Wikipedia talk:Task Center

Active discussions
Wikipedia Help Project (Rated NA-class, High-importance)
This page is within the scope of the Wikipedia Help Project, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's help documentation for readers and contributors. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. To browse help related resources see the Help Menu or Help Directory. Or ask for help on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you there.
 NA  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 High  This page has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Posting requestsEdit

Please post requests to add a job on this page with the heading Job Request. User:Tortle will get back to you and approve or deny the request. Please do not edit the Job Center page if your request is denied or before you post a request. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tortle (talkcontribs) 09:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: Rename to 'Task Center'Edit

Greetings, To me a Job Center is a place to find work/employment. So I find this confusing in that WP is not offering any jobs to editors, these are Tasks. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 18:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

  • I agree, posting an RM right now.--Prisencolin (talk) 19:35, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Why Did We Chose To Capitalize 'Center' When Most Project Pages Do Not Use Title Case (The only exceptions that immediately come to mind are WP:Main Page and WP:Manual of Style, both of which are exceptional)? – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 22:43, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 9 September 2016Edit

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved with consensus (non-admin closure) — Andy W. (talk ·ctb) 21:39, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Job CenterWikipedia:Task Center – this page does not list paid jobs so it shouldn't be named "job center". Prisencolin (talk) 19:34, 9 September 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:45, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Support, per JoeHebda above. The page is more of a list of "tasks" rather than "jobs." Gabe Iglesia (talk) 07:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support, per above. --TerraCodes (talk to me) 22:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support, per above - No brainer tbh. –Davey2010Talk 20:11, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Grammar Editing TasksEdit

I didn't notice a section for editing the grammar for pages. Just wondering if that is a task category and if not can we create one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BookPortal (talkcontribs) 23:04, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessary. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:33, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Preventing users from being overwhelmed by large categoriesEdit

By way of context, I'm looking at this page for potential inclusion as one of three main links on a redesigned and streamlined welcome template for new users under discussion at the Village Pump here.

I like it better than WP:Maintenance and Opentask because of its strong visual design and overall friendliness to new users. The one big downside it has compared to Opentask, though, is that it links to huge, overwhelming maintenance categories, whereas Opentask provides example random articles within those categories, making it easier to dive in. I think even most experienced users confronted with something like Category:Wikipedia introduction cleanup will often navigate away, whereas the "Improve lead sections" box at the bottom left of Opentask with five examples provides a great way to dive in, with the "More..." button always available for those who want the full list. Is there some way we could implement that here? Even a link to a random page needing intro cleanup would be better than linking to the full category. Sdkb (talk) 20:04, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I found a random page in category template, so I'll try introducing that for now. Also pinging @Nettrom:, the owner of the Opentask suggestion bot. Sdkb (talk) 20:25, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Okay, did that. It looks like the template isn't currently capable of searching subcategories, though, which makes it not very useful. I added some code to make it go to the current month for Articles to Be Expanded, but that makes it a bit unwieldy, and we should be ideally trying to clear all parts of backlogs. I hope the subcategory issue will be fixed, so that we can remove that workaround. Sdkb (talk) 21:54, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Hmm, it looks like Category:All articles to be expanded also exists, which might be a better solution. It's still not ideal, but since it's an improvement, I'll implement it. Sdkb (talk) 22:00, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
I feel.bad that it's only me over and over again at all these help pages (I am the only one left from the help project still active that edits all these pages)....but have to say good job.I think this is much better.--Moxy 🍁 22:15, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
@Moxy: Thanks! And no worries; I'm glad there is at least one other! It's been odd to be going through all these high-visibility pages that have clearly had a lot of work put into them, but seem pretty abandoned now (and in some cases are starting to show it, either through old design or through outdated content). I just hope that there's enough attention still being paid that it's possible to form a consensus at the pump for some kinds of changes to the welcome template (even though we disagree on which intro to link to, I think we're on the same page about overall reform; the current welcome not linking to any of the task pages is a big oversight). Sdkb (talk) 22:56, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Agree many pages abandoned.....I try to keep up with the top 100 or so help pages. We have many that could be deleted or merged. the WP:Tutorial should just redirect to Help:Introduction or all redirected to WP:Adventure or all to Help:Introduction as all 3 have the same format and don't work well mobile view so why have 3..lets get one a fix it for mobile view!--Moxy 🍁 23:03, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
@Moxy: It looks like there was a proposal (that I would've supported) to redirect WP:Tutorial to Help:Introduction in 2018, but it didn't get enough consensus to pass (largely from editors unhappy with the visual editor). You were among the voices opposing it, although not for that reason; have the pages or your views shifted since then? I'm still trying to catch up on all the history, so any context is appreciated. As for the WP:Adventure, I think it does have a place, particularly for younger editors looking for a very visual/interactive tutorial, but it should be secondary; we need to fix whatever mobile issues Help:Introduction has first. Regarding that, any suggestions on where on WP to go to find someone to do it? Sdkb (talk) 00:07, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Replied on your talk..--Moxy 🍁 02:06, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Refining the tasks listed hereEdit

Having just reviewed the list of tasks, it seems there's some room for refinement.

  • Balancing out more and less important tasks: There are some relatively obscure tasks that seem to be given too much prominence (i.e. new image patrol has its own section but should probably be rolled into new image maintenance), and there are some more significant tasks that seem to be somewhat hidden (i.e. adding images is only barely alluded to under the image maintenance section).
  • Adding missing tasks: Off the top of my head, I can think of some important tasks not listed here, such as WP:AfD and portal maintenance. We should have some discussions about what's missing.
  • Targeting to new editors with specific skills: Some editors may come in with specific skills or interests, such as copy editing or copyright law. The page doesn't currently do a good job directing those editors to the best place for them to contribute — the "general article maintenance" section should probably be renamed and feature language plugging the benefits of copy editing, for instance.
  • Updating and better targeting the "Do it!" links: I have the sense that the links in the "Do it!" column aren't always the best option for their task, and some may be out of date. For instance, is the {{Help Me}} template really still used all that much, or should we remove the Category:Wikipedians looking for help from that section? The WikiProjects associated with each section might be able to help us out with that, although we'd need to limit them adding too many minor links, per the balancing concern above.
  • Directing new editors to tasks suited for them: As I see it, this page is designed explicitly to be friendly to newcomers, with WP:Maintenance offering a more comprehensive overview of tasks. (I just added a hatnote to that effect. WP:Maintenance also needs a lot of work, but that's a separate issue.) There are some tasks listed here that don't seem very newcomer-friendly, such as Good Article Patrol. We have two directions we could go with this:
    1. Remove them, leaving them for WP:Maintenance. This has the benefit of making this page less overwhelming, but also makes it less useful for more experienced editors (including newcomers who keep referring to it as they become more experienced).
    2. Keep them, but mark which tasks are newcomer-friendly and which require more experience. (I did just remove the bare-bones version of this, but that was because it referred only to technical permissions and was thus of almost no usefulness.) This would make this page more useful to experienced editors, but could clutter it up if not well-designed, and created overlap with WP:Maintenance.

Overall, none of these issues are so glaring as to impact the functioning of this page; I still think it's ready in its current state for use with a redesigned welcome template. Indeed, having more attention on this page from such a placement might help a lot with getting it up to speed. That said, the issue of how to handle tasks for more experienced users in particular shouldn't just be left dangling. I'd appreciate thoughts from others on which direction we should go with that, and I hope all of this serves as a useful guide for further future development of this page. Cheers, Sdkb (talk) 23:37, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Sdkb, I agree that some changes would be good. In newcomer-friendliness, "Creating an article" is not the most newcomer-friendly task and should probably not come first. Separately, I'd suggest Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors as a good task to link to. AfC is also in need of people to re-write and rescue articles; almost no-one does this, and it would probably massively WP:encourage the newcomers. Listing of some tasks that help new editors here might be very productive. WP:WikiProject Inline Templates, for adding Inline cleanup tags to newbie edits, for instance, has been shown to increase retention by prompting newbies to improve and cite their edits. HLHJ (talk) 19:30, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Copyright check with our tools (copy-patrol) is very easy for new editors as well. --Moxy 🍁 19:40, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Good point, and it's an educational task. It seems as though there are a lot of tasks for newbies that we aren't recommending. An RfC to collect such tasks might even be useful, or even a task center with needed-experience rankings for the tasks. HLHJ (talk) 22:11, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
@HLHJ: I'm not familiar with using RfCs to answer a question as open-ended as that. Is that allowed/what would it look like? I'm certainly interested in bringing in wider participation to help with revamping this page. Sdkb (talk) 23:22, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Sdkb, RfC is short for "Requests for comment"; I've sometimes seen it used to gather ideas, and I think it would be fine. If you want to check, posting to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment should get you a quick response (turns out you don't need to; someone else has, and it's fine). I'm thinking a question like "We request nominations for well-defined tasks to be listed on Wikipedia:Task Center. Suggestions with a suggested text and links are particularly welcome; if you can, please also comment on the experience needed to perform the task."
I'd suggest categorizing the tasks by the experience level need by the editor, with the easiest first. So copyediting before new article patrol, and new article patrol before serving on arbcom! HLHJ (talk) 03:12, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
@HLHJ: Okay, so I just took a stab at introducing an "experience level" parameter. How does it look? Feel free to modify any of the ratings I assigned; I may have gotten some wrong. Sdkb (talk) 19:22, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
That's great, Sdkb! Thank you very much. I'm sure editors more expert in each of the individual tasks will soon turn up with comments if the estimates are off,  but nothign looks unreasonable. Photo requests, which tend to be totally ignored at the moment, would be a good task for newcomers if framed as taking, not finding photos; anyone can take a photo and upload it. A separate issue is what we use as a primary key. Listing tasks by ascending experience level rather than categorizing by type of work might prioritize the newcomers. I guess the question is what categorization is most useful; what are people going to be choosing tasks by? Some chunking might reduce choice overload. HLHJ (talk) 03:11, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
This might require some more coding to implement, but my ideal would be keeping tasks sorted by type but allowing filtering by experience level. There could be a menu up top, for instance, asking "how much experience do you have?" and it would then display tasks with that level or easier. Sdkb (talk) 03:20, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
I've repeatedly thought that we need filterable tables as well as sortable tables. This would be especially useful with tables automatically generated from Wikidata, where one field (say, the countries in which a species is found) may return multiple values that go in one table cell, making sorting by that column fairly meaningless. Here's another application. HLHJ (talk) 03:39, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, I don't think I'd ever come across this page before being pinged at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2020-03-01/Opinion, but I'm loving it. This format has a lot of potential for being very useful to readers getting started as editors, I think, but it could be revamped. Definitely "Creating an article" is not good for newbies; "Conflict Resolution", "Good Articles", "Help Someone" and "The Rewards Board" also don't strike me as great places for new editors.

I think the "Do It!" sections are a bit overloaded with too many links, and sometimes the links aren't that helpful. Take "Translate an Article": I click on three links and two of them ([[Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English|1], 2) are non-navigable messes that don't mean anything to (hypothetical) me, a reader who has never seen an internal Wikipedia page before, because it's not signposted enough which text I'm (a) reading for advice or (b) looking as examples of work to do. The third one is "random link in category", which is what I want... unless the tag is in a subsection of the article, like the article I happened to get, which would confuse the hell out of somebody new who is sent to the top of the page. Some of the "More Information" links are also a bit unhelpful: how do I know which of WP:Translation and WP:Translate us I want? The simplest possible link is the right one—in this case, Wikipedia:Translate us (spell the namespace out in full). — Bilorv (talk) 22:57, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed that each task should have a single newbie-comprehensible start point, or more than one with a clear reason for the choice. HLHJ (talk) 03:12, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
let's assemble links we think may be new user friendly..... Wikipedia:Cleaning up vandalism (Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit)...Wikipedia:Typo Team...making links Wikipedia:Orphaned articles by WikiProject (Wikipedia:WikiProject Orphanage).--Moxy 🍁 03:39, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for those thoughts, Bilorv, and agreed! Regarding translation specifically, Category:Articles needing translation from foreign-language Wikipedias was one of the few categories I didn't replace with a "go to random page in" link, since editors will likely want to translate a page from a language they're proficient in. Perhaps we could add some signposting at the category page itself? And the subsection issue is something I've found when testing links for a bunch of categories here. The random page in category tool is definitely not advanced enough to handle linking to anchors part way down a page (it can't even handle subcategories currently), so the most we might be able to do is to warn people here that they might have to scroll. That's definitely not optimal. One other issue with the random tool: when a category is empty (as is often true with Category:Wikipedians looking for help and possibly some others here), it just goes to the tool's page, rather than displaying any error message. Sdkb (talk) 18:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
There are templates to insert the current sizes of backlogs; this could not only give you the clue that the zero-backlog link won't work, but also hint where work is most needed. I edited the translation description; I think relaxing the edit notice a bit for a while might be useful. I propose Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user, (more commonly called "mentoring", for advanced editors. The number of editors is declining; we all need to train at least one editor to succeed us. HLHJ (talk) 03:11, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
The tricky part about listing the size of backlogs would be that some of them are "naturally" much larger than others, and some are worked through much more quickly than others. The folks who choose the backlog of the week might have better insights about how to identify which backlogs most urgently need clearing. Agreed about adopt-a-user. And also agreed about the edit notice — I transferred it a week or so ago instead of getting rid of it since a page like this is at very high risk of becoming bloated with every editor's favorite obscure WikiProject, but while we're constructing it let's get it up to speed before we start pruning. Sdkb (talk) 04:59, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! The natural-size problem could perhaps be partially fixed by using the templates that give the backlogs in terms of time in the queue. We could also code them by colour; delay number is in a red box, overwhelmed, blue box, just fine, various shades of purple in-between (I think this would meet the accessibility guidelines for those with colourblindness, but a non-colour secondary coding might be good, too). This would require allowing every project to set a standard, though it would be easy enough to set sensible defaults. You could then skim to see where editors were needed. The current list is a bit bulky for an overview; could we maybe collapse the descriptions and links? HLHJ (talk) 03:39, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

order of thingsEdit

So great progress let order as per difficulty levels ....easiest to hardest.--Moxy 🍁 08:01, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

  1. Anti-Vandalism (no coding involved)
  2. Categorization (very simple coding)
  3. Image Maintenance (very simple coding)

  1. Copy editing (need to know Wikipedia:Core content policies)
  2. Copyright violations (great introduction to our simplest tool CopyPatrol)
  3. Fact-Checking (need to know Wikipedia:Core content policies and Wikipedia:Reliable sources)
  4. Translate an Article (need to know Wikipedia:Core content policies and Wikipedia:Reliable sources)

  1. Expand a Short Article (getting more difficult ...need MoS and sourcing knowledge)
  2. Merging and Splitting (WP:Merging and WP:Splitting)
  3. All discussions - Contribute to Noticeboards
  4. Help Someone

  1. New Pages Patrol/New Images Patrol
  2. Create an Article
  3. Good Articles/FA
  4. Conflict Resolution
To confirm, you're categorizing tasks into four levels here? Looks good to me. I think your ratings pretty much line up with the current "suitable for" tags. I'd move translation up a bit (assuming the article in the source language is decent, all you really need is language proficiency) and swap noticeboards with helping (discussions that get to the point of being brought to a noticeboard are almost always tricky, whereas most questions asked on help pages are simple), but those are small quibbles. I think we may be getting a bit ahead of ourselves, though — let's make sure we've defined the tasks we want before sorting them. Also, as I said above, I do like having the broad sections (currently writing, maintenance, and community) — I'm fine ordering by difficulty within those, but I wouldn't want them to fully go away. Sdkb (talk) 08:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
this looks really terrific, Moxy. thanks for your efforts, and for setting up this highly-useful system. looks good, thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 16:35, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
It is somewhat useful.....but one of the reasons it has been neglected as of late is because of feedback. Many don't find linking a category listing thousands of pages to fix starting with number articles all that encouraging and leading's why the project made Wikipedia:Community portal/Opentask for newbies. So having different levels here is best as most newbies will move on but intermediate and advanced editors can be guided to the right place. New editors real are not a fan on non standard pages....because they grew up on the article format....older editors appreciate stylistic pages. Same reason we can't get newbies to read multiple page tutorials....simply not the norm they are accustomed to...thus making things even more confusing so they simply give up.--Moxy 🍁 22:26, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Remove rewards board?Edit

It seems pretty inactive, with few postings and (presumably) even fewer editors taking up those postings. And most of what's listed there isn't beginner-friendly anyways. And (more minorly) the idea of editing for the purpose of getting a reward doesn't seem to fit with our culture very well. Sdkb (talk) 22:47, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Add example articles?Edit

Copying over from Wikipedia talk:New user landing page:

the task center links to a page like Category:All stub articles over the Wikipedia:Community portal/Opentask that lists some examples and also links Category:All stub articles. Can we work on the WP:Task Center to list examples over (−1)F for a new editors 3rd click.
— User:Moxy

I'm inclined to agree that this would be nice. The "random" button I introduced is a big step up from the raw categories used prior, but there's still something about actually seeing the name of the article I'd be editing that helps draw me to do so. There are two main things we need to figure out to implement this. The first is formatting. I'd support modifying {{Job description}} to be more like four equally-spaced columns, with the last one containing examples from the most pertinent category of the section. How does that sound? Secondly, we need to figure out how to get the bots that update the articles working here. Pinging PFHLai, who seems to be the one updating them at Wikipedia:Community portal/Opentask: what would be needed for that? Sdkb (talk) 15:13, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Also, to everyone, the proposal at that page to link to the Task Center here could use a little more discussion to make consensus clear enough for my edit request to be resolved. Feel free to share thoughts. Sdkb (talk) 08:24, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Layout/design improvementsEdit

@Moxy and BrandonXLF: Okay, so BrandonXLF and I made a flurry of design modifications to this page earlier, resulting in this version, which Moxy then brought back to the status quo. Separating them out, the changes were:

  • Making the shortcut box small. (I think we all agree on this one, at least?)
  • Putting the "this week" boxes on the same line as the TOC/shortcut box to eliminate the excess white space there
  • Alternately, finding some way to move the "this week" boxes to the bottom of the page
  • Changing the coloring/formatting of the main header. I had it at the version linked above, but after some playing around with a box that I shamelessly appropriated from Yug's userpage, I've created the version below, which I think is better.
  • Moving {{Maintenance departments}} to the bottom of the page, rather than above even the main header

Which of these changes do you or others support or oppose? {{u|Sdkb}}talk 09:07, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Moxy, I'm fine moving the weekly stuff to the bottom; an inexperienced editor just directed to Meatloaf because it's the article of the week isn't going to have much idea what to do, so it's not that useful. Are we agreed about making the shortcut box small and moving {{Maintenance departments}} to the bottom as well? If so, let's implement. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 23:11, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Proposed new headerEdit


Welcome to the
Wikipedia Task Center!

What do Wikipedians do?

If you are looking for a way to help, find a task that suits you, read the appropriate background pages, and be bold.

And if you are here for the fuzzy feeling, stand back and marvel at the range of work that is done daily by other Wikipedians.

{{u|Sdkb}}talk 09:07, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

looks great view....move this weeks stuff to the bottom. Don't WP:Sandwich stuff. --Moxy 🍁 13:32, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
BrandonXLF, sorry to keep calling on your help, but I have no clue how to do this, so... any chance you might know how to modify the code for the box so that it'll display alright on mobile? {{u|Sdkb}}talk 23:13, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
The image not showing is a talk page only issue, see [1]. BrandonXLF (talk) 23:23, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
@BrandonXLF and Moxy: Oh cool! For me, it's displaying okayish on mobile — you see the text on the left fine, but then the globe is offscreen to the right, and the page width is expanded so you have to scroll sideways to see it. We have a few display options, any of which would be better: (1) not show the globe on mobile, (2) show the globe on top on mobile, and (3) lower the opacity for mobile and then use the globe as a background in the box with the text on top of it. I think the third option could be kinda cool. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 23:57, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
ok tried something pls take a we really need {{Maintenance departments}} its just in the way and most links are at the bottom already. Have not been around much taking care of our COVID project...lets get this moving so we can all get more important stuff done.--Moxy 🍁
Wonderful proposal, I've just noticed the new header. Beautiful. Thanks! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:32, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

New Job ProposalEdit


Answer an Edit Request

Suitable for intermediate editors
Help someone add their content on the behalf of them.
Sometimes, users cannot add content because the page is protected. Users with a conflict of interest or are paid to edit to an article are almost always not allowed to add content. Instead, they have to make an edit request, and you will review their request to see if they should be included.
More Information
Do It!

Our 2 most backlogged edit requests. Pending changes, EPER, TPER, FPER, and IPER are not always backlogged, probably because they are made by more experienced users and those type of protections are not used as often, apart of pending changes which is reviewed more often. However, SPER and COI edit request are always backlogged. They will get a monthly low, and then sky rocket again, just like when you reopen the country too early during a COVID-19 epidemic, or pending changes getting a monthly high. Of course, this won't eliminate the backlog, but maybe just make people more aware of it. Oh are they aware of it already? Oh well it's something for people ot do at least. {{replyto}} Can I Log In's (talk) page 17:44, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

@Can I Log In: Looks good to me; feel free to add it! One question: "Intermediate" seems about right, but I haven't done much edit request handling. For COI requests in particular, does it take a lot of skill to parse which requests are safe to approve and which are trying to sneak non-neutral or otherwise objectionable material into the article? {{u|Sdkb}}talk 22:46, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Umm, Spintendo has done the most COI edit request out of any wikipedians according to his graph and month counts. Oh well, gone on break. So here my experience.
COI edit request are the most complicated, which is why almost nobody does them. There is a reason we make them propose edits. Are they verifiable is the most important thing to go after, which can take some time. From paid editors who may not have a non-finacial COI, they may have provided sources to verification, but then remember, they have a financial COI. In that case, I would find the sources my self, because do not rely on the sources provided by the paid editor. I've also seen WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE, so in that case, paraphrase it yourself neutrally, like the one here containing close paraphrasing and a promo tone. It's verifiable, but may be promo. here was a COI edit request I accepted that was apparently according to an SPI was problematic.
Normally in SPERs, the main issue is verifiability. In COI edit request, it's verifiability and NPOV and promo. Maybe you could dig up on Spintendo's COI edit request evolution since 30 months compared to 1.5 ‒ 2 months.
Overall, check for copyvio, verify, NPOV, promo, and done. Any issues, be bold and fix it yourself if you can. So intermediate seems right, but yeah could lean to advanced. Protected edit request can help. {{replyto}} Can I Log In's (talk) page 00:17, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
@Can I Log In: Hmm, so it seems that SPERs are intermediate but COIERs are possibly advanced. Not sure how we should handle that, since we'd ideally want to make that distinction clear to anyone who wants to try doing them. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 06:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Link to empty category?Edit

In the "fact-checking" box, there is a link that appears to go to a random page in Category:All articles with bare URLs for citations. However, that is an empty category. Perhaps it used to have articles that were since removed? This seems like it needs updating , whether that is removing the link or adding articles to that category. Agdearshah (talk) 21:14, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Agdearshah, it's a category that can be frequently empty. Any article tagged with {{Cleanup bare URLs}} will be added to the category. The reason it exists is because of link rot. If we can't use the URL for verification, then we can always use other parts of the citation. So any article in that category we will expand the citation. {{replyto}} Can I Log In's (talk) page 23:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
@Agdearshah and Can I Log In: Yep, I asked about this at the random tool two months ago, but no response yet. It should at least throw up an error message so you know why you're not being given a page. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 00:44, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request serviceEdit

The WP:Feedback request service currently isn't working, but it should be added here when it's up and running again.

By the way, I think it might be a good idea to restructure the page with the easy/anyone tasks at the top, moving to intermediate then advanced at the bottom. Alsee (talk) 05:16, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Alsee: Good thought. Under the "contribute to noticeboards" section, I replaced a link to a massive category of noticeboards with a link to WP:Dashboard, which includes RfCs (although probably not prominently enough; that should be fixed there).
Regarding ordering, it's semi done that way currently. I think the best solution would be to enable users to toggle an option that filters by difficulty level, so they can see all the tasks they might want to so. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 20:24, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Return to the project page "Task Center".