articles in Wikipedia at least contain the scientific name in the first sentence. If I were programming it, I'd have the bot parse each scientific name on EOL and then search for that on Wikipedia. If the name doesn't appear before the first period in the article (excluding periods that may occur within brackets or braces), the name would be added to the list. Bob the Wikipedian (talkcontribs) 17:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I made a suggestion over here: [5] so hopefully someone can help us out either on that page or here with the whole creating a bot (by following your suggestions). Cheers!Calaka (talk) 13:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
If you just want to find missing articles and make a list for manual action, I don't see much trouble. If you want a bot to automatically create wikipedia articles, there are a lot of pitfalls in that. Most obviously, the classification at Encyclopedia of Life may not match what is in use here, and that could lead to things like creating a bunch of articles for species or higher taxa which we already have articles for (under a different name). Kingdon (talk) 15:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I believe the current intent is to provide merely a list of articles which appear in EOL but not Wikipedia, not to actually create articles. This would serve as a sort of "to do" list for bored Tree of Life members. Our next move is probably to contact EOL and ask them if there's a master list somewhere that we could have access to. Bob the Wikipedian (talkcontribs) 20:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Yup as Bob said, we intend to just have a list and then create the articles manually. Yeah I don't see a problem with contacting them but I fear they won't be too responsive (being direct competition and all). Calaka (talk) 09:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Yeah...it would be like asking them to donate all their time and effort to helping someone who won't pay them at all in return. There's not exactly any benefit to them providing us with the fruit of their labor. I sort of feel guilty asking them, and that's why I haven't done so yet. Unfortunately for them, their encyclopedia isn't (in my opinion) very user-friendly. Wikipedia is a huge source, probably, of their competition already. This isn't a question anymore of doability...it's ethics. Bob the Wikipedian (talkcontribs) 16:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Albums[edit]

I don't think the last remaining album on this list currently meets our notability guidelines for music (see notes at Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/List of notable albums). I propose removing it and calling the list complete. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable enough to me! Feel free to do the honours of striking the project out, writing COMPLETE on its page and putting it in the complete section list at the missing encyclopedia articles main listing! Good job! :)). Calaka (talk) 23:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
And done! Whoot! Feels like we should all head off to a pub somewhere. :) (And, yet, curiously melancholy. I've been working on that list for two years! Oh, well. Off to work on books. :D) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Haha wow! Must be a great feeling though getting it all out of the way. I am sure if you didn't help the project might have lingered on for a few more years yet. Keep it up! :)Calaka (talk) 05:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

update to Missing encyclopedic articles/de[edit]

The last dump was on 23 january 2006, and there are only 11 items remain. Perhaps its time to redo the list? 85.65.69.166 (talk) 09:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I made a similar concern on the talk page but no one responded. I am unsure of who actually maintains the language lists. But anyway, I guess there will be something done about it once all 11 are created (and they seem to be taking a bit longer for someone to go about making).Calaka (talk) 10:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Bolognia push 2009[edit]

Please help make sure wikipedia has articles on every dermatologic condition. There are many new articles and redirects to be made, and we at WP:DERM are looking for more help! ---kilbad (talk) 15:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

  • UPDATE: We are making a lot of great progress with the Bolognia Push 2009. If you are not currently involved, perhaps consider contributing as we are always looking for more help at the dermatology task force. Feel free to e-mail me for all the details. ---kilbad (talk) 22:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Merger of Aircraft articles[edit]

Please see this: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft/Missing_articles for background as to why I merged the current monthly focus over to the massive list (that basically served the same purpose). Kind regards.Calaka (talk) 10:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

American Governors[edit]

We are close to finishing Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/American politicians/Governors, but help is needed! I have done a lot of the work myself lately, so others to come along and help finish it in one swoop would be great. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 20:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

2010 focus[edit]

I was thinking of changing the monthly focus to Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/English Lit Bio Dict as there is only 24 individuals from that list left so it shouldn't take too long to finish. I will change it over sometime in January just to give a bit of prior notice. Hopefully I will be bold enough to start some of those articles myself in the coming months. All comments/concerns are welcome. Kind regards.Calaka (talk) 06:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

With the new year finally here, I will go ahead and change the monthly focus to the above suggestion. Please feel free to make other suggestions once the articles are all taken care of/fixed.Calaka (talk) 03:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

With the english lit bio dict page almost complete (hopefully the momentum of one article a day continues for just two more weeks) we could go on to place a new monthly focus. I was thinking of Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/List of thinkers on education as another quick project to finish (16 articles only) but again, any other comments/suggestions are welcome. :)Calaka (talk) 02:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I am happy to note that the monthly focus is almost complete. I feel like putting in the new monthly focus on another small list such as Australian politicians or Wikipedia:ACF Regionals answers but if anyone feels like adding a list of interest you are more than welcome to. Cheers!Calaka (talk) 09:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Commonwealth Poetry Prize[edit]

appears in several authors biographies. --Eingangskontrolle (talk) 17:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Redirected to Commonwealth Writers' Prize.--hkr Laozi speak 09:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Integrating effort to expand dermatology-related articles into this project[edit]

We at WP:DERM:MA are working to expand Wikipedia's coverage of cutaneous conditions. Would there be a way to integrate this effort into your "Missing encyclopedic articles" mainpage? ---kilbad (talk) 22:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

This project generally works from lists of redlinks. I think for us to be of much use to you, you'd have to generate such a page. I see you're trawling Dermatology by Bolognia ... if I read correctly you're encouraging your people to compare its index against the list of cutaneous conditions, and then write articles where wikipedia has a lack. For our page to be of much use to you, you'd want to take the Adam Smith pinmaking approach; break the job into two: scan the entire index, compile a list of redlinks, add the list of redlinks to the Missing Enc Articles page. Then get on with turning the redlinks blue. To be honest, I think being on this page is a marginal advantage at best, especially in your specialised subject domain. But you'd be very welcome indeed. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

New Georgia Encyclopedia project is underway![edit]

The New Georgia Encyclopedia ("NGE") has authorized Wikipedia to import and/or merge the following ten articles, which I have copied to project space:

Our goal is to get these articles in top shape and merge or move them into mainspace as quickly as possible. If this turns out well (as I am confident it will), the NGE will permit us to import their remaining body of over 2,000 well-researched and well-written articles, which could pioneer a trend for other private owners of encyclopedic content to release their materials into our corpus. I would deeply appreciate any help that we can muster in accomplishing this. Please note that the original NGE articles (now linked in the required attribution section of each of the above articles in project space) have images, but NGE is unable to convey those to us at this time, as they are individually licensed by NGE. Finding equivalent images would, of course, be helpful. Also, please note that the NGE would like for us to parallel their selection of internal links (where they link to an internal NGE article, they would like for us to also link to our equivalent Wikipedia article). The first import, Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)/New Georgia Encyclopedia/Jesse Hill, is substantially finished in this respect. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

This will require an email to permissions-en@wikipedia.org documenting the fact that the New Georgia Encyclopedia are releasing the text under the CC-by-sa license before we can move the articles into regular article space. Kaldari (talk) 19:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the reminder, I just forwarded the NGE's authorization email to that office. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
A much simpler alternative would be to ask NGE to please mark each article on their site as being CC_BY_SA. if they do that, no further permission is necessary. If they are reluctant to do that, then they should not be granting this permission to us anyway: any third party can grab this stuff from WP and use it under the CC_BY_SA license. If they do not understand this, then we should not grab their stuff. If NGE staffers do not have time to re-mark their articles, one of us can volunteer to do that work on their site if they are willing to give that individual a logon. -Arch dude (talk) 00:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
It seems to me that it would be easier for them to just send us an email releasing their material under those terms. Bear in mind, the license has one condition (which is consistent with CC-by-SA), that being an attribution note on the article page itself. bd2412 T 00:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Please add {{ConfirmationOTRS|source=The New Georgia Encyclopedia|otrs=2010020510038599}} to the top of each article's talk page once they are moved to article space. Kaldari (talk) 00:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Can this be done in advance? bd2412 T 00:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
You can go ahead an put it on the ones in Project space if you want to. It shouldn't go on any existing article space articles however, until they actually have material from the Georgia encyclopedia incorporated into them. Kaldari (talk) 01:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Done. Of course, any help getting these articles ready to move or merge would also be a great benefit. Cheers! bd2412 T 01:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
The New Georgia Encyclopedia has released an eleventh article to Wikipedia under the CC-by-SA license, now at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)/New Georgia Encyclopedia/Delta Air Lines (I think this is a good sign for the project). They expressed to me their interest in seeing how we are able to merge their more thorough materials into our existing articles relating to Delta Air Lines. bd2412 T 16:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing[edit]

Some of you might be interested in discussing (or even participating) Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#WikiProject:Better Than Britannica. Regards, Paradoctor (talk) 00:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The Global Names Index: A missing encyclopedic list makers dream (or nightmare!)?[edit]

So following on from the above discussion about me wanting to find the EOL's list that they used to gather their species, I was browsing their site when I happened to stumble on to The Global Names Index this: [6], Example letter: [7], example sub letter: [8] example links for choice of species: [9] and [10] and finally: example external links: [11] and [12]. Now I am quite sure there are bots out there that can probably utilize that list and even create a whole bunch of articles. But I think a more appropriate thing to do would be to get those names and turn them into a list, somewhere within a subproject here. I haven't looked at it in through detail but from the tidbits I did see and the links/references it provides it seems to be an incredibly useful list (or at least something to add an extra ref to an article). Anyone want to comment on this? Get some lists rolling? Maybe we can just test out the list making and just do the letter A? Hopefully a list can be made with the help of a bot? Kind regards.
PS: I will post this over to the WP:TOL as I am sure they would also find this resource useful.
PPS:18 million names! (not species mind you but names)Calaka (talk) 06:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Hrm. Nightmare I think. Check the subletter listing for PAN. - UtherSRG (talk) 06:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Seems like there is duplication as the list most certainly is robot generated. Having said that, the generations seem to be from scientific publications so at least the naming is credible (I can't explain why the duplicates are there but an example could be a simple comma as in the case of:
Pan paniscus Schwartz 1929
Pan paniscus Schwartz, 1929
but of course this does not explain all cases. I will continue exploring at random to see what comes up. In addition to species and the higher up (genus, order, family etc.) there seems to be the individuals who named them?Calaka (talk) 07:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Furthermore, lexical grouping seems to reflect the same "item" or species as is the case of: [13] Panacca loveni was discovered (or described) by an individual by the surname of Jeffreys in 1881 and in 1882. I was after some searching able to find this: Pholadomyidae.Calaka (talk) 07:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
A further look around took me here: [14] which has the actual lists divided up from where they originate and actually going through some of those sites, individual lists can be spotted. Also, this: [15] seems to be needed if someone is going to obtain and turn into lists the large lists they have available with the help of a bot.Calaka (talk) 23:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Of the resources presented, I like [16] best. Bob the Wikipedian (talkcontribs) 00:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I am unable to open that link that they give though for some reason? [17] Are you able to?Calaka (talk) 00:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Update/progess of sorts: Here is what I was able to do with the help of that index using the first 7 names: [18]. With the next name on the list, I had less luck so all I did was: [19]. Cheers!Calaka (talk) 15:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Don't try to use the "data URL"-- just use the search box on that page; it will only search EOL. The reason I recommend EOL is because it's heavily moderated by experts. Also, I noticed you mentioned both the subfamily and the tribe on the genus page for Aaaba. As a general rule, include only the "sub-" and "super-" that come between the taxon being described and the next normal level above it, e.g. Kingdom>Phylum>Class>Order>Suborder>Superfamily>Family, K>P>C>O>F>sub-F>G, K>super-P>P, K>P>C>O>sub-O, etc. Also, for genera, subgenera, species, subspecies, use the template {{italictitle}} to italicize the title of the page. Enjoy your new endeavors! Bob the Wikipedian (talkcontribs) 02:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the tips/advice/& words of encouragement! It is much appreciated. :)Calaka (talk) 02:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Well as it has been a number of days and no one has/had any overwhelming objections I have decided to be bold and created a subpage which will contain a listing/link of every single three letter link from that website. I decided against every single name as that would be a bit overwhelming seeing as there are many duplicates/etc. Here is the link [20]. If anyone has any comments/thoughts/ideas to further improve the layout/organization/settings of the page then by all means. It is still a work in progress so once I get the letter A set, I will further organize the numbering/search functionality.

The problem with the global names index is that it is (as someone said) a list of names, rather than a list of species. Even after you've collapsed the variants in the representation of the authorities, there's a pile of synonyms and invalid/illegitimate names in there. I don't think that it can be used for automatically creating articles. Lavateraguy (talk) 14:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Note also that the same names can be used under both the ICBN and the ICZN. For example Bacillus is a genus of bacteria (ICBN) and a genus of insects (ICZN); Napaea is a genus of mallows (ICBN) and a genus of butterflies (ICZN). So you can't just assume that the oldest form is the correct one. Another complications are that some databases may list pre-Linnaean names (e.g. Monospermalthaea for Waltheria). Lavateraguy (talk) 14:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Ah but a synonym is not necessairily a bad thing, I don't see why it can't just be redirected if it was published under a different name. But you are right in the illegitimate name aspect as you can see at the SFNI section on page A: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Missing_encyclopedic_articles/Global_Names_Index/A. Oh and I was not aware of the multiple names aspect still applying to currently accepted names. I.e. I accounted one instance where Aaata could be two different geni (a moth vs. sponge) but for the sponge a more common name is used. But anyway, I guess, I got a long way to go hehehe.Calaka (talk) 07:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
A redirect seems a sensible means of handling commonly used synonyms, such as Senecio jacobaea for Jacobaea vulgaris, but it is questionable whether a large number of synonyms are notable. For example Eriolaena glabrescens Hu is a taxonomic synonym and later homonym (therefore illegitimate) of Eriolaena glabrescens A.DC.
In many cases the application of the name is ambiguous. For example some botanists identify Malope multiflora as a synonym of Lavatera cretica which then becomes a synonym of Malva multiflora - but the identify of Malva multiflora is disputed (a colleague proposes that it represents a casual occurrence of a Melochia), and the conservative view is that Lavatera cretica becomes a synonym of Malva pseudolavatera. (To muddy the waters further there are a few older names that have been identified as synonyms of Lavatera cretica, but none of these are clearly the case.) Lavateraguy (talk) 11:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Aaaba seems problematical. de Laubenfels originsally used this name for a sponge. On the face of it this would preclude Bellamy's use of it for a beetle, but I'm not familiar with all the ins and outs of the ICZN, and it's not immediately clear whether de Laubenfels' usage was legitimate. It seems that his name was superfluous, as Topsent had previously published a generic name based on Yversia alecto. I don't know whether that leads Aaaba available for use. Lavateraguy (talk) 11:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I will reply over at your talk page in case this might seem a bit off topic to people in the missing encyclopedi articles project.Calaka (talk) 12:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Saves Public Art[edit]

Hi! I'm helping with the WikiProject Wikipedia Saves Public Art, which is relatively new but has already made a splash in the cultural sector. Our initial goal is to create articles for public artworks that were assessed during the Smithsonian Institution's Save Outdoor Sculpture! program (which was completed in the early 1990's.) Since we are using the Smithsonian's SIRIS database for our information (at least in this initial step), we thought we might be able to link up with your project, perhaps as a Secondary Focus.

You can see some of our national media coverage here, in the Chronicle of Higher Education: Scholars Use Wikipedia to Save Public Art From the Dustbin of History and a good overview of the project (complete with page view statistics) here on the Indianapolis Museum of Art blog: The Bird Flies in Denver. We recently presented at Museums and the Web 2010 in Denver at a workshop bringing together Wikipedians and museums (See article in a recent SignPost.)

We are currently trying to come up with a more systematic way of getting the information from SOS! to Wikipedia, and your project seems like a great fit. Let us know what you think. Your thoughts are appreciated! HstryQT (talk) 11:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

We generally work from lists. If you can produce a list of public art from the SIRIS database, it may be that you;d find here some people willing to match up listings on the page with existing articles, and then start working through creating new articles for redlinks. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. We had begun making location-based lists, but in order to utilize this potential help, we're going to begin making a SOS!/SIRIS list specifically to be used here. Thank you! HstryQT (talk) 19:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Excellent. Don't abandon the idea of providing lists which have a geographical element in them. IIRC we're talking tens of thousands of instances of public art. If so, and if possible, it would be way better to index them by country and even locality (state, city, &c) since users are (arguably) more likely to be interested in and know how to access information on stuff near to them. A simple alphabetic ordering should be your last resort. And we would tend to advice, I guess that if possible the lists would be improved to the extent that they immediately assist users, such as by providing
Initial suggested article names can be whatever you can extract from the SIRIS database. This project picks up from that point on and will edit the list to suggest more appropriate names if & when necessary.
Finally, as you must be aware, we tend to work on tectonic timescales. I'm not in a position to make any representations as to whether anyone will get involved. But you pays your money and you takes your chance. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
A tectonic timescale is completely understandable. Thank you for your help and suggestions, all of which will help us make a list that's user-friendly and makes sense for this project. I had found some lists that provide nearly half a dozen links following the article title, so I didn't know what was really expected.
Before we dive in I think we'll be discussing what elements to include so as to have a practical balance that doesn't take a huge amount of time (and as such would make it almost as fast to create our own stubs as we go along). I think subject link - SIRIS link and google search link organized by location should be feasible, though. Thanks again for getting back to me so quickly. HstryQT (talk) 21:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Biographical dictionaries of artists[edit]

User:Fram has begun uploading public-domain entries from Bryan's Dictionary of Painters and Engravers, and I started helping out; right now we're looking at the 1889 enlarged edition, in two volumes. Here is volume 1 (A-K) from Google Books; here is volume 2 (L-Z). In addition, while tooling around looking for more information on Bryan, I found A biographical history of the fine arts, an 1873 edition of a book compiled by the New York-based dentist (!) Shearjashub Spooner. Fram created {{Bryan}}; I followed suit with {{Spooner}}. There is a great deal of material in these books which I think can be successfully transwikied - I thought I'd bring it to the attention of this project in case other people wanted to get involved. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 21:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

May I recommend that you first start a s:Wikisource project for each book? That way, you can first produce a valid "letter-perfect" transcription of the source that is under control of the Wikimedia foundation. As you complete the transcription for each article at Wikisource, you can then use that article as the basis for a Wikipedia article. A few of us are using this approach for the Dictionary of National Biography, which (at 63 volumes and 29,000 artcles) is somewhat ambitious. We have two projects, a Wikisource project (s:WS:DNB) and a Wikipedia project (Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/DNB.) The huge advantage of this approach is that you get a consistent, valid source and you also get the WP article that can then be improved, modernized, and enhanced, for only a very small amount of extra effort. I can assist in setting up the WS project if you wish to try this. -Arch dude (talk) 22:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Lots of lists over at User:MadMax[edit]

No longer active I happened to stumble upon a number of subpages that he has made containing a large number of lists: [21]. I was considering bringing each page up here on the main list for greater exposure. I thought it would be better if I was to make a note here first in case anyone has any comments/objections etc. Some from glancing seem to be near done anyway but it would not be bad to have them here to finish of the rest. Cheers!Calaka (talk) 08:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Due to no objections after a few days, I shall start adding them up. :)Calaka (talk) 12:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Movie Guide Request[edit]

I've constructed a list of films in Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic_articles/Movie Guide that is based upon the entries in The Scarecrow Movie Guide that may not have Wikipedia articles. Is this suitable for inclusion among the lists of this WikiProject? Thank you.—RJH (talk) 23:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, very welcome. Thanks. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you.—RJH (talk) 17:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Well done indeed! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 10:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Catching 'near misses' in lists of missing articles[edit]

As part of the Red Link Recovery wikiproject, a tool has been written that checks all the red links on a given wiki page and looks for similarly named existing articles. This might well flag up red-linked items within this projects lists for which articles already exist, only under a slightly different name. Perhaps best demonstrated with an example - feeding it the Most Missed Articles list suggests (among other things) that Disiz_La_Peste probably should be Disiz_la_Peste.

It might be worth running more of the missing lists through the tool to pick out similar suggestions. The tool can be found on the toolserver, here. - TB (talk) 23:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

That's a cool tool; thanks. It found 12 or so missing links on Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Movie Guide, for instance. Now added to the main page under a new Tools heading.--Tagishsimon (talk) 23:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Ta. - TB (talk) 08:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree, this is a great tool. I just tried it on the mammals and literary WP and managed to get 1 and 8 matches respectively. I will try it on a few other lists and update how I go. Thanks to the creator!Calaka (talk) 04:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
More on this. I've run the 249,731 red links on all sub-pages of Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles through a newer version of the system on it's most cautious setting and it has suggested alternate targets for 3,254 of them. I would expect 60%-70% of these suggestions to be 'correct', so this represents around 2000 items that could be eliminated. As soon as I figure out a sensible way to present the results I'll post them up. - TB (talk) 22:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Bleh - too late and too hard. I've dumped the whole list at User:Topbanana/Missing articles for now. - TB (talk) 22:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

s:A Compendium of Irish Biography[edit]

Over at Wikisource, I have started the transcription of A Compendium of Irish Biography and the Index file is at s:Index:A Compendium of Irish Biography.djvu Scan quality is pretty good, and the articles have a good authority list. There is a little formatting to align matters, however, it isn't rocket science, and I have started documenting. billinghurst sDrewth 10:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Emijrp/All human knowledge[edit]

Hi all. In this project (and in the whole Wikipedia of course) there are people who love the idea about collecting all human knowledge. I have worked about this in a subpage. Suggestions, opinions and fixes are welcome. Please, discuss. emijrp (talk) 19:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

You could try putting ideas on this into an essay. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
The page is being improved a lot, but more work is needed! help please! : ) emijrp (talk) 12:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

New DNB project[edit]

I have founded a new Wikipedia:WikiProject Dictionary of National Biography. The thread at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Dictionary of National Biography auto-generated content shows clearly enough that the time has come for those working on the DNB to have their own place. I have nominated the MEA project as "parent", and have no wish to cut any ties; but it will make sense to move some project pages to new titles. DNB people: please come and sign up. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Gross neglect: Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/List of U.S. television stations[edit]

My other specialty, besides the Arizona schools that have brought my completion numbers up to 87%, is local TV stations.

Enter Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/List of U.S. television stations. The WB hasn't existed in 4 years, and Urban America Television is dead. All remaining bluelinks are false positives (some to AMs, some because of callsign changes), and all the stations left are small-market LPTVs. Could someone clean this up? I'm starting to see how big this project has become and how much it has suffered because of it. Raymie (tc) 21:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Another encyclopedia[edit]

How about the Encyclopedia of St Petersburg, from 2004? Obviously we can't pillage their content because it's copyrighted, but there are many important topics in there which are worth having in here also. DS (talk) 14:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

There are many such encyclopedia. For them to be of any use within this project, we would, at the least, need to have an index of contents against which to work. If you can provide that, then great. If not, then there's not much that can be done from within this project. As you'll notice from the main page, all of the work of this project is based on comparing lists of contents in third party sources with content in wikipedia. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, they have old maps at least, and some such images could be imported into Commons legitimately. But I agree with the general point: the difference between cherry-picking a few attractive topics, and assessing comprehensively what the overlap of content is, so as to do something about it, is the provision of some sort of "administrative" framework. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Notes and Queries[edit]

Since the goal is to seek completeness, would anyone be interested in tackling the contents of this venerable periodical (published since 1849) & verifying that Wikipedia has an article on every subject mentioned in it? While this might make Wikipedia even more England-centric, it might also provide some clues on notable topics none of us have considered -- & even lead to sources for various assertions that have remained unsourced. -- llywrch (talk) 05:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm interested, but have little time to spare. I started on N&Q some years ago, and got up to issue 15 ... I can't remember whether I managed to abstract much from it, though. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
That actually sounds like a huge project. There are clearly numerous scans up at archive.org. The first question I'd ask is "how complete is that set of scans?" Then the volumes seem to have an index, so the next issue would seem to be how to convert the index of an annual volume into a list of topics, so we could see what we're talking about. Experience with the DNB suggests that these two preliminaries are essential if the aim is actual completeness, not just stimulating some activity (which tends to be cherry-picking). Then I suppose I'd personally be attracted by listings, rather than individual antiquarian snippets: lists tend to look like reference material as soon as they get posted, while some biographical material can look like trivia. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
That's why I proposed it with the words "would anyone be interested". ;-) I'd consider tackling it myself -- I would find it fascinating to know what topics had been discussed or mentioned in the numbers between 1849 & 1922 -- but I have two huge projects of my own to contemplate: (1) trying to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Ethiopia, almost single-handedly (you can tell which articles I haven't written: those which are very good & those which are abysmally poor), & if I ever find a way to hand that off to someone else, then (2) comparing Pliny's Natural History to Wikipedia, checking that the cites from it are accurate & filling in any information I find there (I've owned a copy of the N.H. for a few decades now, & it would give me an excuse to read thru all ten volumes of the Loeb edition at least once). -- llywrch (talk) 06:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
It's actually a fair bet that much of the most interesting information from N&Q was incorporated into the DNB. That suggests to me that, in principle, working back from 1922 would be the right way to go. The DNB is in the public domain up to the 1912 version, and therefore a reasonable subproject might be to take about the last 15 years (e.g. around 1907 to 1922). The Tenth Series was going by then; having that series alone posted to Wikisource might be a reasonable project to get something moving. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Now see s:Portal:Notes and Queries, just beginning to collect up texts. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

User box[edit]

Is a Userbox for this project? I spend so much time here that I might as well add it to my user page. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Yup! It is {{User WikiProject Missing}}. Cheers!Calaka (talk) 07:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! I'd actually started to throw one together:
Kpdf bookish.svg This user is a member of WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles.


But, good enough. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:37, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Specialist encyclopedias[edit]

I have recently gone over the annual lists of best reference works according to the American Library Association and Booklist. Between them, they average about 20 or 30 such works per year. Although it is far less than finished, many can be found at User:John Carter/Reference works. Several of these relate to specific topics which might not be specifically included in broader encyclopedias, but might still deserve inclusion here. Some, on the other hand, are very short entries which could easily be included in a main article. A few in the Encyclopedia of Tourism, for instance, discuss things like dinner tickets for cruise ships, for instance. In any event, would it be of any use to take these into account on this project? John Carter (talk) 17:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Guantanamo Bay detainees (heads up of new list).[edit]

I made up a list of Guantanamo bay detainees here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Guantanamo Bay Detainees and just notifying on talk page. I obtained the list from Wikileaks (see this for background: Guantanamo Bay files leak). Many of the articles already created and more still just need a redirect to common name. Cheers!Calaka (talk) 14:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Report of missing articles[edit]

I have created a report of articles that are in many Wikipedias, but not the English one. See Wikipedia:Dump reports/Missing articles. User<Svick>.Talk(); 14:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Hotlist N update[edit]

I've removed some blue links from Hot/N, where they seem to have been created as separate articles. The edit summaries should allow easy checking by those more familiar with this process than I am. I have no idea what SFNI is. --Trevj (talk) 10:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

SFNI stands for "section for non inclusion" which is basically what someone thought to be an item that does not warrant an article. They are left there for a second (third, fourth and so on) opinion in case someone else might think that they can be made in to an article. Good job on removing the blue links hehe. Kind regards. :) Calaka (talk) 11:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. --Trevj (talk) 11:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Most needed missing encyclopedic articles[edit]

I don't suppose there is a job somewhere that correlates missing encyclopedic articles with the number of red link occurrences in article space? I.e. which of these missing articles are we most in need of creating? Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean something like this: [22]? Cheers!Calaka (talk) 14:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, the problem with WP:MWA is that it does not filter out red links from NavBoxes (despite the introductory wording). Hence it is a biased listing. What I meant is a list of the red links on this project that show up on the most Wikipedia articles. I.e. cross-correlating the missing articles with the most wanted articles. Regards, RJH (talk) 20:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Thomas McKeown & his books[edit]

Greetings. In reviewing the status of what became known as 'the McKeown thesis', I checked Wikipedia for articles pertaining to the physician and medical historian Thomas McKeown. In doing so, I came across Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/List of notable books on history of medicine, in which I see some of McKeown's seminal books listed.

It is virtually impossible to study some areas, such as medical anthropology or medical sociology, without encountering and indeed being examined on awareness of, McKeown's works, which have generated a considerable body of literature in a range of fields pertaining to public health and controversies therein. In my view, the single most efficacious way to tackle the missing links pertaining to McKeown's works is to create an article on him, and subsume synopses of his seminal works and underpinning theses within relevant sections. This would both contain the effort pertaining to McKeown's works, and facilitate development of new and existing articles in a range of areas, from anthropology to sociology, to medical history and economics, to name the main areas which come to mind.

I personally am not in a position to start a McKeown article. If I come across an existing article in a relevant field, I should be able to, and would be prepared to, create a section within said article or articles, which can then be expanded to the point of justifying a separate article. But of course I don't have to be the one doing this. If anyone else is in a position to do so, good on them. Wotnow (talk) 15:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Articles missing from English Wikipedia that are on other language Wiki's[edit]

Just made a request for a bot tool to identify articles missing from the English wiki but exist on another language wiki for a category(I'm interested in Category:Turtles). I'm thinking maybe there are some existing tools or lists that are available among the members here? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 16:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:FAOL has done this for featured articles from several languages. violet/riga [talk] 17:56, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

IMDB[edit]

IMDB allows a lot of content to be downloaded as plain text. While there are far too many articles there ('U film' example) it might be worthwhile taking a sample from them. My recommendation would be to take all the films with a minimum of n votes - this would give some level of notability. violet/riga [talk] 18:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

IMDB isn't considered a reliable source for verification purposes, so I'm not sure that it could be used to establish notability in the Wikipedia sense. Regards, RJH (talk) 20:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Other Wikipedias[edit]

Is there any chance anyone can update the lists of missing articles in other Wikipedias, and add more languages? I think those lists are very helpful in identifying important articles related to other countries that are missing on here. Iusethis (talk) 14:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

What language or languages are you interested in? Any particular topic area? I could do this task but am hesitate without obvious willingness of anyone to use data as even a small wiki would take hours to check(and possibly requires bot authorisation also). You can see a list Turtle articles in other languages but not on English Wikipedia I did recently. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 11:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm mostly interested in Swedish articles, no particular topic. Maybe other Scandinavian languages too. I think such lists can be very useful but I understand it may take a long time to generate them. Iusethis (talk) 12:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
There's very nice tool to suggest articles from other interwikis, which you can use to easily generate lists of missing articles in particular categories. Dsp13 (talk) 00:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Still active?[edit]

Is this Wikiproject still active? Some of the pages have lots of blue-links that havent been removed from the list. I want to join this WikiProject but first I want to know how much activity is going on over here.--Coin945 (talk) 13:36, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm active for a day or two every few months. I see a few others editing the lists also. - TB (talk) 14:53, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
I do quite a lot on the Catholic Encylopedia (WP:CATH) although it's been quiet for a while. JASpencer (talk) 16:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. I know lately the "Wikipedian elite" have been scaring everyone away, so its only natural that lots of projects have tumbleweed flying passed them (:P). I'm still dedicated to pitching in, although I don't really want to touch the maintanence side of things (updating percentages etc.). I'll sign up now.
WP:WP DNB is active enough, though the discussion is mainly about "issues" rather than how much is getting done. It was a subproject here but clearly was going to need a forum of its own. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
I do tiny bits of edits here and there (usually using the red link recovery to find articles and create redirects) and subsequently removing blue links from random pages. Gnomish work I know but it keeps me occupied. ;)Calaka (talk) 12:37, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie[edit]

There's a complete listing of the biographies from this PD work from the nineteenth century, which is posted in its entirety on the German Wikisource. The pages can be found in Category:Missing encyclopedic articles (Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie). I'll add more explanation on the pages there: this is hot off the press. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

A Spanish dictionary from 1845...[edit]

...with biographies of women, in 3 volumes:

Regards. emijrp (talk) 20:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Dictionary of New Zealand Biography[edit]

I've been doing some script-assisted work on the articles in Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/NZ/Dictionary of New Zealand Biography. I've done all the articles that I believe can be scripted. Could someone go through and remove the blue links? See also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_New_Zealand#Wikipedia:WikiProject_Missing_encyclopedic_articles.2FNZ.2FDictionary_of_New_Zealand_Biography where I fine-tuned my script with subject experts. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Repopulated Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/List of notable albums[edit]

Hi. I've repopulated Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/List of notable albums with newly identified "notable albums" specifically in the jazz category from the "core collection" lists of The Penguin Guide to Jazz. I've got a couple of questions about how to best handle this. The list is formatted as a table because it includes information that will be of benefit to people starting articles - including and especially links to the source that helps verify their notability. I don't know how to automatically number tables, though, so that the numbers will be adjusted as items are removed. Does anybody else know? Is there some other good way to include article counts? Without those, generating percent completed will be difficult.

And speaking of which, in terms of determining percent complete, should that be tabulated by adding these to the beginning number of articles that were on the list? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately there doesn't seem to automatically number the rows in a table. It would be nice if there were a macro-command or variable that would return the row number, but I couldn't find anything like that. The nearest thing we have are the <ref> tags, which perhaps you could exploit in some manner. (Maybe give it a group name of "row", for example.) Nice work on the table. Regards, RJH (talk) 03:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you! Credit for that goes to User:Gyrofrog, who put it together. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:HighBeam[edit]

Wikipedia:HighBeam describes a limited opportunity for Wikipedia editors to have access to HighBeam Research.
Wavelength (talk) 18:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

WP: MeSH[edit]

The link in the lists table that alleges to be to "Medical Subject Headings" (MeSH) instead links to WikiProject U.S. Roads/Maine (ME State Highways?). Would someone care to locate where this is supposed to go to and fix it? Dybeck (talk) 11:58, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

The list of mesh codes is located at List of MeSH codes, however it is not really a list of missing articles. --WS (talk) 08:21, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Missing articles by language[edit]

I've popped up a new tool on the toolserver to list articles in a given Wikipedia that contain many interlanguage links, but that do not link to the English-language Wikipedia. This is very similar to the pre-prepared de, es and fr reports used here. If it's useful, it can be expanded to cover more languages or display a more selective set of results. - TB (talk) 20:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

This looks like a really useful tool. I hope you will continue to improve it and expand the number of languages etc. I would definitely like more languages included, especially Swedish. Also, would it be possible to choose any number of iw-links, not just 3,5,10,20?
I would like an option to remove all the iw-links from the result list and just show the number of links. Also options to view more results at the same page and sort them not only alphabetically but also by the highest number of links. The User 567 (talk) 14:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
No problem. Will fiddle with this some more over the next few days. Watch this space. - TB (talk) 08:42, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks TB. I used your tool to search the sv wiki and didn't really solve much (just Orangutan interwikis), but it did prompt me to create a new article: Pelle Svanslös. A very famous character in Sweden (and Finland) but probably only borderline notable for en wiki. --Mais oui! (talk) 13:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

It fails for the Dutch wiki with the error: "Connect failed: Unknown database 'duwiki_p'". Probably because it uses du instead of nl? --WS (talk) 13:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Dutch fixed, along with a few others. All Wikipedia with more than 100000 articles can now be searched. - TB (talk) 13:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
I've gone and added this tool to the project page - TB (talk) 22:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

List of several thousand reviews of encyclopedia and other reference sources available on e-mail request[edit]

Personally, I love the idea of this project, and would very much like to see it become much more active. One of the ways to help wikipedia as a whole find which encyclopedic articles it is missing is by finding the encyclopedias that are already out there, and then what content they have. I acknowledge up front that there are a hugh number of specialist encyclopedias, probably somewhere in the multiple thousands. But, considering we ourselves have several thousand WikiProjects to deal with various kinds of material, that really isn't that many per topic - probably, in general, maybe a dozen or two per individual WikiProject.

In fact, I have gathered together a list of all the book reviews I could find on JSTOR which seem to be specifically reviews of books called encyclopedias, dictionaries, or similar terms. And, yes, there are a few thousand such reviews. I am starting, slowly admittedly, on putting together a central list for philosophy/religion projects, at User:John Carter/Religion reference, but would very much welcome any help in assembling similar lists which could be given to individual WikiProjects. If anyone had any interest in doing so, they should feel free to drop me an e-mail and I can send them the full list of citations and reviews I got from JSTOR. I acknowledge up front that some specialist topics, like maybe woodworking, are not very much covered in academic reference journals, but rather trade/technical journals. I will try to get to them later. But, I do believe that it would be very useful to all of us if we had a clearer idea of what other reference sources do and do not include on given topics, and maybe what they say about them. John Carter (talk) 16:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Bibliography of encyclopedias[edit]

The above page, and its subpages, have recently been created. Personally, it seems to me that these pages would provide an excellent starting point for any individuals interested in finding what "missing encyclopedic articles" might be out there, as, I think pretty much by definition, any subject which has a substantive article in an encyclopedia is an "encyclopedic article," so any substantive articles which do not have, under some name, relevant content to them here might be counted as "missing" here. I myself think the goal of this particular WikiProject is one of the most important ones here, and I think that developing this page, and its related pages, would be an excellent first step in determining what missing encyclopedic articles exist on various subjects. On that basis, I very much encourage the members of this project to help develop it, and, possibly, ultimately, at their approval of course, maybe subpages of "missing articles" related to their subjects for the various other WikiProjects out there. John Carter (talk) 15:46, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Index of Malawi-related articles[edit]

Index of Malawi-related articles has been nominated for deletion. I appreciate the continent of Africa is underrepresented on Wikipedia and am wondering whether someone active in this project can suggest a better location for the hundreds of redlinks currently in the list. Sionk (talk) 14:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it can be moved here Wikipedia:List of missing Africa topics temporarily or a subheading can be placed on that page under Mali.Calaka (talk) 11:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Could the list be moved to Wikipedia:List of missing Malawi topics (removing the bluelinks in the process) and be brought under the ambit of a project? The number of redlinks is vast - it's clearly not appropriate as a normal list article. Sionk (talk) 18:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Errors in template[edit]

Template:Project missing articles currently lists "0%" completion for Encyclopedia Biblica. However, [Wikipedia:Encyclopaedia Biblica topics]] currently claims around 60% completion. I was going to just fix the template myself, but not being a member of this project and not really being sure (and given that "60%" is an estimate) I decided to post here first. What gives? elvenscout742 (talk) 06:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Question about possible specific lists for individual WikiProjects[edit]

Like I said above, I've started lists of articles, including both those that do and don't exist here yet, for several WikiProjects, generally those which are religion related, but at least a few others. I think it might be a good idea to get more of these pages, and to if possible link them through some sort of categorization. What sort of category name do any other editors here think would be the best name for pages of that sort? John Carter (talk) 16:25, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

VisualEditor is coming[edit]

The WP:VisualEditor is designed to let people edit without needing to learn wikitext syntax. The articles will look (nearly) the same in the new edit "window" as when you read them (aka WYSIWYG), and changes will show up as you type them, very much like writing a document in a modern word processor. The devs currently expect to deploy the VisualEditor as the new site-wide default editing system in early July 2013.

About 2,000 editors have tried out this early test version so far, and feedback overall has been positive. Right now, the VisualEditor is available only to registered users who opt-in, and it's a bit slow and limited in features. You can do all the basic things like writing or changing sentences, creating or changing section headings, and editing simple bulleted lists. It currently can't either add or remove templates (like fact tags), ref tags, images, categories, or tables (and it will not be turned on for new users until common reference styles and citation templates are supported). These more complex features are being worked on, and the code will be updated as things are worked out. Also, right now you can only use it for articles and user pages. When it's deployed in July, the old editor will still be available and, in fact, the old edit window will be the only option for talk pages (I believe that WP:Notifications (aka Echo) is ultimately supposed to deal with talk pages).

The developers are asking editors like you to join the alpha testing for the VisualEditor. Please go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing and tick the box at the end of the page, where it says "Enable VisualEditor (only in the main namespace and the User namespace)". Save the preferences, and then try fixing a few typos or copyediting a few articles by using the new "Edit" tab instead of the section [Edit] buttons or the old editing window (which will still be present and still work for you, but which will be renamed "Edit source"). Fix a typo or make some changes, and then click the 'save and review' button (at the top of the page). See what works and what doesn't. We really need people who will try this out on 10 or 15 pages and then leave a note Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback about their experiences, especially if something mission-critical isn't working and doesn't seem to be on anyone's radar.

Also, if any of you are involved in template maintenance or documentation about how to edit pages, the VisualEditor will require some extra attention. The devs want to incorporate things like citation templates directly into the editor, which means that they need to know what information goes in which fields. Obviously, the screenshots and instructions for basic editing will need to be completely updated. The old edit window is not going away, so help pages will likely need to cover both the old and the new.

If you have questions and can't find a better place to ask them, then please feel free to leave a message on my user talk page, and perhaps together we'll be able to figure it out. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Correction: Talk pages are being replaced by mw:Flow, not by Notifications/Echo. This may happen even sooner than the VisualEditor. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Encylopedia of the Enlightenment[edit]

This is another encyclopedia, published in the same way as the ODNB (print edition, updated online edition behind a paywall). I've written a 'unified' way to add references and cite it, but I need feedback before I actually put this into 'live' articles. I'm not a WP coding expert, and I don't want to break anything.

Please take a look at User:Revent/UID/ISBNs/Oxford_Reference/EncycOfEnlight, and let me know what you think.

I've actually been 'indexing' and grabbing general reference lists out of the 'paid' articles on the Oxford Reference site, mainly to create a 'bibliography' of the DNB/ODNB articles that are stubs for reference when they are expanded. This would let editors who can't see the actual paid content still use the source list. This is intended as part of that effort. I want to do the same kind of thing for other content like this, and for the 'commonly used' sources that these encyclopedias repeatedly cite.

While checking for actual use of the ISBNs in citations shows essentially nothing, a search for the phrase "Encyclopedia of the Enlightenment" returns over 7,000 hits.

Thanks. Revent (talk) 22:19, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

a useful userpage[edit]

Here - User:Praemonitus/Who's Who - "a list of women selected from the 1914 Woman's Who's Who of America that did not have an article as of May, 2013, but who, through Google searches, showed evidence of being able to satisfy the Wikipedia notability criteria". DS (talk) 15:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Come and join The Wikipedia Library[edit]

The Wikipedia Library is an open research hub, a place for organizing our amazing community of research and reference experts to collaborate and help improve the encyclopedia.

We are working together towards 5 big goals:

Connect editors with their local library and freely accessible resources
Partner to provide free access to paywalled publications, databases, universities, and libraries
Build relationships among our community of editors, libraries, and librarians
Facilitate research for Wikipedians, helping editors to find and use sources
Promote broader open access in publishing and research

Sign up to receive announcements and news about resource donations and partnerships: Sign up
Come and create your profile, and see how we can leverage your talent, expertise, and dedication: Join in

-Hope to see you there, Ocaasi t | c 14:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

My missing topics pages[edit]

I have updated the Missing topics pages (except for Chemistry that, for some reason, refuses to update; attempts end with error messages and timeouts) - Skysmith (talk) 10:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Great stuff! It's been a while since I've worked in missing articles, but this might prompt a return. Moswento talky 08:54, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Thompson-Reuters most cited scientists[edit]

Per the discussion at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions#“The Distorted Mirror of Wikipedia: a Quantitative Analysis of Wikipedia Coverage of Academics”, I have created a page for Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Thompson-Reuters most cited scientists, but it is very short at the moment, listing only 34 of the 6,000+ names identified by Thompson-Reuters. I plan to expand it further, but if anyone else wants to do so, please do. bd2412 T 23:39, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Nice idea. Obviously that 6000 articles will require years to be created, but we are doing ok with creating lists of missing topics. --emijrp (talk) 16:07, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I would hope that this list would be a priority, given the negative attention directed to the lack of coverage of its members. bd2412 T 04:05, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

New tool[edit]

Hi, I wrote a new tool that seems relevant to this endeavor here :-) Basically, it allows for easier, more fine-grained matching of third-party articles to Wikidata items (and thereby, Wikipedia articles). I'll be happy to add more catalogs if there's something you'd like. --Magnus Manske (talk) 08:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Encyclopaedia Britannica[edit]

I have created a new subproject called Wikipedia:WikiProject Encyclopaedia Britannica to give people editing in that area a focus point (all of course welcome). -- PBS (talk) 13:13, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Museo del Prado encyclopedia[edit]

Here is a list of painters and other artists (many Spanish ones). It is an encyclopedia of Museo del Prado. It is not free, but the index is useful to discover missing articles. emijrp (talk) 16:17, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to User Study[edit]

Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Wikipedia community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 22:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC).

Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Movies/M-Q[edit]

Hello friends I recently found that the films under the list Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Movies/M-Q are already there on Wikipedia .So I created redirects and removed those names from the list. Sorry if I have done anything wrong,but I have seen that most entries on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Missing_encyclopedic_articles/Movies ,Wikipedia:WikiProject_Missing_encyclopedic_articles/Actors have their articles yet their names haven't been removed.I want to be an active contributor to this project .I think I can do a lot of work for this project .Skr15081997 (talk) 12:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


Selection from Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/ADB[edit]

Is there an easy way to do a short sublist from the above based what can be also be found at ADB+Schweiz (2724)? -- 签名 sig at 19:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to Participate in a User Study - Final Reminder[edit]

Would you be interested in participating in a user study of a new tool to support editor involvement in WikiProjects? We are a team at the University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within WikiProjects, and we are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visual exploration tool for Wikipedia. Given your interest in this Wikiproject, we would welcome your participation in our study. To participate, you will be given access to our new visualization tool and will interact with us via Google Hangout so that we can solicit your thoughts about the tool. To use Google Hangout, you will need a laptop/desktop, a web camera, and a speaker for video communication during the study. We will provide you with an Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 16:40, 5 March 2014 (UTC).

Missing directors[edit]

I recently submitted a few redirects from IMDB's Directors of 50+ movies to WP:AFC on behalf of the wikiproject. The majority were created but some were rejected (even after I added sources).

72.74.206.229 (talk) 13:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 02:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC).

Missing palaeontology articles[edit]

I've compiled a list[23] of pages that contains red links to genus names that should all be articles. I'll copy it here:

As is evident, that is quite a lot. Without a bot, or an intensive user effort, it will never be completed. FunkMonk (talk) 03:40, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

There are 5138 redlinks, by memory, full list here Feel free to copy it on-wiki. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 04:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC).
Rich I will copy the missing paleontology articles list. Should I create User:Rich_Farmbrough/wanted/paleontology or just create it under this project. What do you say?--Skr15081997 (talk) 05:14, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Under this project is probably best. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 13:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC).

Missing saints[edit]

I have created a list of missing saints at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Rich_Farmbrough/wanted/saints .

Of course many of these will be redirects, but please feel free to copy the list to English Wikipedia somewhere User:Rich Farmbrough/wanted/saints if you wish.

I cannot do this myself because it is currently being debated whether this is allowed under restrictions forbidding me from doing anything but "typing in the box". All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 04:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC).

Yes check.svg Done I have created it under your userspace.--Skr15081997 (talk) 05:28, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks! All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 13:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC).