Bvio.com talk:Requested articles

From Bvio.com

I think R. A. Salvatore is an author.


I thought this page needed some work, so I've done a so-so rearrangement; it needs more attention, though. I did merge the "needs review" stuff back into the main body; I think that makes the page a little cleaner and perhaps will be more likely to encourage someone to review the articles and then remove their links from here. --loh (2001-07-20)


Yep, looks good, Larry! --LMS


I just added about a dozen topics from [1] -- topics popular Sept. 12-14. I think if we keep up with that list and have articles on "what's happening" online, we can potentially increase our traffic by quite a bit. Bonus points if you write a really long good article on the popular topic.

Let me add that I don't think these topics have any sort of intrinsic merit, and I don't want Wikipedia to specialize as an encyclopedia of pop culture. I just want to increase traffic and activity, that's all. --Larry Sanger


02 October 2001: I suggest we include the date posted on all Requested articles and if nobody picks them up within a given time (60 days?) we delete them as uninteresting. If they really are worthwhile, somebody will eventually re-post them.

(Does the Wikipedia really cry out for articles on dog and pony show? drama queen?)

There is no reason to remove old requested articles. New contributors are joining everyday. Prince Charming has not stepped in the room yet. You cannot say he will never show up. If these requests stay on the page, someone will write about them sooner or later. Why the 60 days expiration?

Interesting idea. But I don't think Wikipedia has to cry out for an article on anything, it doesn't have a limited space for articles. Isnt' it enough that someone who came to wikipedia and wanted to read on a topic thought it was important enough to ask for an article about it?


When a requested article is written, should I delete the reference here? Should I move it to a section for completed requests (my preference)? Or just leave it? ---hajhouse

We now have Requested articles/Deemed complete-ish for this purpose (thanks Manning!) -- Claudine



Whoever cleaned up the editing window recently (18 October 2001) (Larry?), thanks!


Mel Blanc is Bugs Bunny's voice; Tex Avery directed and drew. Check out the Maltin bio on IMDb: http://us.imdb.com/Bio?Blanc,+Mel and on Tex Avery: http://us.imdb.com/Bio?Avery,+Tex


I'm thinking this page is much less useful with all the stub articles on it. I propose to remove them--going back to the way the page was originally--perhaps to a page of their own, but probably just completely. Simplicity is sometimes a virtue, and I think it would be here. A completely unwritten article is a lot more compelling than one that has a stub entry. Maybe we can use that articles-that-need-work page (whatever it's called) to suggest that some particular stub be improved. See, Magnus' software will identify stubs automatically, and heck, there are zillions of stubs that aren't listed on the page. Any objections? --LMS

I agree completely! I don't know where the 'deemed complete-ish' came from, but it's not a good idea, either. Nothing ever seems to get removed from there. --MichaelTinkler

Well, no one else has commented, and I just noticed (again) yet another redundant page, Wikipedia utilities/find or fix a stub. I am going to delete the stubs and redirect people to that page from requested articles for all their stub-filling-out needs. --LMS


"[Les Champs Magnetiques]? (if that refers to the [Jean-Michel Jarre]? album, it should be "chants", not "champs")"

No, it refers to the book by Andre Breton and Philippe Soupault, to which, I'll bet, the title of Jarre's album is an allusion. --user:Daniel C. Boyer

Is it appropriate to bring up (in the relevant articles) (such as on the STASI, the United States Secret Service, the FBI etc.) some people's allegations that these are secret police agencies, their reasons for so saying, and the arguments of those who hold the opposing viewpoint? Just asking about the best way to deal with this question from a NPOV. --user:Daniel C. Boyer


Wouldn't it be easier for people to find topics they can contribute, if it is organized by major-minor catagories the same way as starting page is? --User:vovkav

Probably, but the people who make requests don't usually bother to classify. If you'd care to do the sorting, it would be a help. Vicki Rosenzweig

Halloween costume has been classified as both a requested (i.e., non-existent) article and a "popular search" since Halloween of 2001. Anybody want to start this one?

Congratulations, you've just volunteered! Now get crackin'. --Brion

... any Lafontaine; but why not foremost the one who is said in the Point on ESPRIT in L'Encyclop�die to have expressed "l' esprit na�v".

Thanks, Frank W ~@) R, Jan. 6, 10:08 PST


If I try and edit this page, it all comes out double-spaced! argh! Anyway, I only wanted to remove the what Nupedia wants link... Martin

I've removed the link (and made the bullet-pointed list work while I was at it). You should be able to edit it now - a stack of stray line breaks seem to have crept into the text which was causing the double-spacing - I've taken them out. --Camembert


Hmm - it now looks bust to me. See from "Government / Politics / Social Issues:" below - Civil Disorder and computerized postage should be on the same line - they used to be anyway. Martin
You're right - it had inserted blank links where previously there were none (and where I somehow failed to noticed them). Why it did this is beyond me, but I've taken them out again, and it should (should) be OK again now. --Camembert

this article needs major housekeeping. i will do it later tonight. Kingturtle 18:43 Apr 12, 2003 (UTC)

Who wished the article about Pretzh, Germany? There is no city nor municipality of that name in Germany, it only has one called Pretz, and that is a part of the small muncicipality Tittling. I doubt it has much to write about that one; and it has no article linking it anyway. andy 12:28 May 13, 2003 (UTC)
It has been removed. Kingturtle 03:08 16 May 2003 (UTC)

Frankly, my dears. Personally I think this article should be split into smaller portions. But how to decide where to cut off? Cimon Avaro on a pogo stick 06:43 25 May 2003 (UTC)


Under Geography:Great Britain I think Cambria is intended to be Cumbria, for which an article exists-haven't looked at how detailed it is. Berek 10 June 2003 No - Cumbria is the most north-westerly county of England, Cambria is the old placename for Wales. I'll go and make a starter page in just a moment.


  • Overall, in the Mathematics pages, I expected to see more proofs. Currently, it is just a list of definitions. Perhaps these should be on separate pages?
  • On the contrary, this is an encyclopedia, and I think that most mathematical proofs would be out of place (too detailed, too technical). What I would personally love to see is overviews of connectivity among mathematical topics. For instance, ".. and so number theory has often been thought to be the purest of mathematical topics, having no relevance to the real world. G H Hardy certainly thought so, see his Mathematicians's Apology. But, it has been discovered that number theory does have real world applications. For instance, --packing theory and xxx and yyy and zzz --. It is currently expected that applications will develop for number theory in qqq as well. Surprisingly, Riemann was able to prove a theorem about the distribution of primes could be proved by using the calculus, which is about as far from number theory as any part of mathematics. Or at least it was thought to be. Connections between algebraic structures theory and quantum mechanics ...". This sort of thing would be ideally suited to an encyclopedia, at least after a definition and short explanation of <whatever>. Perhaps references to other sites for the proofs?
  • Having proofs on Wikipedia would be nessecary for a well-developed Mathematics section. Perhaps they could be created as a separate page - for instace, Pythagorean Theorem and Proofs for the Pythagorean Theorem.
According to the heuristic that an encyclopedia is supposed to be a concise summary of knowledge, what in a math book would one omit to make a condensed summary? Given that you'd still want to include the new terms and their definitions, I argue that the proofs would have to be the chief casualty. Short proofs of important things are fine, but, please, not the 600+ pages and computer programs needed for the Four-color theorem. :-) Stan 17:00 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
An encyclopedia is supposed to be a summary of all knowledge, but bear in mind that different encyclopedias have differents focuses. An encyclopedia of the American history would have a much larger entry on the USS Maine than a general encyclopedia. Print encyclopedias cut things because they lack space to put them in with the topic remit that they have. Wikipedia doesn't suffer from that limitation, and thus concerns about a certain level of detail are surely far less of a problem than for a paper product. However, posting the full proof of the four colour theorem would be a bit too far I think! David Newton 16:12 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Big white blob

Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump on Tuesday, July 8th, 2003.

Something I caught moments of on the news last night but didn't see in full -- some sort of weird white blob thing on a beach in south america. what is it and do we need an article on it?

Google is your friend...
Sounds fun. But is there enough info for an article? --Menchi 09:08 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Let's keep an eye on the story. When they announce which species it is, we can add (or create) to the article for that species and mention "in ... 2003, a ... was found washed up ... etc" -- Tarquin 16:16 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)

End moved discussion.

"Beached "blob" mystery solved
Reuters — July 11, 2003
SANTIAGO, Chile —Chilean scientists say their study of a huge blob of flesh found on a Pacific beach about three weeks ago has found it is the carcass of a sperm whale, ending speculation of a giant octopus." [2]
So, no article needed. -- till we *) 17:37, Aug 3, 2003 (UTC)

Is The Weather Forcast (sp??) different from meteorology? If not why create it?


I removed Linear representation (already covered under Group representation), Orbit (Group theory) (already covered under Orbit (mathematics)) , Quotient topology (already covered under Quotient space), Homotopy theory (already covered under Homotopy).

Good. We should probably have redirects, though, since the ones listed came from other already existing articles. -- Schnee 01:28, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)

There are now 44 "List of..." requests. Are these really necessary? Kingturtle 03:50, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)


I added a short article on Conestoga Parkway as requested. There don't appear to be any links to it. Does anyone know why it was requested? It's not a very interesting piece of road. DJ Clayworth 14:17, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)


Surrealist subjects to be moved under art or not?

Surrealism should not have been moved to under art. Surrealist techniques that can loosely be described as being artistic might be placed under art, but as surrealism in general is not an artistic movement, and has and will give[n] rise to requests that are not artistic in nature (for example, Dialectique de dialectique), it should be a separate category. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:19, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Surrealism is considered an artistic movement by the several mainstream sources I consulted in an effort to understand this point of yours. I checked two print encyclopedias and three general-interest books on surrealism that I was able to obtain at a local library. All of these consider surrealism to be an artistic movement, though there was some acknowlegement of surrealism in poetry.
Further, all these sources considered the surrealist movement to have ended in the late 1960s.
Your edits claiming that surrealism is (a) not an artistic movement and (b) something that continues to have comparable importance today to its importance in the post-WWII era are a novel POV not supported by the references I have checked. I realize that there is a community of modern-day surrealists that feels otherwise, but their wishes do not make it so. Louis Kyu Won Ryu 23:26, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Given that my point concerned primary sources that have been either been misinterpreted, or (more probably, as the distortion has been so complete) misrepresented by secondary sources, your consultation merely of secondary sources is questionable here. Read Breton's Manifesto of Surrealism, for example, and tell me what any of it has to do with an artistic movement.
(re mainly an artistic movement) This is pretty hilarious, given that surrealism had its start in poetry and automatic writing and it was initially debated whether there could even be such a thing as surrealist painting.
(re ending in 1960s) No objective event has corresponded to the constantly-shifting and ridiculously contradictory and constantly-updated obituaries anti-surrealists keep pronouncing for the movement. In fact, the mid- and late-1960s saw a dramatic expansion of surrealism geographically and in terms of activity, with, among other things, the founding in 1966 of the Surrealist Movement in the United States. There is no break between the surrealism of the late 1960s and later and earlier surrealism; there is an uninterrupted historical continuity between the two (which are in fact one). But for a mainstream source refuting this: would you except The Dictionary of Art, published by Grove? Here is the beginning of the last paragraph of the article on surrealism says:
Breton's death in 1966 left no heir who could impose cohesion, although some activity continued in Brussels (with [[Marcel Mari�n]] and the painters Jane Graverol and Felix Labisse), Prague (with the artists Jiri Kolar, Josef Istler, Eva Svankmajerova and the film maker Jan Svankmajer) and Chicago (coordinated by Franklin Rosemont).
So (although it drastically understates the true situation) there is acknowledgment in this mainstream source about surrealism continuing after the 1960s). --Daniel C. Boyer 20:20, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
(re comparable importance today vs post-WWII era) This cannot be objectively argued, but the fact that art historians and others whose careers are irrelevant to surrealism have decided to lose interest do not reflect on its importance, in my view. I would say that it is not a POV, and if it is, it was the POV of Breton and the early surrealists and of every surrealist right up until the present day.
(re wishes of modern day community of surrealists) And the wishes of anti-surrealists who wish to have done with surrealism, pronouncing its death in the abscence of any reason to say it whatsoever -- I would challenge you to provide one -- do not make it dead. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:27, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)
This explains some more of it. --Daniel C. Boyer 21:10, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)
You may wish to check out this source text, to which I am a signatory, which is on point: "Craven Destiny". --Daniel C. Boyer 17:39, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I am assembling "mainstream" sources that support what I have been maintaining. Though it is not completely accurate, you can find some support for my position on the webpage of the Detroit Institute of Arts exhibition Surrealist Vision and Technique: Drawings and Collages from the Pompidou Center and the Picasso Museum, Paris, on which it says, "It was less a distinct style than a set of attitudes and beliefs about art, personal life and society, conceptualized by a diverse set of artists and writers who associated with each other in Paris in the 1920s and 1930s." Though it is not true that only artists and writers were and are surrealists, you can see that it mentions writers, and you can see that the definition is broader than that of a mere art movement. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:18, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)
You may also want to read (if you can read French) [[Le Punching-Ball et la Vache � lait : La Critique universitaire nord-am�ricaine face au Surr�alisme]]. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:04, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I'm only a newbie here, but couldn't this information have been better used to create an article on Surrealism rather than arguing about whether it's art or not? Phil 15:38, Oct 24, 2003 (UTC)
Yes, but obviously this argument is going to have an impact on the development of the page. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:12, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
So why not create the page, using the material above, and then have a discussion on the related talk page about how to develop it? Surely this would be better than arguing about whether to create it at all. Or have I missed something excrutiatingly obvious to older Wiki hands? Phil 10:21, Oct 27, 2003 (UTC)
The page already exists, and I would argue that it is pretty much accurate. The argument here was over the heading Surrealism on the Requested articles page, and things about surrealism not having to do with art being under it. --Daniel C. Boyer 16:47, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)
OK, sorry, my misunderstanding. I'll get my coat :-) Phil 08:02, Oct 30, 2003 (UTC)

This metapage is getting huge. I think we need to break it up into sub-metapages. Kingturtle 00:23, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Either that or tidy it up. I think there's a lot on there that would likely end up deleted if someone did create it as being a dictionary definition or otherwise unsuitable for an article. Angela 00:39, Oct 7, 2003 (UTC)
But can we delete 20 kilobytes worth without stepping on toes? We certainly want to respect the requests of users. My approach to Requested articles has been to allow any requests. After all, who am I to decide what constitutes a legitimate request? Maybe we (those who frequent the maintenance of this page) could come to an agreement as to what can be removed. Kingturtle 01:21, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)
How about dividing it up according to the Major Themes on the Main Page? Or maybe as in Wikipedia arranged by topic Phil 17:04, Oct 24, 2003 (UTC)
I removed some of the List requests. Some were outlandish. Some were already articles, just phrased differently. Kingturtle 10:54, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)

We already have articles on Athens, Heraklion and Thessaloniki (note correct spellings). Why do we need additional articles on their "greater areas"?



List of craters on Io - that must be a joke, since there are *no* impact craters on Io, because the lava from the surface quickly erase them.

<<
Io and Europa are both geologically very active. Therefore, and impacts are quickly erased. Io's surface is also fluid-like enough that craters seldom form. This is similar to the effects of throwing pebbles into a pond, evidence of the impact disappears quickly.
>>

from http://einstein.stcloudstate.edu/nook/study/Foundations/ch24/ch24.html Bogdan 08:48, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

re: *not* separating new entries

this metapage maintains many categories for various requests. the point is to make it easier for people with specific interests and expertizes to find requests they can work on. i'd rather not have listings that are not under specific categories. it'll get messy and confusing, IMHO. Kingturtle 23:10, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

orphan pages

I redirected two pages to an already existing page and removed the links from this page. Now when I checked what links to these two requested articles I found that there were no links. So they are now orphans! Is this true for every requested page? Should one create a link deliberately from somewhere? KRS 09:03, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Order of Promotion to Recent Changes Page

Is there any systematic way that requested pages are presented on the Recent Changes page. What it seems like now (or at least, what I have been doing) is taking pages that I think are important and listing them there when a space becomes available. That reflects my whims and my whims only. I based my decisions (e.g. Wallace Stegner, Louis Botha, Havelock Ellis, Middle Passage) on topics that I personally think are important, though people will disagree with me. I glanced percursorily at the Requests for Music page and ignored the Requests for Math and Sports pages, which may have been wrong.

Ideally, some kind of ranking would ensure that various other topics get a chance to be covered as well. Also, time spent on the Requested Article page should also be a factor in promotion, as should significance of the topic and likelihood that an article will be written about it in a relatively short time? Or maybe I am just making things more complicated ... Curious to hear what others think. Danny 22:24, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Whenever I change them, I just pick random things on the Requested Articles page that I think would be interesting. It's completely subjective :) Adam Bishop 22:27, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Geography section

The geography section basically links to a list of dozens of requested political boundaraies (cites, towns and other governmental dictricts). So a requested article on landforms, water features, sea forms or general topograph issues would get lost. Is there any way to fix this, or is it a Catch 22? Davodd 20:24, Dec 13, 2003 (UTC)


One of the requested sex/uro/gyno articles in on "queening". Having never seen the term before, I looked it up:

Queening: When a woman sits astride a person's face and forces her cunt into their mouth and nose. Could be simply for cunnilingus or practised as a form of breath control. [3]

Is this worthy of an article, or should we just strip it from the list? --Raul654 08:13, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

It would be in an encyclopedia of sex, wouldn't it? Then it is worthy of an article here provided sufficient encyclopedic could be said (which it probably could, given the right author). --Morven 10:53, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Professor Sir Roy Meadow

Where should an article on this man go: Crime/Forensics', Medicine &c, People? Phil 16:13, Dec 22, 2003 (UTC)

Sex/Urno/Gyno articles

I'm making a conscious effort to clear out this catagory (well over a dozen written so far), but there are so many. --Raul654 06:27, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Articles from other wikipedias

Some other lanaguage wikipedias have already some articles that are much more detailed than our English articles.

We should have a page to list these languages and where wikipedians can see which articles can be translated in English.

for example:

French

German

  • etc

It could be named Wikipedia:Requested article translations or Wikipedia:Articles in other languages or something like this. Bogdan 09:28, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Just remember - the french have the Picard dialect, and the english speakers have Jean Luc. I think we got the better end of the deal :) --Raul654 09:46, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Farming Articles Out to Other Request Lists

I'd just like to express my extreme disapproval for farming articles out to sublists. It makes it amazingly hard to keep track of what is actually requested. I don't really mind if this page particularly long, but I'd much rather have all the requests in one place. I can understand the need to do it in the case of Wikipedia:Requested articles/mathematics and Wikipedia:Requested articles/music, which are both huge. However, I see no reason to have Wikipedia:Requested articles/media or Wikipedia:Requested articles/military, both of which are tiny and just serve to make maintaining this list harder. I don't see them ever getting significantly longer. Unless someone objects, I'm going to revert. →Raul654 11:29, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)

  • Agreed. If people feel the page is too long, they should write some of the articles. Bmills 08:50, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I got in touch with Maio, the guy who was farming them out, and he agreed that it was a bad idea. I spent a couple hours today incorperating all the subpages except math, sports, and music. All 3 of those are huge. Maybe at some future date I'll consider folding them in, but for now, I think this page is good as is. While I was doing the major revision, I reformatted this page to make it more friendly. →Raul654 08:59, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)
To make a point of order, it was *I* would "farmed out" the categories, not Maio. I have been helping maintain this page for almost a year now. I created the subpages because the metapage was approaching 100K. Now that Geography is back in the main metapage, the metapage is at 39K. In my opinion, geography should be re-made into its own category. The subpages are perfectly easy to keep up to date. I was busy this week, so I was not updating them.
I will not move the geography parts again, until we have more dialog about this issue. I want you to know the reason the segments were moved, and the reason is size.
Do NOT "fold in" the other pages. The main metapage needs to be parsed down to under 32K. And in response to the idea of "If people feel the page is too long, they should write some of the articles," I completely disagree. The articles should be written by people who have a specific interest, knowledge or desire - NOT solely because the metapage is too long. Kingturtle 05:28, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I disagree - as someone pointed out, area-specific request pages are siberia - the articles there never get written. In three weeks, maybe a half dozen of the math articles have been written out of hundreds. Yes, this page is long, but not unduly so. I don't think it would be a good idea to fold in any of the three outstanding pages, because that would make this one enormously longer. →Raul654 16:15, Jan 18, 2004 (UTC)
It may be that there are less people who know enough about the math subjects at hand to actually write about them. People with a desire to make new math articles learn to go back to the correct request articles page. It isn't rocket science. In any case, it is important to keep the pages under 32K. Kingturtle 20:21, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
1) "It may be that there are less people who know enough about the math subjects at hand to actually write about them." First, many of the requested articles are not on math topics per se, but on mathematicians themselves. Biographical articles like that require no special technical knowledge to write. It would seem then that there is something else at work. In this case (and someone else said above) - no one knows or cares to look at the subpages. (Mostly the latter).
2) (As a computer engineer:) 32k isn't some magical number. It'd work almost as well at 34k. The village pump sometimes gets up to twice this size (or more), with no noticable problems besides long page-load times. What should be more important is getting the articles written. →Raul654 22:08, Jan 18, 2004 (UTC)

descriptions

In the interest of saving space on this metapage, I think descriptions of requested articles should be held to a minimum. I'd like to remove them all together, actually. What are your thoughts? Kingturtle 20:10, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Short descriptions (2-3 words) are fine by me. Longer ones need to go (be shortened or dumped). →Raul654 22:08, Jan 18, 2004 (UTC)

I've had it - some of these descriptions are long enough to be stubs. I am going to automatically stub articles with extra-long descripts and move them to cleanup and/or need pages. Davodd 23:05, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)

naming of categories

Please see the above conversation regarding how to name the categories on this metapage. It is very important to keep the alphabetization true, and to have it align left. I am making some slight adjustments today to put the alphabetization back to the way it was before. Kingturtle 20:13, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

If you have a subheadings (IE, a ===), then you have to have a heading (==), or else the page doesn't render correctly. The left alignment is important, but not for the TOC. →Raul654 16:15, Jan 18, 2004 (UTC)

geography...

A good number of requests under the Geography do not have to do with geography, per se. Geography implies physical features (rivers, cities). As I recall, before I created the Geography subpage, these were listed as Countries, Afghanistan rather than Geography, Afghanistan. I suggest we change it to Countries, (name of country). Kingturtle 21:34, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

A valid point. I agree. Do you also want to change the heading geography, or just the subheadings? (I'm inclined to keep it under the "Geography" heading) →Raul654 22:08, Jan 18, 2004 (UTC)

I think we should change Geography/Country Specific to Countries and then have the subheadings read Countries, Afghanistan, Countries, Canada etc etc. Kingturtle 22:26, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Depressing

I don't know if anyone here has seen it, but I keep a list of all the articles I've ever requested (by date) over at User:Raul654/Requests. Since January 12, I've requested 39 articles. Exactly two were written. One was a blatant copyright violation and promptly removed. Does this page really have such slow turnover? →Raul654 19:55, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)

Yup, always been that way. Shouldn't be too surprising; writers are more likely to follow their own interests than somebody else's. When it comes to disentangling navy ships, I seem to have all kinds of energy, but Arabic poetry? - not so much, :-) although I'll probably read the article when it exists. Stan 21:57, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Removed Bjarmia from WP:RC to add Moral heirarchy - 戴&#30505sv 17:42, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Could someone explain why this page has every topic listed twice?

Acegikmo1 01:29, Feb 25, 2004 (UTC)

Fixed. 33° 02:02, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Pages with many unfinished links

I'd like to add a category or heading or page for existing pages that contain many "requested" links. For example someone interested in ladybirds could add just "ladybirds". The current (unsatisfactory) way would be to add to the biology section: Seven-spotted lady beetle, Two-spotted lady beetle, Convergent lady beetle, Spotted lady beetle, Twice-stabbed lady beetle, Mexican bean beetle, etc, etc. that's kinda long and much more annoying than just ladybird.

I'd create a wikipedia:List of articles with many unfinished links: page or heading myself but i dont know what to call it or where to put it.

Pengo 11:25, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Question about listing REDIRs on Requested articles page

Should redirects be listed here since they are live links, or should they be moved to cleanup? It seems like many of them become disambig pages, anyway. Davodd 00:11, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)

SIZE

The size of this page is getting large again. I recommend we move part of it to Wikipedia:Requested articles/geography. Kingturtle 03:59, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

What do you mean? Should part of the talk page be archived? Or should part of the actual Wikipedia:Requested articles page be moved to the talk page? Acegikmo1 04:13, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Oops. i made a typo....I mean, we should make a subpage like Wikipedia:Requested articles/sports. Kingturtle 04:18, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I agree. The geography section comprises too large a part of the main page and should be separated. But, now that I think about it, this talk page is pretty huge too...
Acegikmo1 04:48, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Many new article requests listed under geography have nothing to do with geography. Davodd 11:32, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)

I agree in principle, except I think that the subpages (Wikipedia:Requested articles/sports and Wikipedia:Requested articles/music don't get enough attention. Practically all the requests that appear on the top bar are from the Wikipedia:Requested articles main page. Danny 04:21, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I strongly disagree - subpages are very harmful! The current ones we have are practically siberia. I think if you averaged it out, it would come out to approximately 1.5 requested sports articles get written per day; 2-3 math articles, and 3-4 music articles. At that rate, it'd be years before they all get written. The last thing we want to do is farm out more articles to those pages. →Raul654 04:52, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)

  • Oppose new subpages; it dooms good requests to Siberia. I think we should prune the list of articles likely to be nominated for VFD or replace long categories with pre-existing list pages. For example, maybe we could replace the very long list of African writers requested with, See: List of African writers. Davodd 11:26, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)

I support the idea of more subpages. They are far more useful than having one page which is made largely uneditable by its size. If all the current subpages were merged here, the page would be 132kb. The page is more scalable if it is kept organised by subpage rather than trying to keep too much in one place. If the subpages aren't getting enough attention, they just need to be advertised more, not merged into the main page. Angela. 00:28, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)

Policy

The policy of Wikipedia:Requested articles this page is to remove articles as they are written. You can tell that an article is written (or at least started) because the link will be live (stubs count).

stubs count, buton to which count? I presume it is counted as an article that's no more Requested. Any way, it helps to make it clear. -- Sundar 12:33, May 7, 2004 (UTC)

This page can be made obsolete by categories

Category pages can contain a list of unwritten articles. See Category:Anthropology as an example. This approach is preferable to the current one, in my opinion, because the individual lists become much more maintainable (shorter pages, single history, single discussion page) and much more exposed (directly reachable from all articles in that category).

The one thing which is a bit awkward about this approach is that the requested articles are shown before the actual articles in a category. I believe this can be easily fixed by simply changing the software to show the text of the category page below the subcategories and articles.--Eloquence* 22:53, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm... We'd lose the ease of a central point of reference for requested articles, and maintaining the lists of unwritten articles would still require manual intervention on each individual category page.
I do generally like the idea, though - it'd be especially useful for those articles that fit multiple categories, and it would allow individual users to keep track of the new requests in their favorite categories without having to worry about other new requests. - jredmond 03:45, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I'm not sure a central point where requests are stored is necessary. Generally we want people to write about what they know and what they are interested in. Aside from that, we still have the single list of "most wanted articles". I don't see how manual intervention can be avoided using human-maintained lists.--Eloquence*
Now that I've had a chance to think about it a bit more, my own arguments fall flat.
A central list is useful for telling newcomers "see, this is what we really need", or for a large single list of to-dos for bored regulars - but I hadn't thought about Special:Wantedpages, and Requested articles has its own subpages anyway, so that point is basically moot.
And the manual intervention bit is really just an added hassle, and then only when a new article is listed as "requested" in several categories; conscientious editors will find and edit all the relevant category pages through "What links here". Plus, hopefully, those people watching category pages will keep them somewhat tidy.
So, AFAIC, moving towards categories would be a good thing. Now we just have to put all these red links onto the appropriate category pages... - jredmond 15:30, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Many users know nothing about categories within wikipedia. It seems to make more sense to maintain a requested articles page, as well as add links to categories, that way it's easier to edit and find such links. Rhymeless 00:56, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It should be enabled in the software for red links to be added to a category without creating the page. Bensaccount 21:37, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

On second thought, it just requires a bit of formatting. I didn't like the format of Category:Anthropology, but if it were done like Category:Airports of Canada it would work. Bensaccount 04:42, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

With the overhaul on April 28, the several new multiple and confusing sub-request pages destroyed the original intent -- and usefulness -- of the centralized requested article page. This page should be reverted back to its original form: EXAMPLE -- or deleted. Davodd 10:45, Jun 19, 2004 (UTC)

internal links of inclusion lists

I removed the internal links of inclusion lists because they cause the user to think the link will take them to requested articles. The only active links on this page should be links that take the user to lists of requests, or other pages that involve requests. Kingturtle 00:01, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Philosophy

Which section should a request for a Philosophy article go in? Cadr 10:10, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Social_Sciences_and_Philosophy
Acegikmo1 23:41, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Oh! I need someone to recreate the PictoChat article. HELP ME! <-( --Tornado Kid 20:20, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC) (a.k.a. WikiPediaAid)

Pins are nice @ Disney Resorts!

WikiPediaAid is wanting an article on Official Disney Pin Trading now!

Biographies Requests

Since biographies are a large part of traditional paper encyclopedias, shouldn't it be more than a hard to find footnote category on the Requested Articles page? I don't want to mess with the page myself, as I've been away from Wikipedia for a while, but it should be more visible.

jbrave

I'm not sure under which category to request an article

I would like to request an article about Jasper Holmes but can't decide which heading to put him under on the request page. Just before the WW11 Battle of Midway, the US had no cryptographic way of determining Japan's code name for Midway. They had cracked Japan's JN-25 code and knew the target was AF, but didn't know where AF was located. Holmes, a young US naval officer, very cunningly tricked the Japanese into revealing that AF was Midway. Anyone got a suggestion on what category to use? (When I say category I don't mean category. Moriori 22:09, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

When did World War 11 occur? ;-) func(talk) 16:54, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
History I guess...but you seem to know enough about him to write an article yourself (or at least a stub). Adam Bishop 00:11, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I guess you're right. Stub it is. Cheers. Moriori 00:18, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
This information, including the offcer's name, is already at Battle of Midway#US Intelligence, I suppose you are aware of that. Andrewa 12:19, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Of course. But if any codebreaker deserves his own page, it is Holmes. His lateral thinking did much to win the naval war in the Pacific. I'm looking for material. E-mailed the US Navy yesterday, but no reply yet. Cheers. Moriori 20:27, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

some subtopics are linked but others are not, why?

Why are none of the subtopics of the subpages linked except for the ones under "Subdivisions" and "Other classification schemes" which are linked to articles, not the sub catagories that I assume they should be. I would just fix it, but its been that way for so long, I think there must be _some_ reason. If I don't get any response in a few days, I'll just link all the subtopics to their sections on their subpages, including those one "Subdivisions" and "Other classification schemes". I hope I get an answer... JesseW 09:51, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Splitting a section

I'd like to propose splitting the Culture and Fine Arts section into two new sections: Pop Culture and Fine Arts. Pop Culture would be for the categories like Celebrities, Movies, Television, Anime, Comic Books, etc. Fine Arts would be for Literature, Theatre, Dance, Poetry, etc. Is there support for this? MK 23:57, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. -Sean Curtin 01:56, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

Fylocode

I'd like to put up a request for fylocode, the proposed alternative for Linnaeus' system of classifying living organisms. I suppose it should be requested under biology or something similar, but I can't find it. Where would be the best place? D.D. 00:13, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)