User talk:SilkTork/Archive2/Archive 26

← Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27 →

Some thoughts on backlogs

Hi, SilkTork. I completely agree with your concern over all the articles that need maintenance and the lack of attention paid to this issue. A large part of what I do in article space is add or clean up citations. Here are a few thoughts:

• Is it inherently more important to clean up backlogged articles? Maybe they haven't been fixed because the articles aren't all that important.
• On a couple of wikiprojects, I maintain a todo list from the cleanup listings (e.g., Wikipedia:WikiProject Geology/Tasks/to do). I list problems that are inherently high-importance (like BLP lacking sources), or issues on articles that are high- or top-importance to the project. For me, these are the highest cleanup priorities, and it's easier to fix articles that are somewhere near my area of expertise.
• Are you aware of WikiProject Citation cleanup? I just found it when I was looking for something else. Maybe they could start a backlog elimination drive, like the one hosted by the WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors.
• Maybe someone should create a suitable barnstar.

Keep up the good work! RockMagnetist (talk) 01:13, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

If by more important, you mean more important than dealing with new edits, then I would say yes: someone has already shown a concern, and this concern is, with a few exceptions, displayed prominently on the article for everyone to see. For the person raising the concern, and for hundreds sometimes thousand of readers (and in some cases where it has gone on for a long time, it can be significant numbers - for Matt Skiba, for example, over a 1/3 million readers have noted that the article has been tagged as needing sourcing since 2006) there is this sense that Wikipedia doesn't care. Jumping on new edits can be counter-productive - we are aware that potential contributors have been driven away by what they perceive as a hostile reception. And most vandalism can be dealt with by bots these days. We are swamped with new page patrollers who often race to sort perceived errors because if they don't someone else will do it, and they thank each other constantly. It's an easy way to get noticed, and vandal fighting is seen as an important step to becoming an admin. Meanwhile the backlog gets bigger, and the impression given is that unless an article is new then few people look after them. There is the impression given of a lack of care.

A new edit will reach few readers compared to articles that have been tagged a long time. We have over a million articles that have been tagged for over a year, with an average monthly readership of 165 people per article, that's nearly 2 billion people a year. Hmmmm. Once you look into the situation you see that it really is quite significant. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:30, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

What I really mean is that it would be better to sort the articles by measures of importance (e.g., number of incoming links and number of views per month) than by age of the link. I'm not involved in new article patrols. RockMagnetist (talk) 14:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

On the other hand, high-importance tags like {{BLP unsourced}} should be resolved a lot faster. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I think that may help attract attention. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:16, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Tags like {{BLP unsourced}} do work a lot faster. As far as the other tags go, {{Uncategorised}} and {{Dead end}} are resolved quickly. Some of the others have required the maintenance tables extending by a year every year. Work to actually measure and record this on-wiki was put on hold when those nice people from ArbCom substantially stopped me working on Wikipedia. Without this data we do not know what is happening and blunder around removing tags like {{Expand}} for being too general, and {{Capitals}} for being too specific, making random claims that they ""don't work" or "are redundant". We also allow the tag system to fall into disrepute by not maintaining the status of articles, much of which can be done automatically, or semi-automatically. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:29, 3 June 2014 (UTC).

@Rich Farmbrough: What do you mean by maintaining the status of articles? RockMagnetist (talk) 17:07, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Your recent Shakespeare comments

Hi SilkTort: Your recent comments on the Criticism of Rom. and Jul. looked like a fully usable amplification. If it would be followed with the phrase appearing directly below, then the subsequent Pepys sentence in that subsection could be adjusted accordingly and your edit could be Supported as you have suggested to complete the edit: "This was followed in 1635 by comments from the critic John Swan writing in Speculum Mundi. [ref, Harold Bloom. Bloom's Shakespeare Through the Ages: Romeo and Juliet, p42, Infobase Publishing, 2008.]" FelixRosch (talk) 17:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Wookey Hole Caves/GA2

Hi, Thanks for all your comments and improvements on Talk:Wookey Hole Caves/GA2. Since your last set of comments there have been several edits (by me and others) and the most recent discussion has been about a possible map/plan. I was wondering if you thought the improvements had been appropriate and whether there was anything else I should be working on at present. I don't have the knowledge or skills to produce a suitable map and I was wondering if you saw this as a major stumbling block for GA?— Rod ^talk 10:05, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't see the lack of a map as impacting on GA - just that it might be useful. I'll take a look at the GAN shortly to see what needs to be done. Thanks for the nudge. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:11, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Askam and Ireleth

I'm sorry I never got to this- real life stuff and then some ridiculous on-WP stuff got in the way. I think delisting at this time may be the best way forward, and I'll try to give the article some love over the next few months, hopefully with a view to renominate in the future. Thanks for your efforts. J Milburn (talk) 20:18, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the nudge. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:The Beatles articles undergoing peer review

Category:The Beatles articles undergoing peer review, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. LT910001 (talk) 00:38, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Left comment. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:49, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Basingstoke GAR

Hi SilkTork, thanks for keeping the GA reassessment open. I've hopefully addressed all of your points you made, just wondering if you could take another look and see if there are any more concerns? I can address them quicker this time! Thanks, ☠ Jaguar ☠ 21:23, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Nice work. Well done. Closed GAR as Keep. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:06, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Watford Gap services

Materialscientist (talk) 08:57, 21 June 2014 (UTC)