Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Requested articles/Archive 1

Archive 1

The plan

So, what's the plan? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:10, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we should post a short intro, explain the project goals, and invite folks to the project on:

• Wikipedia talk:Requested articles
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council

... and any other relevant areas we can think of. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 13:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe also to Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) too. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 18:31, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

A god start would be a cleaning up of already fulfilled requests and requests which simply doesn't have any chance to get in. mabdul 22:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I just marked Wikipedia:Articles requested for more than a year inactive and left a talk page invite for those who might still be watchlisting the page to considering joining here. I'm also hoping to start sending out invites to people who have created article off the lists. France3470 (talk) 14:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Example cleanup

Companies

Welcome to the Requested articles list for Companies. This list is for requests for new articles about notable for-profit companies, businesses & corporations, no matter where based, whether public or private, existing or merged or liquidated.

All requests must contain RELIABLE, INDEPENDENT, THIRD PARTY SOURCES. Those without will be removed. (Note: press releases, the company's website, social media sites, and blogs are NOT reliable, independent sources.)

Please add requests to the appropriate area:

This list is only for requests about for-profit companies.

• For topics related to companies, please add to /Business and economics
• For biographies of people in business, please add to /People in business
• For non-profit organizations, please add to /Organizations

Find this page confusing? ; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!

Click a letter in the above box to view the requests. This page was too large and has been divided.

Some updates that were inspired by discussion on the latest RFC. I concentrated on the topic of Companies:

• Split out the old Biz&Org RA list into Companies (for profit) and Organizations (non profit).
• Removed all requests that already have articles or redirects
• Moved all non-company requests to a 'To be sorted' section. These should be moved to more relevant RA pages
• Moved requests that I reviewed and declined to a 'To be archived' section. After a waiting period, these should be moved to the /Archive page
• Linked in Companies/Archive (already existed from 2008, but was inactive)
• Created a Companies/Workspace as a place for prep and discussion of possible stubs.
• Created a status box (see to right). The counts are done manually, just by counting the number of * characters. Be nice if it could be automated.

Ok, that's it for now. Cheers. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 23:10, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

And the current "Drive" is for X, Y, and Z. The /Companies/Workspace now has 4 stubs in prep, with 3 probably ready for creation. Your comments on the proposed stubs are most welcome. Thanks. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 20:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

100 articles of the week!!

I while ago, i made a request to the Villagepump (proposals) page:

A discussion on Jimbo's talk page about editor apathy has just got me thinking..... the new editor situation is at critical level at the moment. People just assume that all the good ideas have already been taken, and that there's no point to edit anymore - it's too hard. Not to mention the harsh treatment that many new editors are given, driving them away. Well, what if we have a feature on the main page - right there so visitors see it straight away - which invites people to create the "Top 100 Articles of the Week" - or something like that. Haven't thought out the specifics yet. I just think that by having a discrete list of notable articles in a clear, interesting format (maybe a small engaging explanation of each article concept) would be a really great idea to solve this problem. E.g. "My name is Joe Bloggs. I was a revolutionary in the French Revolution. I wasn't very popular in my day but people now think I'm pretty influential. You can find relevant sites at __________ and _______ etc". Maybe that's a bit too informal. Maybe just: "He was a ___, he did ____, there is much criticism over ______ etc." - like a short snappy pitch to an onlooker for why they would be inspired to create the article. That way, we can be assured that a steady amount of article are being produced very so often. "100" and "week" can obviously be changed. So I think it would probably appear somewhere on the main page - maybe at the top, and list the first few entries, then say: "click here to see the rest of the bunch, just waiting for you to give them a page of their own".... or something like that. Not sure how we'd pick the 100 articles.. probably just grab a few from the Wikipedia:Requested articles or Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles pages. We can have like "Movie Weeks" and "Nature Weeks" where the articles are dedicated to a certain topic. Might be quite fun actually. Bring the excitement and enjoyment back to the project. If for no other reason, it might make the vandalism concentrated to a small amount of articles (I assume that usually a lot more than 100 articles get vandalized every week), which will make it more easily monitorable. Any thoughts?--Coin945 (talk) 1:38 am, 28 March 2012, Wednesday (2 months, 1 day ago) (UTC+8)

• Addendum: I think also another reason why this would be a great idea is because it would channel the flow of new article creation into notable topics rather than just throwing articles against a wall and seeing what sticks (a real bitch for those overworked underpaid people at Special:NewPages).--Coin945 (talk) 2:50 am, 28 March 2012, Wednesday (2 months, 1 day ago) (UTC+8)

• Addendum 2: Another reason I think this is a good idea is that, contrary to what people might think, newcomers on the whole really have no idea about what hidden horrors lurk beyond the mainspace, and quite frankly, I would assume that very few actually find out. Even if they did manage to find those endeless lists of pages requesitng articles, they would probably be so overwhelmed by it all - and feel that their contributions will be pointless anyways because nobody else will probably work on their article again because there are so many (I've felt like in the past). Also, they will have no way of knowing with are notable topics and which are not/not bother to find out before making the article.--Coin945 (talk) 10:15 am, 28 March 2012, Wednesday (1 month, 30 days ago) (UTC+8)

• Addendum 3: This will also solve the porblem we have that "new people show up and Wikipedia doesn't really do a good job of suggesting what they could work on".--Coin945 (talk) 4:43 pm, 28 March 2012, Wednesday (1 month, 30 days ago) (UTC+8)

Among other comment, one was that it was an awesome idea, but that it needed a bit of a following to be put into effect on the main page. I think we can merge my idea and this group, by having the "100 articles of the week", or perhaps the "50 articles of the week to create" and the "50 articles of the week to improve"... or something like that. Knowing that there are others in your en-devour, along for the ride, gives people an awesome feeling of backup.. and not to mention focuses the project by making sure it has a goal to reach every week.--Coin945 (talk) 11:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

On Special:RecentChanges there is a Requests: line near the top, that is fed from Template:Recent changes article requests, which is then fed from Template:Recent changes article requests/list. That might be a good starting place for improvements of the system. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 11:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Bot counter

Are there any available bots that could do automated counting of the number of requests on each WP:RA page? It might be as simple as counting the number of * characters on each page, and/or on each section of each page. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 20:22, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know such a bot exists, but you can make a request at WP:BOTREQ. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 09:44, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Done, see Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 48#Count of Requested articles -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 12:52, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Although the page size gives a rough idea, I did have a thought that we could go along and number them all, by changing * to #. Not exactly a nice clean solution but it would give us a clearer idea of numbers. France3470 (talk) 18:09, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Blue Link Drive

The Backlog Drive page is now stubbed. A suggestion for the first drive, something that should be doable in a month: a Blue Link Drive to remove all blue link listings, and add the project template to the formerly listed articles talk pages. Cheers. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 18:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Category of articles

Please add Wikipedia:Requested articles/music#Discographies to the list of music related requests. My76Strat (talk) 17:11, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done Please feel free to add requests for Discographies, beacause the section is currently empty. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 09:53, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I will add a few to populate the section, and then more as I see others, and I hope others will too. Again, thanks My76Strat (talk) 09:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Having cleaned up much of the medical disease related articles

I found that many of the request where 1) spelling mistakes 2) better as redirects (as they where historical terms or simply another name for an article we already have) 3) simply not notable / no published literature to support Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:27, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Splitting very large pages

At 435,470 bytes /music/Performers, bands and songwriters makes my computer struggle. It's virtually impossible to navigate and edit; the same can be said for many of the other categories. I think we need to split them down further. Is there any objection to splitting the Performers, bands and songwriters into sections: Wikipedia:Requested articles/music/Performers, bands and songwriters/A–H, Wikipedia:Requested articles/music/Performers, bands and songwriters/I–Q, Wikipedia:Requested articles/music/Performers, bands and songwriters/R–Z, Wikipedia:Requested articles/music/Performers, bands and songwriters/0–9? France3470 (talk) 11:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Splitting into smaller bite-sized pages is a very good idea. I've started splitting out some sections of Natural sciences and Social sciences lists already. The Performers page is the largest in WP:RA, and doing splits by alphabet is the only easy option here. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 11:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Splitting some of the particularly large ones is fine so long as it's not a bunch of 5-10kb sub-articles, as that doesn't really help at all. Certainly the 350kb bio page can be split. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Size is a factor, but we should also be concerned with making single pages on a single subject that is in scope of one or more WikiProjects/TaskForces/Workgroups, etc. For example, /Sports/Wrestling is an OK split because there are a decent amount of requests, and the page would then be directly in scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling, and possibly others projects. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 19:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Archives

I saw a couple archive pages pop up in the last couple days, so I think it's something to be discussed. IMO, I think putting the declined requests elsewhere makes little sense, and that just removing them is the best option. Seems like others disagree, so I'm curious to see what the consensus would be; I know there's both good and bad points to having them. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:03, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I like the idea of having /Archive pages where declined requests are listed, for two reasons. First, just as a tracking mechanism, to see what type of accept/decline ratio we're dealing with. Second, and more important probably, is a protection against repeat requests. (also see Wikipedia:WikiProject Requested articles/Backlog Drive#Archive Drive) -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 19:05, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I think great care needs to be taken in deciding that a request should be declined. If a subject is obviously not suitable for inclusion, fair enough, but there are many topics which are suitable for articles, but where sources are just hard to find, and far too many editors are sadly incapable of telling the difference. I think visibility of declined requests is therefore a very good thing. --Michig (talk) 10:22, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

When I first came across them my initial thoughts on the archives was that they weren't particularly necessary; in the past I've always just removed non-notable and unsuitable requests. However having recently tried to work though the requests more systematically I have found the idea of archiving quite appealing (and thought I would give it a try with /Songs/Archive). Yes it's more work, as ideally one should provide a reason for each decline, but at the same time it does provide transparency. It also gives a sense of process to the pages—something which as always been desperately lacking— while also hopefully making it easier to keep track of those which have been rejected. France3470 (talk) 15:35, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Removed external links

These edits removed quite a few external links, at least some of which looked like good references. Should they be reverted? One of the links seems to be blacklisted, making a revert difficult. Huon (talk) 08:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Template:Was requested article

At the Tasks subpage there is the question: "What should we do with Template:Was requested article ?". I think it should be deprecated in favor of {{WikiProject Requested articles}}. What does others think? Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 23:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Also, maybe should copy the |requester= and |date= options from the old template (see Talk:Harvey A. Carr for example). -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 09:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

 {{WikiProject Requested articles}} now contains this two optional parameters. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 12:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Another list that may be included here

There's a substantial list at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Reggae/Tasklist#Articles to start, many of which have entries in specialist reggae encyclopedias. It may be worth including this list in the Task forces section of this project. --Michig (talk) 07:12, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Feel free to edit the Task forces page with any other suggestions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 11:00, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Redlinks through AfD?

What to do with redlinks in the RA lists like Seed7 which was deleted in 2006 through an AFD? Remove the link (missing notability?)? Tagging the talk page? Commenting out? mabdul 11:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

How about a 'Pending Declines' section on the bottom of the page. Requests can be listed there for a while, and then moved to an /Archive page if there's no objection. See /Computer science, computing, and Internet#Pending declines for example. (Also adding link to AFD result on the request is useful). -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 11:57, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I was preparing to link "Pending declines" as well; and this one too. Cheers - My76Strat (talk) 12:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The AFD was 2006 Hans Bauer (talk) 17:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I said that. So? mabdul 16:18, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I just changed 2011 to 2006, which is the year of the AFD. The short line was added, to sign my change. Hans Bauer (talk) 06:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Never change a comment by somebody other! Not for factual incorrectness or for grammar, or whatever. Reordering the different threads (e.g. for chronological order), blanking (because it violates our policy, esp. on private information and attacking) and archiving is totally OK, but never change a comment by somebody other. I wrote that two weeks ago and thus I simply didn't know if I wrote 2006 or 2011! mabdul 07:28, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I was not aware of that rule. Please accept my apology. Hans Bauer (talk) 08:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Y'all might be interested in...

... this thread, which I just posted at Wikipedia talk:Requested articles. Cheers! ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 22:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Template:Req

Your template, {{req}}, has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 06:45, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Passing along some feedback

As part of a conversation with a user through OTRS about the topic of suggesting articles, I was asked to share this with the editors that manage the project:

I made a second observation that I wish would be brought to the attention

of the wikipedia staff, reviewers, and board: the barriers which the average user has to scale to successfully suggest that a new topic be added to wikipedia are still very high. Please pass this along and let people know. Have members of your staff take pen names as average users and try to submit new article ideas. Have them act as naive users who don't know the ropes. Have them follow the prompts the average person would. Observe

their results and their experience.

As I've never used this venue I cannot comment on how simple or complicated it is, but there you have it. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Update

Hi, I am in the process of attempting to re-invigorate RA:

First, I am designing a new series of pages in my sandbox

Second, I am inviting editors to join in at RA

If you have any questions, please ask on my talk page, or ask here and give me talkback. If I get no replies, or no replies to the negative, I will start phasing in pages from my sandbox. Thanks, Matty.007 08:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

question

I've been mainly working with AfCs , which has certain similarities, in needing to tell if an article could possibly be written. Looking at the list, it's clear that some of these are really hopeless. I've seen some discussion about more complicated ways to deal with it., but the simplest things I can think of for now is either to remove the line altogether , or to strike it out with a word or two of explanation. Will anyone be bothered if I go ahead and do a few to experiment? DGG ( talk ) 00:12, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

To be honest, I think that that is the only way we are ever going to get through the backlog. You may want to ask this at WP:RA first though, just to get others' opinions. Thanks, Matty.007 17:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Jeffress Stone

Jeffress Stone is a company located in Baltimore, MD. Jeffress stone is a small business trying to get their name out. They are one of the very few company's left in the world that handcraft their own work, and customize anything, anyway. Any countertop you can dream can be designed in natural or man-made stone - marble, granite, soapstone, silestone, glassos, etc. Jeffress stone does custom work, if you're looking for a stone fireplace, you got it. If you want your bathroom finished in stone, including a new shower or bathtub, you got it. If you're looking for a dog bowl, chessboard, tables, ceilings, floors, toothbrush holder, window sills, shelving, framing, or anything you can think of- in any stone you would like. Call or email for a quote anytime, look them up @ jeffresstone.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffress Stone (talk • contribs) 15:39, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia Primary School: first Calls for Articles!

Hi everybody, I'm quite excited to announce the first two articles selected to kick-start the content phase of the Wikipedia Primary School project! This research project focuses on the South African primary school curriculum: the involved teams have selected a list of 100+ relevant articles which will undergo review (or creation) by Wikipedians, scholars/experts, or journals. We thought that involving the Wikipedia community was the obvious first step in the process, which is going to last for the next couple of years. So the articles we'd like to suggest for creation are:

1. Makhonjwa Mountains;
2. Stone-walled town of Kaditshwene.

Please see the project pages for more information and instructions, and thanks in advance for your invaluable help. Best, --Elitre (WPS) (talk) 13:00, 18 November 2014 (UTC) (I did notify the relevant wikiproject, but I hope it's ok to stop by here as well :) )

Zimbabwean Bond Coins.

An article titled Zimbabwean Bond Coins needs to be created, as they are being put into circulation as currency in Zimbabwe as from 18th. of December 2014.

You can see a photo of the promotional poster here; [1] - (202.89.141.109 (talk) 19:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC))

RABBI MENACHEM MENDEL SCHNEERSON

I AM LOOKING FOR ANY ARTICLES WRITTEN BY THE ABOVE REBBE ON RELATIONS WITH MUSLIMS

THANK YOU  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.57.189.30 (talk) 03:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC) 

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Request for article on Stayzilla.com

The request to include an article in Wikipedia on Stayzilla.com was submitted on the 20th of January. Since we would like to keep track of the progress, we would like to know what the number assigned to each link/verifiable source we provided indicates. Please let us know the information we request so that we may plan accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashwinsubram.epm (talk • contribs) 11:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

car parking details in stations

respected sir\please kindly submit car parking details also in railway station encyclopidea — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.79.106.8 (talk) 08:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Career path

Excuse me if I am doing this wrong, I have been editing Wikipedia since 2009 I think so I know my way around but have never listed at RA before. Over at WP:RFD#Split profession we are discussing... well, you can tell, and in discussing that, I mentioned Career path. Now it seems that article was deleted by WP:G1 "patent nonsense" in 2007 (I'm not an admin so I can't see what it said.) It seems an odd omission, but I am not capable myself of making it beyong a stub. I might have a go but I think it would be better done by someone who is more on the human resources side of things than a humble engineer like your good Wikipedian. Quite happy to bung in, do the refs and so on but not sure how I would get it started, however WP:BOLD I may be. Si Trew (talk) 14:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

That version was unsourced personal commentary on how to build a career path. That said, I don't think that's an appropriate topic as Wikipedia is not intended to be a how-to guide. Your better bet is to work on Career or more specifically Career counseling or the like. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:00, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Heads up about a discussion

There's currently a discussion on the Requested Articles talk page about a proposed overhaul for the process at WT:WPRA#Revamp WP:RA?WT:RA#Revamp WP:RA?. Feel free to participate! APerson (talk!) 22:42, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Proper link is WT:RA#Revamp WP:RA?. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Drop me a note} 23:25, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

D'oh. Fixed. APerson (talk!) 02:40, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Drafts

Does the requested articles pages include links to drafts? Are drafts considered a requested article or just separate? I wonder about sort of taking some of these listings and creating draftspace pages on them to get them going. I may ask for a bot or someone to check the redlinks everywhere against draftspace. Any ideas? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:34, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

AFAIK, there's no relationship between draftspace and the requested-articles pages. Drafts are just that, drafts of potential articles. And I think the pages here are a lot less organized than you think. ;-) Redlinks here are sometimes in templates, sometimes not. Different templates can be used. Lists of requests are sometimes alphabetical, sometimes not. Some of the "redlinks" aren't even red. I think the majority of requests come from unregistered readers who never make another edit. Checking redlinks against articles (or draftspace) would be useful, but I'm uncertain about the efficacy of creating a bot, given the infinite variations of (mis)spellings and capitalizations possible.

On the pages I track here (which are not in the most-requested categories), I check out each request, make sure it's notable, put it in some sort of category or alphabetical order, and add any questions or information I think would help. I have yet to see any response whatsoever from requesters, but the info is there for whoever decides to create an article. Periodically, I go through and clean out redlinks that have turned blue.

If you're interested in creating some of these articles, I'd say just dive in. — Gorthian (talk) 18:01, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Well I'm just asking for a bot to prepare a list and will manually check it for now. But what about adding drafts here as a see also or something? Those articles aren't actually created and they do remain red links. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:38, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. 1) adding drafts here —do you mean adding drafts here at WikiProject Requested Articles? I doubt that would work well. Drafts are created in Drafts namespace. 2) as a see also or something —Articles often have "See also" sections in them; is that what you're referring to? But what articles do you mean? We would never link to draft space from an article, nor are redlinks useful in "See also" sections. — Gorthian (talk) 19:48, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I revised this link to make the red link more obvious and the book link separate. In the same vein, we could add redlink - see draft link if the draft exists. A number of draftspace pages are incomplete anyways so if there's even a small chance at another eye to a draft, I think that's better than saying removing it from WP:RA because the draft exists. I can see arguments for either side. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:41, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I see what you mean now. I don't think anyone would advocate removing a link just because a draft exists. I'm not sure that adding "see draft" next to a redlink would do the readers a service, though. Drafts come in all states: partial but good quality, half-assed but long, abandoned halfway through, stubblike, etc. Keep in mind that it's the readers who make most of these requests (and my impression is they aren't interested in creating articles themselves); we don't want to point them at an "article" that's not yet been vetted for quality. Editors, on the other hand, might be grateful to know about the draft, as something they could work with. It might help if you could provide lists of drafts to a relevant WikiProject (Mathematics, in this case) instead of here. — Gorthian (talk) 00:56, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I'd think the projects would be aware of drafts, assuming they are tagged properly. For example Category:Draft-Class mathematics pages exists. It seems like a draft is middle-ground between a requested article and an actual completed article. If the project wanted to expand to include the actual requested articles then it would grow to include quite a number of user and draftspace pages (and if kept afterwards, stub/start/C/B/GA/FA, etc.) -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:16, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Requested articles/Assessment

Would anyone object if I requested a speedy deletion of Wikipedia:WikiProject Requested articles/Assessment? Some spammer seized the opportunity to crow, and we don't do article assessments here anyway.— Gorthian (talk) 01:29, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

• I did it myself. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:50, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. — Gorthian (talk) 19:58, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Companies page size

The Companies page is getting big. Perhaps time to split into multiple pages? See Companies talk page. Cheers. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 12:37, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Stubs for creation

Stubs for creation (SFC) is a proposed task force for Articles for creation. SFC will assist new editors in creating useful stubs on notable subjects. Please feel free to discuss and expand on the idea at Draft:Stubs for creation. Cheers! -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 08:14, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Topics for creation in Village pump (idea lab)

(Formerly discussed above as Stubs for creation, the idea has been updated into...) Topics for creation (TFC) is a proposed project to fill the gap between Requested articles and Articles for creation by assisting editors in preparing a list of independent, reliable sources on a requested topic. Please feel free to join the preliminary discussion at Village pump (idea lab)#Topics for creation. Thanks. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 12:58, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Dead project

The deletion page suggests that you can request articles be created here. This article is incomprehensible and user unfriendly, and the supposed project co-ordinator is a retired wikipedian. I can't believe I have donated hundreds of dollars to this website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:0:1003:1007:F5BF:4AF6:86F3:A20E (talk) 16:00, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

@2620:0:1003:1007:F5BF:4AF6:86F3:A20E: Thank you for you feedback. Is there a specific article you'd like to request? I can add it for you if you'd like. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Drop me a note} 18:17, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Frustrations galore!

Hi, I am but an ad-hoc editor who likes to create new articles. I have had a frustrating time using the Wikipedia:Requested articles for creating new articles. I have come across a lot of redlinked articles that already exist on Wikipedia. I am coming across more suggestions for not notable people, topics etc. than I can remember. Now, before anyone tries the editing is challenging... line with me, let me explain that I think these suggestions are more part of gaming Google Page Rank, which in turn is part of Digital marketing strategies. Now getting to my point, can someone design / suggest a bot that can pick up all suggestions on this page and spit out the relevant Wikipedia article? Seriously, I don't want to create articles because the requester wants to link to a Wikipedia article with specific words in the title, while a simple google search can point out the correct article.--Wikishagnik (talk) 15:29, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Help

After jumping from page to page for an hour, I still do not know how to request a translation. The article I'd like to have an English version of is https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%90%88%E6%96%87. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Backinstadiums (talk • contribs) 09:56, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

RoboSplaat!

RoboSplaat! is an American web series starring Greg Cipes as the voice of Splaat. The series is produced by Klasky Csupo, and premiered on December 22, 2016 for YouTube.

108.24.75.44 (talk) 02:01, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Helper scripts?

I've found User:Enterprisey/req-helper but it does not quite do what I expect, I would like to be able to bookmark interesting entries to write about later? The current lists at WP:RA are a mess.. It would also be interesting to know your suggestions how to improve the system, in my opinion a dedicated tool (a simple bug tracker modified to query the user for title + sources + wp categories when submitting their entry) could be more efficient and people could assign some items to themselves to make a todo list of sorts. --Gryllida (talk) 05:37, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand how to make an article request.

I use the links, but it never goes anywhere that I can type my request, a little help please? Blue Rain 87 (talk) 02:06, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

How can I apply?

I would like to apply to join this group and help accept or decline articles. Schoolboyboy (talk) 11:08, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Question

Dear members of this wikiproject, I am an new editor who likes writing new articles (see my user page: 1 accepted as B-class, 3 are drafts), just today i saw that wikiproject and so i feel interested in joining it and helping it start out. I would have added my name to the Participants list, but i want to ask an question: Can i create articles via the WP:AFC procedure, or i should create them right off in mainspace? If i can do the former, i really want to join. I await your reply, Eni vak (speak) 23:22, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Enivak I don’t think this WikiProject is active - maybe try ask at the Teahouse or Help Desk? Regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 21:16, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@Willbb234: Hello, thanks for telling me! The truth is that i had realized that and marked it as such. I asked this question because i feared that my articles from the wikiproject would not count if i was creating them with AFC, otherwise i knew the reply, because i am working on articles. Best regards, Eni vak (speak) 21:22, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Active Wikipedians for the revival of this WikiProject

Hello there! Thank you for your interest in joing the revival of this WikiProject. If you would like to help out, please add your name to the list below:

1. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 14:28, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
2. Eni vak (speak) 16:02, 17 August 2019 (UTC), but i thing we should consult an Template admin (or how theese guys are called, not a regular admin) to create invites first. i will try to invite some with the excising ones, but we should consider making new.
3. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 16:40, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
4. Nosebagbear - Both of my longest articles come from interesting ideas I found in RA, so I'd just be formalising it. But I think we need about 10+ members to give it a proper kickstart rather than a straggling being. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:40, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
5. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:48, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! if the old members add their name here,this problem will be resolved. I think we will not start procedures until we get people. Eni vak (speak) 17:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

pythoncoder, Nosebagbear, @Pharaoh of the Wizards: I'm inclined to say that it isn't worth reviving the WikiProject - with such little interest from others, I just don't believe we can get it properly off of its feet. Its a shame, but its the best course of action. If interest increases again, I'm more than happy to help revive the WikiProject, but I just don't think its worth it at this time. Regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 17:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Tangentially related, I'm also updating WP:Expert_help, which may be useful for some of the most technical topics on the WP:Requested_articles lists. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 04:47, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Draft space vs. article requests

It's possible, that a newbie creates an article in the draft space, without creating first the article request. That means, the draft space and the article request page are out of sync. Additionally, the article request page doesn't track the content in the draft space. Nobody knows, if an article request is converted right now into a draft article. Instead of solving this out-of-sync issue the better idea is to improve the conflict.

In Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation there is a template given at the end in which the “Requested article” page is referenced. If this link gets removed, than the newbie doesn't even know that he has to create first an article request which is evaluated by the community if the draft article is needed. This will help the newbie to walk into the wrong direction and he invests a lot of time into creating drafts which are deleted by the review admin in the submission process ...

An additional source of conflicts is, that the article request is located within the backlog section which is some kind of to do section in Wikipedia. Similar to other requests from the Wikipedia:Request_directory like “ask for translation” and “dispute resolution” the page is located outside the draft space. In contrast, the pipeline of creating new articles is located in the draft space in which normal content is generated but no backlog drives are maintained. The recommendation is, to hide the entire backlog drive from the normal user so he can focus on his edits in the article space.

Greetings from Manuel --ManuelRodriguez (talk) 12:56, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

New Research: Characterizing Existing Practices for Identifying and Mitigating Knowledge Gaps

Hi All,

My name is Jim Maddock, and I’m with a researcher at Northwestern University working on identifying missing content on Wikipedia. As a first step, we want to talk to members of Wikipedia’s editor community to better understand how editors currently identify and add missing content. Participants must be Wikipedia editors who speak English and will be compensated for their time.

For more details about our project, please refer to our project meta page. If you are interested in participating, please fill out this screener and consent form. Additionally, feel free to reach out to me at maddock@u.northwestern.edu if you have any thoughts and suggestions. Thanks!

Study Information

Study Title: Characterizing Existing Practices for Identifying and Mitigating Knowledge Gaps

PI: Darren Gergle

IRB Study #: STU00212033

Cheers, Jmads-nu (talk) 16:17, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Why was my request for a business article deleted?

[Redacted]

Hi. I tried to add the company details to my user page as instructed by Wikipedia but it gets removed every time. Is there a certain format I must write it in?

Thanks Raymond — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymond Ackerman (talk • contribs) 19:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

See WP:NOT. DexDor ^(talk) 21:17, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Where is the "Requested articles" for Journalism?

Where is the link to "Requested articles" about journalism-related topics? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 00:41, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

About tagging wikiprojects as inactive

EpicPupper, you wanted to come to the talk page. I'm concerned that in your enthusiasm to get involved in projectspace, you're again doing something where you don't understand the consequences. Tagging wikiprojects as inactive should rarely be done if there's reason to think there are active editors working around the topic and watchlisting the talk page -- which there clearly are here -- because what that tagging does is disrupt the fundamental functions of the project. Inactive wikiprojects don't display quality and assessment ratings, which is the primary use of them, so marking a project as inactive has the consequence of making it pretty much impossible to renew, as people won't be interacting with it through article assessment. This project clearly has people watchlisting the talk page and responding to comments -- quite a bit more than your average soi-disant active wikiproject, if anything -- even though it's at a relatively neglected bit of the site (but see 'relatively'). There's really no context where you and you alone should be the only person to decide a project should get rid of all its article assessments. Vaticidalprophet 21:54, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Vaticidalprophet, my sincerest apologies. I did not recognize the consequences of my actions, and failed to display competence in tagging this project, doing so without consensus. I will be sure to slow down in the future. EpicPupper (talk) 23:26, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

It's cool, Pupper. I do get curt at times, but I recognize you're working in good faith and enthusiastic to help. There's just a lot to learn, and it's not always obvious how to learn it. Vaticidalprophet 23:52, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Giving false hope

Hello WP:RA. I've been helping out in the companies section. The backlog over there is pretty high. Looks like most of this project has a high backlog as well. Probably thousands or tens of thousands of requests total, and only dozens or hundreds of articles getting written per year. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm concerned that we're giving our non-Wikipedian visitors false hope. They come to WP:RA, submit a request for their company to be created, then assume we will create it for them. They wait and wait. They don't know who to ask or how to follow up. They get ghosted.

My question is this. Should we consider modifying our main page and sub-pages to honestly talk about our huge backlogs, how it is unlikely their article will get created, and suggest using the faster AFC process? Or, if I am misreading the situation, please let me know. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:10, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Novem Linguae, I'd support your proposal. One other thing I've wondered about is whether it makes sense to simply start over at this point by wiping out any entries that don't have at least one source already attached to the request. I recognize that this is a pretty radical solution, but I think the crazy high number of requests, coupled with the fact that so many entries are likely ineligible for page creation, makes me inclined to simply revamp the whole thing. I've done some culling of the more egregious entries, but honestly, it feels like I'm just trying to stick my finger in the dam in doing that. DocFreeman24 (talk) 05:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

DocFreeman24, thanks for your feedback. Are you talking about the companies section specifically, or all of WP:RA? For the companies section, we already wipe entries that don't have two sources. I made a script to do that. Even then, I'll bet 98% of those companies are not notable. WP:GNG is harder to pass than it looks, and then you have WP:NCORP on top of that, which disallows things like significant coverage of the CEO or a product from counting as significant coverage of the company. Also, NCORP disallows numerical facts from counting as significant coverage. I like your WP:TNT idea for the companies pages. I'd say if we TNT it, we should have a higher than normal standard for companies getting re-added, such as they need an annual revenue of X million dollars or something. Honestly though, it might be worth closing down that sub-section permanently, as I don't really see it as containing viable article ideas, and it attracts a lot of link spam. Thoughts? –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:21, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Novem Linguae, Oh sorry, I was referencing all of WP:RA. I've seen that some of the RA lists enforce the "two sources" rule but most of them do not and there are likely thousands of entries with no sources. I'm not sure what the right way to go about this would be (e.g., how do we build consensus for this sort of change, is it worth doing, etc.), so if you have any thoughts, I'm all ears. But it seems sort of pointless to have thousands of red links with (1) little interest from the community in wading through them and (2) few if any sources to help us figure out what we're supposed to be building.

Regarding shutting down the requests for business/corporation articles specifically, I don't think that makes sense, just speaking personally. Looking at the other lists, if there isn't a dedicated list for them, people will just add them to other subject areas that they think apply (e.g., a restaurant ends up in the food list, a pharma company ends up in the medicine list, etc.). So, I think the only way forward is to just (1) remove the unsourced requests from all of the lists and then (2) enforce the sourcing requirement going forward. I'm happy to help with both, but I'd love validation/assistance to make sure I'm not off my rocker here. DocFreeman24 (talk) 00:04, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

DocFreeman24, hmm. Interesting. Well, to make changes to the entire WikiProject, we'd probably want to ping some key people to this conversation and then get a local consensus. Then maybe do an RFC. Personally I think that the other parts of this Wikiproject aren't too bad for article ideas, but there are some sub-parts such as the companies section that are just overrun with spam and not useful. I'd be interested in getting some additional opinions to see which way the wind is blowing. As for who to ping, maybe go through this talk page and ping a couple of people that have responded to questions here. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:24, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

as I routinely deal with the companies spam that shows up at AfC, and am therefore familiar with the minimum standards, I'm going to try to make a pass over a letter or two removing those that are hopelessly unlikely. I can't promise to do so regularly. My heart (or at least my fingers) remains at AfC. DGG ( talk ) 19:16, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia Primary School: second call for Articles!

Hi everybody, as part of the content phase of the Wikipedia Primary School project, I would like to propose the creation of two articles ! The Wikipedia Primary School research project focuses on the South African primary school curriculum: the involved teams have selected a list of 100+ relevant articles, some of which will undergo review (or creation) by Wikipedias, scholars/experts, or journals. So the articles we'd like to suggest for creation are:

1. Bolt's Farm;
2. Minaar's cave.

Please see the project pages for more information and instructions, and thanks in advance for your invaluable help. Anthere (talk)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthere (talk • contribs) 16:47, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Writing

I want to write about a famous south African musician who don't have an article on Wikipedia. Nathiiey (talk) 07:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect and misleading information about rquesting articles

As mentioned above, I started doing a purge of the companies section. While doing it, I noticed the heading on the page wikipedia:requested articles, which says that t Your best bet to get an article created is to write it yourself using the Articles for Creation process. This is quite misleading. Almost all requests in companies and probably many other sections are from COI editors. It is emphatically not a good idea for a COI editor to attempt to write an article through AfC--at least, it is inadvisable with respect to companies. The majority of such drafts are declined there, and many of the ones that do make it into mainspace get deleted. The only good way to get an article about oneself or one's company or one's work, is to wait until it becomes so well known that a volunteeer editor will want to write about it. And there needs to be a warning about WP:COPI and WP:PAID, such as: "If you have conflict of interest, you a must declare the connection. Please see our rules on Conflict of Interest . If you are writing this for pay or as a staff member of the organization, see also WP:PAID for the necessary disclosures. If you hire someone else to write the article, unless they make the appropriate declarations, the article will almost certainly be deleted. "

I can make the change, but I cannot figure out just where the text is located. DGG ( talk ) 04:13, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I boldly updated it a few days ago. Feel free to adjust. It is located at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Header. Keep in mind that not all topics are businesses, this is the header for all the topics and categories, so I chose to focus the message on notability rather than COI. When folks click on the "Click here to write an article yourself" link, they are taken to the article wizard, and one of the questions/steps is "are you a paid editor / do you have a COI?", and there is a special set of instructions for those folks about disclosing, so in my opinion we don't need to give this a lot of weight in the header. P.S. Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies doesn't mention COI either. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:28, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

All instructions for people writing in draft space need to mention COI. It affects all bios in all fields, and all organizations commercial or otherwise, all works of art, all music, all products, everything relating to entertainment or education,, and most politics. I'll gradually check them all and I'll ask for some more help if needed. This was a very minor concern in 2001, and just becoming important when I joined in 2006; now in 2022 it's overwhelming our capacity to deal with them. DGG ( talk ) 07:24, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

What can really be done about it though? Our COI guideline basically says that AFC is where COI editors should make their articles. WP:COIEDIT: you should put new articles through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process instead of creating them directly. For this reason, I think we should be careful and hesitant to do anything to discourage COI editors from using AFC. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:33, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I've boldly modified the wording here per this conversation and my own thoughts on the edit. A note that RA is not a guaranteed article creation is very worth leaving -- the fact Wikipedia is written by admittedly-fickle volunteers is both integral and not widely known. Putting a huge bold "go away and use AfC instead" is at best meaningless and at worst gets you every hopeless case at RA/Companies flooding AfC instead. Vaticidalprophet 09:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

{{Req}}

FYI, Template:Req (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion. This is a template for requested article link tracking -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 06:23, 29 August 2022 (UTC)